One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

Was this haste because he was attempting to set up a publication of a hoax he hadn't actually written down yet (nor even typed-out yet according to his comical affidavit) or was it the haste of a man desperate to ensure he retained possession of the priceless artefact which had recently come his way?

Well Ike, considering your second option makes no sense whatsoever (I refer you back to yesterday's post), then I'm going to stick with option one--Barrett was trying to sell Doreen Montgomery on a diary that wasn't yet fully written. And Ike, Old Man, let's not stack the deck. Barrett refers to pre-existing 'rough notes' that he and Anne were working from. He elsewhere refers to Devereux helping him come up with the concept. Thus, Anne and Mike weren't working from an entirely blank slate in those heady days between the phone call and Mike's arrival in London.

And why do you find this idea 'comical'? Some years later, Barrett pulled a Through the Lookingglass variation of this same idea with his 'Loot Magazine' scam. He claimed that he had a publishing contract for a book (he didn't) and on the strength of this lie tried to rope-in illustrators. He then stole their artwork. The man was a scammer and this is exactly the sort of scam he would pull. Since we are dealing with the court of history rather than the court of law, I present this as "same fact evidence."

Perhaps it would help your readers if you could explain--perhaps in straightforward English--how this 'doppelganger' red diary was supposed to work and satisfy suspicious minds. A year or so later, rumors of the alleged Battlecrease heist did circulate. Why didn't Barrett whip out his red doppelganger and put an end to them? Wasn't that his purpose in buying it? Let me answer my own question: because what you are suggesting makes no sense.

We are told Barrett met with Robert Smith and Eddie Lyons down the boozer to discuss it. Do you envision Barrett having carried this red diary in his pocket to this meeting in case Lyons had another Raskolnikov moment? Then Barrett would whip out this red diary and convince Robert Smith, then and there, that this is what was Eddie found under the floorboards instead of the scrapbook purportedly written by James Maybrick, complete with a reference to Battlecrease, the job site where Eddie allegedly worked in March 1992? Face it, Ike, your theory is a big fat zero when it comes to credibility. I don't mean to be unduly harsh, but let's admit this. I ask again: do you think Smith, Dodd, and Scotland Yard were so pathetically stupid that this ruse would have worked? Shouldn't a theory at least be slightly plausible?

I also don't know why you are claiming these events were done in 'haste'. Martin Earl's advertisement for a blank diary wasn't published until 19 March--ten days after Mr. Williams's phone call. Commentators on the old message boards (including I believe, Keith Skinner) commented on the delay between Barrett's initial phone call to Doreen and his eventual arrival in London with the hoax. We have limited information, but Barrett seems to have been using delay tactics, including what might have been an entirely bogus claim that he needed to go to York. What was there, a Richard III festival that week? Or was it more along the lines of "Doreen, I'd love to meet with you this week as promised, but the ol' kidney is acting up again."

I did get a kick out of a comment made by your old friend, Lord Orsam. He noted that between you and Caz, one of you have argued that 11 days was too long to have written down the diary--the other that 11 days was too short. Let's play Goldilocks (or should that be Goldie Street Locks?) I'm thinking 11 days was just right.

[rjpalmer]

When you say that we have zero evidence that Lyons was at Battlecrease on the morning of March 9, 1992, what exactly do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that Lyons was such an inveterate liar that he would place himself at the scene of the 'crime' even though he wasn't actually there? Like a sort of borderline fake confession?

This is the problem I have, Ike. Comments like this aren't made in good faith. You're just joshing around. I already explained my reasoning, as you well know.

What I am saying--or rather what Chris Jones was saying--is that there was no crime and thus Eddie Lyons had no fear of putting himself at the scene. Why would he have done so if he had ripped-off Dodd? Is it normal behavior for a criminal to insist that he was at the crime scene when the coppers had no good evidence that he was?

No, I don't think Eddie is lying about having been there. I think it's obvious enough that after many years Eddie is mistaken.

I asked you whether Eddie was quizzed about this possibility, and if so, what his answer was. You didn't respond. It's difficult to discuss these sorts of things when you're only releasing sound bites that support your theory instead of the whole interview.

[rjpalmer]

I have managed to get hold of the actual witness statement from October 21, 1993, which Rawes signed and it read:

"I got the keys to the van, and Lyons said that he'd found a diary under the floorboards in the house, which he thought was important, and didn't know what to do. I acknowledged his comment he was smiling, I'd got the impression he'd recently found it - I then drove back to the company."

So why, based on this startling evidence, did Scotland Yard not give the diary back to Paul Dodd?

They must have not deemed the rest of the statement credible, no?

Have a good day, Ike.

[Iconoclast]

So why, based on this startling evidence, did Scotland Yard not give the diary back to Paul Dodd?
They must have not deemed the rest of the statement credible, no?
Have a good day, Ike.

Were the boys from Scotland Yard in possession of the scrapbook? If they weren't, how exactly were they to give it back to Paul Dodd?

And on such evidence as Rawes' statement? Relevant enough for us to wonder how he and Lyons could ever have had such a conversation on July 17, 1992, but hardly redolent with justification for handing over something which wasn't theirs to hand over even if they actually had it to hand over in the first place!

No, no, no, no, no, RJ. You're muddling up the tale. What actually happened was that the very next day, Eddie Lyons denied any such encounter had occurred. He stated: "I have never jokingly or otherwise said I'd found anything at Riversdale Road, nor have I ever had any document in my possession."

Hardly collective grounds for the boys in blue to arbitrarily reassign ownership of an artefact without considerable further evidence of which diary it was that Rawes had said that Lyons had said he'd found.

As I say, very very interesting for us as it clearly points to Lyons having had a conversation with Rawes about finding something 'important' in connection with Battlecrease, but too vague for it to provide good reason for the police to arbitrarily act. I don't know what the polis are allowed to get away with on your side of the pond (well, actually, I do), but they certainly don't have the powers of arbitrary judge and jury over here on the sane side.

Thank you, by the way, your wish that I should have a good day was granted. I trust that yours was most pleasant also.

[rjpalmer]

Ike - out of curiosity, do you feel the need to revise your narrative from yesterday? This is not a trick question--I'm just wondering.

You suggested that Eddie, somewhat like Raskolnikov, 'mulled' over his sudden, impulsive crime of the previous March, and eventually this 'crystalized' into 'concern' during his return to Riversdale Road. He then calmly sauntered down the driveway, evidently to bear his soul to Rawes.

Yet Rawes's own account refers to Eddie "grinning." That's a jarring and unexpected element if we are to accept your interpretation, isn't it? Did Raskolnikov grin?

[Iconoclast]

Ike - out of curiosity, do you feel the need to revise your narrative from yesterday? This is not a trick question--I'm just wondering.

You suggested that Eddie, somewhat like Raskolnikov, 'mulled' over his sudden, impulsive crime of the previous March, and eventually this 'crystalized' into 'concern' during his return to Riversdale Road. He then calmly sauntered down the driveway, evidently to bear his soul to Rawes.

Yet Rawes's own account refers to Eddie "grinning." That's a jarring and unexpected element if we are to accept your interpretation, isn't it? Did Raskolnikov grin?

It is not pedantic nor irrelevant for me to point out that what Rawes said was that Lyons was 'smiling'. He didn't say 'grinning', so why did you? 'Running' instead of walking. Barrett 'frantic' at the arrival of Billy Graham instead of quite calm. Now 'grinning' instead of 'smiling'. Why do you feel the need to use terminology which is designed to sound more convincing for your implied argument?

'Grinning' smacks of showing-off. 'Smiling' smacks of potential discomfort. Neither of these is what you want to convey so you move the 'smiling' up a couple of gears and - before you know it - it's little short of arrogant smirking. See how easily I did it there, to illustrate my point?

Muddy the Mud Boy making mud at every turn ...

[rjpalmer]

It is not pedantic nor irrelevant for me to point out that what Rawes said was that Lyons was 'smiling'. He didn't say 'grinning', so why did you? '

Pot/Kettle, Old Man, pot/kettle

Why did you say Lyons "blurted" out that he found something important? Who used the word "blurt," which implies tortured, pent-up emotion? Rawes statement uses the world "said." You changed this to "blurt."

And who said Lyon's "mulled" over anything? Mulling requires the passing of time. Rawes's own impression is that Lyons was referring to something he had found recently--ie., that day. Which means that he didn't mull over anything. Another one of your subjective additions.

And that this item was discovered that day was Shirley Harrison's impression, too, which is why she dismissed this exchange as irrelevant, since the diary was already safe and sound in London.

You constantly do what you accuse others of doing, Old Bean. You're the original Master of Mud. The King of Clart. The Sulton of Sludge. But your projection is duly noted.

Anyway, your interpretation is that Lyons was giving a nervous smile? Well, that's your interpretation, which is all I asked for. So, thanks. I'll stick with my own interpretation of grin.

[rjpalmer]

[*]There's fully eight (E-I-G-H-T) miles between those two events but they conveniently coalesce in The Saddle pub in Fountains Road

Hi Ike. One more thing. I eventually want to return to the question of Eddie's proximity to The Saddle, his patronage of the pub, and how great a coincidence this really was.

In the meantime, and as an experiment in logic and how you tend to wield it, I'd like you to explain the relevance of the distance between Dodd's house and The Saddle.

You seem to find great meaning in it being "fully eight (E-I-G-H-T) miles."

Uh, sorry Ike, but it is my belief that you have brought in an entirely irrelevant and illogical detail that has no bearing on the matter at hand.

The electricians employed by Rhodes were local men--ie., they lived throughout the Merseyside area, perhaps with some of them dipping into Cheshire, etc.

The clients, similarly, would have been local, maybe spread out over a twenty-to-thirty-mile radius (I'm guessing). Maybe more.

As such, what possible meaning can be gleaned from this eight-mile distance? It's entirely random. This is where the client happened to live. Eddie, an employee of P & R, was called to this site (whether it be in March or July). The distance from his house to Dodd's house has no bearing on the alleged coincidence. The coincidence of Barrett and Lyons patronizing the same pub would have been the same if Dodd's house had been eight blocks away or eight miles away or eighty miles away or even 800 miles away. Do you think changing the distance from his house to the Saddle changes anything?

That you find meaning in this is not a good look, Old Man. Think it through. The fact that you find this relevant and present it as an apparent statistical argument starts us off on the wrong foot.

Clear out the cobwebs and let's return to this a few days.

[erobitha]

Wow RJ. I will simplify for readers as often your muddying can murky the facts.

1) Eddie, by his own admission, was at Battlecrease on March 9th 1992. He was pulled onto the job in between jobs. A fact he himself acknowledged
2) Eddie was raised on Howley Street, which was close to The Saddle. He went to St Joseph’s beside The Saddle
3) Eddie lived on Fountains Road in March 1992
4) He went into The Saddle regularly and described Bob Lee and his family in detail
5) Mike drank in The Saddle on his way to collect his daughter from school every day
6) On occasion he would be seen drinking with Tony D and sometimes with Stan, Mike’s father
7) Tony D died in 1991
8) On 9th March 1992 Mike under the alias Williams phones Doreen Montgomery claiming to have the diary of Jack the Ripper

So, Liverpool has lots of workmen. It also has lots of pubs. Yet we have these incredible coincidences above where these events are all connected to same pub.

The likes of RJ believes it is just that - coincidence. I don’t believe in this many coincidences.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike. One more thing. I eventually want to return to the question of Eddie's proximity to The Saddle, his patronage of the pub, and how great a coincidence this really was.
In the meantime, and as an experiment in logic and how you tend to wield it, I'd like you to explain the relevance of the distance between Dodd's house and The Saddle.
You seem to find great meaning in it being "fully eight (E-I-G-H-T) miles."
Uh, sorry Ike, but it is my belief that you have brought in an entirely irrelevant and illogical detail that has no bearing on the matter at hand.
The electricians employed by Rhodes were local men--ie., they lived throughout the Merseyside area, perhaps with some of them dipping into Cheshire, etc.
The clients, similarly, would have been local, maybe spread out over a twenty-to-thirty-mile radius (I'm guessing). Maybe more.
As such, what possible meaning can be gleaned from this eight-mile distance? It's entirely random. This is where the client happened to live. Eddie, an employee of P & R, was called to this site (whether it be in March or July). The distance from his house to Dodd's house has no bearing on the alleged coincidence. The coincidence of Barrett and Lyons patronizing the same pub would have been the same if Dodd's house had been eight blocks away or eight miles away or eighty miles away or even 800 miles away. Do you think changing the distance from his house to the Saddle changes anything?
That you find meaning in this is not a good look, Old Man. Think it through. The fact that you find this relevant and present it as an apparent statistical argument starts us off on the wrong foot.
Clear out the cobwebs and let's return to this a few days.

I can't believe you have sunk so low as to muddy the actual argument in order to pretty much mock it. The coincidence does not lie in the fact that Eddie Lyons lived eight miles away from Battlecrease. He could have lived eight miles away from Battlecrease in any direction (bar the Mersey obviously) and it would not have made it a coincidence (or stopped it from being one). How far Lyons lived from Battlecrease is irrelevant.

The 'coincidence' (I don't believe it was a coincidence, of course) lies in the fact that Lyons lived close enough to Barrett to drink in the same pub and that that required a 'coincidence' of some eight (E-I-G-H-T) miles. Now, does it matter if it was eight feet, eight yards, or eight miles? Well, it obviously does. Realistically, Lyons had to live within a reasonable travel time of Portus & Rhodes (therefore Battlecrease, which was reasonably nearby). This means that the further away from Battlecrease Mike Barrett lived, the less likely it is that Barrett and Lyons would live within striking distance of the same pub. This is simple statistics, which obviously you're **** at.

Whenever you're trying to work out the consequences of a mooted relationship between two variables, you need only take one or both to their logical extremes to determine whether the relationship between them is meaningful or not. So let's do that. Let's imagine that Mike Barrett lived eight thousand miles away (he could have done - he could have made that call from anywhere in the world). Let's say our Liverpool Likely Lad actually lived in the repressive (by our standards but possibly not that of Scousers) regime of North Korea. Now, accepting (for the sake of our argument) that Lyons could have flown to work each day, would the fact that they drank in the same speakeasy on North Korea Boulevard strike anyone as a teensy-teensy bit suspicious? You've got a circle around the world whose diameter is a cool 8,000 miles, and somehow or other Eddie Lyons and Mike Barrett are smoking Cuban cigars in the same public house. Would you say then that the distance from Battlecrease is irrelevant?

The fact that Barrett lived eight (E-I-G-H-T) miles from Battlecrease means that Lyons had to conveniently fly home each day eight miles to exactly the pub that Mike Barrett drank at, all in an eight-mile diameter circle around Maybrick's old home. That's more suspicious than a one mile diameter circle but considerably less suspicious than an 8,000-mile diameter circle. But the principle still holds: the further away from Battlecrease that Barrett lived, the more suspicious the 'coincidence' became.

So don't say to me that Lyons living eight miles from Battlecrease is irrelevant or not a coincidence: once again, you are re-framing the argument in order to appear to win it!

PS Apologies, my maths is as **** as RJ's statistics - for 'diameter', please read 'radius'!

[Iconoclast]

Wow RJ. I will simplify for readers as often your muddying can murky the facts.

1) Eddie, by his own admission, was at Battlecrease on March 9th 1992. He was pulled onto the job in between jobs. A fact he himself acknowledged
2) Eddie was raised on Howley Street, which was close to The Saddle. He went to St Joseph’s beside The Saddle
3) Eddie lived on Fountains Road in March 1992
4) He went into The Saddle regularly and described Bob Lee and his family in detail
5) Mike drank in The Saddle on his way to collect his daughter from school every day
6) On occasion he would be seen drinking with Tony D and sometimes with Stan, Mike’s father
7) Tony D died in 1991
8) On 9th March 1992 Mike under the alias Williams phones Doreen Montgomery claiming to have the diary of Jack the Ripper

So, Liverpool has lots of workmen. It also has lots of pubs. Yet we have these incredible coincidences above where these events are all connected to same pub.

The likes of RJ believes it is just that - coincidence. I don’t believe in this many coincidences.

What he said ...

[rjpalmer]

The 'coincidence' (I don't believe it was a coincidence, of course) lies in the fact that Lyons lived close enough to Barrett to drink in the same pub and that that required a 'coincidence' of some eight (E-I-G-H-T) miles. Now, does it matter if it was eight feet, eight yards, or eight miles? Well, it obviously does

Oh Dear Lord, grant me patience.

Barrett and Lyons drank at the same pub. That is the alleged connective tissue between them. Full stop. That is it. We do not care where the pub is.

Further, Lyons, being an employee for Portus and Rhodes, was called to a job site involving James Maybrick's old house. (Supposedly)

Again, the location of this job site does not concern us whatsoever, provided it involves James Maybrick. We can mentally move the house around our imaginary Liverpool and Birkenhead chessboard, and it wouldn't change anything.

Moving this job site closer or further from Mike Barrett's house changes nothing, either. We already know that Barrett and Lyons drank at the same pub, and that is the connective tissue.

It doesn't change the 'odds' if we moved Maybrick's house 3 miles up the road, or 3 miles closer to Barrett, the 'coincidence' is the same.

In a nutshell:

Barrett drank in the same pub as a man who was (supposedly) at Maybrick's house that day. That is the full equation.

We then merely need to analyze how big of a coincidence this is or isn't.

We cannot proceed further, Ike, until you grasp this simple fact and admit to it.

The analogy I would use is that you've been handed a relatively simple math problem by your teacher, and you have somehow convinced yourself that the color of the ink in which it is written is somehow extremely important and relevant to solving the problem. Or the size and color of the paper.

You seem to struggle, and struggle mightily, when it comes to removing the superfluous elements from an analysis.

If, for the sake of argument, we were to conclude that Lyons DID steal Maybrick's diary that day (we don't actually know this, and thus can't allow it to infringe on our analysis) then the logistics of Lyons delivering the scrapbook to Barrett would now become an issue.

But we don't know that, so it isn't an issue.

This simple concept eludes you every time.

You always start from the position that it DID happen, and because of this, bring in superfluous elements that don't actually concern us.

But guess what? If the event--the transaction between Barrett and Lyons did happen, that would mean that your reasoning is 180 degrees backwards.

The further that Lyons and Barrett's mutual pub was from the job site, the less time and chance Eddie would have to deliver it into Barrett's hands before closing time, or before Barrett was scheduled to go home and cook his wife's dinner.

Think about it.

If Barrett and Lyon's mutual pub was on Riversdale Road itself, just over the fence from Dodd's house, we wouldn't need to worry one iota that Eddie could have passed along the diary to Barrett in time for him to call Doreen.

If, on the other hand, their mutual pub was across the Mersey and up a gravel road some thirty miles from the job site, suddenly we would worry very much indeed, wouldn't we, because the time allotted for Barrett and Lyons to have met up that day and still allow enough time for Mike to call Doreen in London would be severely curtailed.

The odds would become increasingly worse that these events happened, the further the pub was from the job site.

But none of this factors-in because we DON'T KNOW that Eddie found anything!! We don't know that the transaction took place.

You have a very queer way of going about things, Old Man. In a way it's charming, I suppose. We Yanks do love the UK eccentric. He or she is almost an archetypal figure for us.

I recommend taking a long walk in the countryside, clearing your mind, and trying again in 48 hours or so.

[rjpalmer]

Hello again, Ike.

This goes way back, so let me remind you, because maybe it will help you regain your footing.

I once put up a map showing that Mike “Bongo” Barrett formerly lived in Garston, and lived very close indeed to two of the electricians working for Portus & Rhodes—close enough that they very likely shared mutual pubs. This was some years before the Battlecrease job.

Having seen this map, it was as if the clouds momentarily cleared, and a shaft of sunlight swept across your tawny brow. Something like enlightenment glimmered in your eyes and you responded:

It does make the point, though, that Barrett lived within a mile of an electrician who wasn't Eddie Lyons at the wrong time historically, so I'll give you that - maybe such proximity from so few people really is like the shared-birthday experience of just 30+ people when one might have imagined it would be more like ten times that?

Ike

Bravo, Ike! We are nearly there! This is the question you really need to focus on.

The actual number is 23, by the way, making this paradox even more striking. (And why in God’s name did you write “30+” which destroys the whole purpose of the “birthday paradox”? Why, oh why, the plus sign, which perverts the whole point?).

But I digress.

There are 365 days in a year, plus February 29th on leap years.

Yet if you throw a party and there are 23 people present, there is a 50/50 chance that two of them will share the same birthday. And sharing the same birthday is more striking than sharing the same pub in the same city.

The birthday thing is very counter-intuitive. It seems like a bogus fact. Yet, here is the “birthday paradox” calculator to play around with.

Birthday Paradox Calculator (omnicalculator.com)

Meanwhile, as you astutely realized, we face a somewhat similar “paradox” with Barrett drinking in the same pub as one of the electricians who worked for Portus & Rhodes.

We don’t have enough information to calculate this supposedly shocking fact, but as you once mused, could the supposedly shocking nature of this 'coincidence' also be counter-intuitive?

Liverpool, a city of drinkers. The UK, in general, pours a lot of booze down their throats. More than most, though certainly less than the Russians.

How many employees worked at Portus & Rhodes? Rhodes, Bowling, Lyons, Davies, Rawes, Rigby, Coufapoulos. That's seven. Were there any others? How many pubs did they frequent?

If each man occasionally tipped back a glass in 5 different pubs--hell, why not 7 different pubs?--is it really such a shocker that Barrett, a known alcoholic, would have also frequented one of those pubs?

Or since Barrett and the electricians are very roughly from the same social class, is it strange that they would live in the same neighborhood?

In truth, we don't even need to answer this question, Ike. No calculations are necessary.

Because what you are doing is substituting ‘coincidences’ for actual evidence that any of these events happened.

[Iconoclast]

Hello again, Ike.
Because what you are doing is substituting ‘coincidences’ for actual evidence that any of these events happened.

I always worry that if I don't reply to one or more posts when I think they are absolutely unworthy of comment that people will think I am unable to address the points made - so I feel obliged to at least acknowledge that I have read the mountain of irrelevance I've just read.

This is my acknowledgement.

[Iconoclast]

And it's a real shame that you have to take an honest comment from me (that it is possible that two random people might have some history connected to the same pub at some point in the past) and then treat that as if I have categorically agreed with everything you are arguing. I wasn't saying that that was a given truth. I was simply being intellectually honest in noting that you had made a point worthy of note.

This is why you make it so ******* hard to like you, RJ, despite my very best attempts to overlook your very eccentric ways. Pot/kettle and all that.