One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[erobitha]

Hi Scott.

That's a different question, but I've seen no direct evidence of it.

According to Shirley Harrison (p. 292 The American Connection) "Paul [Dodd] had again done the initial preparation himself."

What could this 'initial preparation' mean other than moving the furniture, taking up the carpeting, and removing the heavy floorboards so the work would be ready for the electricians when they arrived?

There's a post on here somewhere that quotes or paraphrases one of the electricians (a helper of the main guy) remembering that the floorboards were already lifted when he showed up.

Doesn't it make sense? Why pay expensive electricians to do 'grunt work' that you could do yourself? When my father had some wiring done when I was a kid, he did absolutely everything he could do himself, so the electrical contractor could be in and out of the house as quickly as possible, thereby saving him quite a nice bundle of cash. The contractor was charging by the hour.

It keeps being stated that the floorboards were lifted on 9 March, and this could be true, but this appears to be based largely on a reference to "floorboard protectors" on a bill, and it doesn't sound to me that floorboard protectors are for lifting floorboards.

Meanwhile, doesn't it bother you that Eddie is remembering a book being thrown out of a window into a skip, when Dodd tell us there was no skip? If he's wrong about such an important detail, why accept the story at all?

Then why have Eddie meet Robert Smith at all? As far as I’m aware, Robert was not asking to meet any electricians so why did Mike bring him? Why even bother concoct such a story (as we all believe he did) about a skip. Your reasoning for this is what exactly?

Your logic with regards to Eddie baffles me.

[Iconoclast]

[Post deleted]

[caz]

Hi Caroline,

This seems to imply that Lyons found something important in Dodd's house in July 1992, not the previous March. And if he did, who pulled the "book" out of the skip? Could the little maroon diary have been a purchased later to say that was what was recovered from the skip?

No it doesn't necessarily imply that, Scotty. How much of a coincidence would it have been if Eddie had found a diary there in the July, which is how Brian Rawes reported the conversation to the police in October 1993? Brian assumed Eddie had just found it, but then he didn't know that Eddie had ever worked in the house before.

The skip appears to have been Eddie's invention, presumably so he could claim the book he found looked like a bit of old tat and he definitely didn't steal anything.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I suggest you take it up with Keith Skinner.

He described it as an "1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book."

Considering its tiny size, it's obviously more suitable for writing memos than diary entries, so yes, I call it a memo book.

But Palmer doesn't think Martin Earl would have bothered to give Mike any details about its 'tiny size', or its printed dates on every page, despite Martin's stated business practice of giving his customers a full description of any item located, along with the asking price, before going ahead and ordering it on their behalf, to save wasting anyone's time, and the expense involved in postage to and fro?

Or is this a bit like the auction ticket, which Palmer now admits Mike probably didn't retain? Is Palmer now going to claim that Martin Earl probably did give Mike a full description, but the silly man either wasn't paying attention or still imagined he could use it to hoax Maybrick's thoughts between 1888 and 1889?

[caz]

There was no skip at the job site. Source: the house's owner, Paul Dodd, as told to Chris Jones. Installing a few heaters doesn't require a skip for demolition. The job was too small.

So, if Eddie had a vague memory of something being tossed in a skip, it was from some other job site and he's confusing things. Portus & Rhodes did residential wiring, obviously, and these blokes were probably at dozens of different job sites in a year's time.

I'm not sure the major contract at Skem was residential, was it? That was why Eddie and Jim Bowling were taken on by Colin Rhodes in late November 1991. Colin then laid off Eddie and Brian Rawes within a couple of days of each other in late July 1992, and Jim left of his own accord in January 1993.

Anyway, what reason could Eddie have had to tell a stranger that story at all in June 1993, even if it had some truth in it, but he wasn't sure if it was at Dodd's house or 'some other job site'? He couldn't have been confused about whether or not he had found and removed any book from anywhere he'd ever worked, and that's surely the point.

Palmer can carry on speculating, but where is his explanation for Eddie coming out with this strange skip story in the first place?

[caz]

Hi Scott.

That's a different question, but I've seen no direct evidence of it.

According to Shirley Harrison (p. 292 The American Connection) "Paul [Dodd] had again done the initial preparation himself."

What could this 'initial preparation' mean other than moving the furniture, taking up the carpeting, and removing the heavy floorboards so the work would be ready for the electricians when they arrived?

There's a post on here somewhere that quotes or paraphrases one of the electricians (a helper of the main guy) remembering that the floorboards were already lifted when he showed up.

Doesn't it make sense? Why pay expensive electricians to do 'grunt work' that you could do yourself? When my father had some wiring done when I was a kid, he did absolutely everything he could do himself, so the electrical contractor could be in and out of the house as quickly as possible, thereby saving him quite a nice bundle of cash. The contractor was charging by the hour.

It keeps being stated that the floorboards were lifted on 9 March, and this could be true, but this appears to be based largely on a reference to "floorboard protectors" on a bill, and it doesn't sound to me that floorboard protectors are for lifting floorboards.

Meanwhile, doesn't it bother you that Eddie is remembering a book being thrown out of a window into a skip, when Dodd tell us there was no skip? If he's wrong about such an important detail, why accept the story at all?

Colin Rhodes confirmed to Keith Skinner that floorboards were lifted for the job on 9th and 10th March 1992, when they were looking at the worksheets together. When Eddie described in 2018 being sent to help out on that same job, he wasn't asked to remember the date and he didn't give one, but I'm pretty sure he did say on the record that it involved floorboards coming up. That can be checked by anyone with access to the conversation, but I am short of time right now.

One point to remember here, though, is the fact that this two-day job [Arthur Rigby and Jimmy C, assisted by Eddie and Jimmy B] was only able to be slotted in that week because the Skem contract was on hold. I don't know how much notice Colin was able to give Paul Dodd before the boys began to arrive first thing on that Monday morning, but he'd have needed to know exactly what preparations were required if he was going to do them himself before going off to work. It's possible he knew by the previous Friday that they were coming, and had the weekend to prepare, but that would be speculating. We know Eddie and Jim were still working at Skem right up to and including all day Saturday, 7th March.

I don't personally accept Eddie's skip story, but I would still love to know what he thought he was gaining from telling it, if it wasn't to try and put Robert off the scent of an actual find, where the book in question was not thrown away without permission, but taken away without permission. It obviously didn't work because it only succeeded in supporting Robert's suspicions that Mike and Eddie had been in it up to their armpits.

[caz]

The ticket can't possibly resurface after all these years, and the records are pulped, so you are entirely safe in making this impossible-to-prove declaration of your reasonableness.

By the same token, Palmer is entirely safe [or at least he supposes he is] in making his own impossible-to-prove assertions that Mike did indeed attend an auction, between the arrival of the tiny 1891 diary and his meeting in London on 13th April 1992, where he did indeed purchase the scrapbook which he showed Doreen on that day.

No matter that Mike either lied in his affidavit about taking the ticket away with him, when he was supposed to hand it back to O&L, or lied about having it with him in 1999 - or, which is infinitely more likely based on the man's own track record, he lied on both occasions.

It is my belief that the first lie was told to explain why O&L would not have a record of the sale if and when Alan Gray or anyone else checked:

"Of course they didn't, Alan, because I took the ticket home with me!"

"Where is it then, Mike? Where is this ticket now?"

"Bear with me, Alan. Bear with me. Just bear with me. It's so simple it's not true."

"So it's not true then, Mike?"

"Now you're twisting my words, Alan, and that's the God's honest truth and what have you..."

I remain sceptical in the extreme that without the assistance of that auction ticket, Mike would have been at a complete loss to prove it some other way, if his own and Anne's handiwork had gone into the diary.

But that appears to be what Palmer is now suggesting. He has finally cottoned on to why Anne would not have told her 'in the family' story if she'd known he had a ticket from O&L proving when and where the scrapbook really came from, so out it now goes - missing in action and from auction, given away, destroyed or conveniently too vague to prove anything, and presumably Anne knew [or did she predict?] this would be the case, and that without it he'd be impotent.

[caz]

This is a meaningless, snarky statement, merely meant to stir up trouble. And entirely typical.

Typical of whom? I merely echoed a thought Keith Skinner had expressed to me in an email. He told me he meant every word, but I don't suppose his intention was to 'stir up trouble' because he didn't know I would post it and didn't ask me to do so. I did it because it seemed relevant to the argument concerning the Barrett/Gray tapes, and Palmer's hope that they might contain something he missed when he listened to them, referring to the diary being created in early April 1992.

Palmer might wish to address the rest of his post to Keith, along with any further observations on the same subject:

People have different ideas about what is, and what is not relevant. And what might be valuable and what might not be valuable.

Unless Keith was to give a line-by-line transcription of the tapes and explain his interpretation of each and every statement, and why he has decided for himself that it is irrelevant, how in the hell could I or anyone else know if he is dismissing something that we, by contrast, might find important or relevant, even though he does not?

Have you ever heard the concept of 'discovery' in a criminal case? Both sides have a right to see all the evidence. It's a well-established rule of procedure.

It has jack-all to do with honesty. It has to do with interpretation and context and a sense of fair-play.

Keith apparently found Anne's 'in the family' story credible, while it is obvious enough that Martin Fido, among many others, did not. Does that mean Martin is accusing Keith of holding back information, and thus he has no reason or right to hear a tape of Anne's account for himself?

It's ridiculous.

We have only received a tiny snippet from the tape in recent days and yet on the very trial run 'Iconoclast' gives an account that is weirdly different from the quote in Inside Story describing what is apparently the same event.

--as good an indication as any that a second set of ears is entirely appropriate.

Anyway, my understanding is that Keith was going to release the tapes to Rippercast and now he has decided that he is not going to do that.

In which case it's a done deal. No reason even to discuss it anymore.

Nothing to see here, folks.

I'm just a bit curious about the obvious glee that the diary folks are now expressing that I no longer have a tape of my own, unless it should it suddenly resurface.

Anyway, like I say, I'm off. I've grown tired of the juvenile, snarky comments. And the ridiculous repetition.

[caz]

Regarding the recorded conversations in 1994 and 1995 when Ryan's book came up, Keith Skinner has told me that on neither occasion was the name or book forced. Having thought about the interview on 14th April 1994, Keith played the tape again and read the transcript, and it is now very clear to him that if the research notes reflect Ryan, it is because the source was Ryan, but that Mike's source was Shirley Harrison, giving him information from Ryan's book and asking Mike questions - as evidenced in the research notes.

Mike's confusion all seemed very real to Keith at the time and still sounds convincing to him on the tape 29 years later. Palmer says context is important and Keith agrees with him. The reason he went to Liverpool was to hear from Mike his research journey from the point he said Devereux gave him the diary in 1991 up to the point Mike went to London with it on 13th April 1992. Keith had only just learned about the existence of these research notes but Mike had no reason to be suspicious of him. Keith just wanted to understand his story and clear up the mess which Feldman was creating by his belief that people's identities had been changed by the establishment, which was the reason none of his birth, marriage or death certificates he had spent hundreds of pounds obtaining, made any sense. Feldman believed they had been falsified and planted in the records. Keith found that concept difficult to believe and thought the only way to disprove it was to talk with the people who Feldman was convinced were living under a false identity.

[caz]

And who does Palmer think would be best able to 'work out' anything significant from the tapes he once had and then lost? They were Gray's tapes to begin with, so presumably Melvin Harris would have been sent copies very early on, which he would have scoured thoroughly for any vital clues that would confirm his own predictions.

I do hope Palmer does not imagine that Keith would knowingly be holding back something on those tapes pointing to Mike creating the diary after 9th March 1992. I assume Melvin would have been all over it like a rash years ago had that been the case.

What a great pity that Palmer didn't think to make, or at least retain any notes of his own when he listened to the comedy duo in action. It would have saved him having to blame someone else.

Is Palmer suggesting that, since Mike's affidavit was 'obviously drafted by Gray', before being typed up by Gray, Mike may not even have dictated it to him, or checked it through after it was typed? That would explain some of the errors in it, where they were not deliberately made by Mike himself. But this is the best evidence Palmer has for the Barretts creating the diary together? Really? Can it get any weaker?

Returning briefly to Mike's hopeless affidavit - or should that be Alan Gray's? - I seem to recall Trevor Marriott telling us that swearing an affidavit is a serious undertaking for a document which may be produced in court, and it is the responsibility of whoever puts their name to it to make sure it is as factually accurate and secure as possible. Would Alan Gray not have been aware of this if, as I understand it, he was himself a former police officer? Could he not at the very least have established exactly when Tony Devereux died?

[caz]

'But check, re-check, question 'certainties,' don't get bullied into accepting the party line without independent confirmation.'
RJ Palmer, October 1st 2021

The Ryan argument continued...

This book would have been a natural enough Maybrick source to consult in 1992 by anyone researching the diary. I don't think this could be disputed. Everyone from Shirley onwards, who has had any lasting interest in the diary saga, must have become aware of Ryan's book and used it as a rich source of Maybrick information, whether to condemn the diary or simply look into it.

If Mike or Anne had used Ryan to compose the diary text, and Mike had later transferred some of this information to a bogus set of research notes, to represent the many months he told Shirley he had spent trying to make sense of what Tony Devereux had given him, why would there have been a problem with referring to the book by name? When Shirley asked if Mike had heard of Ryan, all he had to say was: "You bet I have. Tony died leaving me with no clues, so I had to do all my own research. When I found Ryan's book it became my Maybrick bible. I read it through and through and learned a hell of a lot, Shirley, and I do mean a hell of a lot." His research notes could then have named Ryan where appropriate and Shirley would not have suspected for a moment – as she never has - that he may actually have faked the diary just because he had consulted this Maybrick source, as she and everyone else has done ever since. The fact that Shirley mentioned the book to Mike first indicates that he could have found it for himself easily enough, independently of Shirley, without raising any but the most suspicious eyebrows.

This is what comes of concluding that the Barretts did fake it, and then having to craft all one's arguments to match that conclusion, and that conclusion alone. This one's a mismatch because if Mike had had half his hoaxer's wits about him, he could have named Ryan as a Maybrick source and told Shirley he had indeed read it, between August 1991 and March 1992. Plenty of time to have tracked it down and got stuck in. He would also have been better off omitting Tales of Liverpool from the notes, and not mentioning it in connection with identifying Maybrick from the diary's internal clues. Whether one believes the diary was physically created, or suspects it was stolen, in March 1992, the notes were compiled to reflect Mike's claim to have been given the diary by Tony Devereux sometime in the late spring or early summer of 1991. If this had been true, Mike could hardly have looked in ToL for any clues after leaving his only copy in Tony's house for Janet Devereux to borrow back in the January of 1991. Naming it in his research notes would arguably have been a bigger red flag than naming or omitting Ryan's book - if this copy of ToL had played any part at all in the diary's creative process.

If, however, one is willing to consider even the faintest possibility that Mike was lying about when his research began, but only because he saw the diary for the first time on 9th March 1992, when Tony had been dead for some months, a neater and simpler explanation presents itself for when and how the notes were compiled. In that case, Mike's research could not have begun in reality any earlier than 9th March 1992, so he would have been playing catch-up, and Shirley did get the impression that he was out of his depth.

Since ToL would have been readily available from all good Liverpool book shops, including WH Smith, or to borrow from the library – and the 'Diary Crowd' have probably all got their own copy – it wouldn't have been an improbable coincidence on the scale of the double event of 9th March, for Mike to have found himself another copy, more than a year after taking one from Goldie Street to Fountains Road and promptly forgetting all about it, as indeed he must have done, since Janet Devereux never did return it to "Bongo". Anne Graham has said that she grew up with the stories of Richard Whittington-Egan [quite an admission if she had composed the diary text herself], so ToL would certainly not have been out of place on the Barretts' bookshelves when Tony had his accident and became housebound. Mike didn't have a copy to consult when he first acquired the scrapbook in March 1992, but it would have been easy enough to obtain one and make the breakthrough – and that's assuming Anne didn't make it for him by recognising the name Battlecrease on the second page of the diary and suggesting that he could read all about it in RWE's popular little book. One could imagine her saying: "In fact, Michael, I'm sure we had a copy but I can't see it on the bookshelf. Any idea where it might have gone?" "Search me, girl. I'll pop into town tomorrow and see if I can pick up another one. Got any spare cash in your purse?"

When Shirley mentioned Ryan's book to Mike, he'd have been able to go to the library armed with the tip and the questions she asked him to look into, and read the book, just as he later claimed when speaking to Keith Skinner in April 1994, and again in January 1995, when speaking to Keith and Shirley. Assuming this was before Mike handed over his research notes, which was when Shirley visited Liverpool for the first time in the summer of 1992, he'd have been in a position to pad them out with her questions and jot down any answers he could find. The notes can be read in that context, to reflect Shirley's input from April 1992, by directing Mike to Ryan's book in the first place and giving him research tasks.

In April 1994, two months before Mike claimed, out of the blue, that he had faked the diary himself, he tells Keith he didn't know that The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick existed: "until after Shirley, until after I met Doreen". He says that when Shirley mentioned this book he: "went to the library and got it and read it then and what have you. I also read the Fifteen Years, which you can't take out. So that was well after the research had actually commenced."
[It needs to be remembered here that Mike was claiming to have begun his own research back in 1991, when Tony died.]

Later, Keith and Mike are going through a copy of the notes he handed over to Shirley in the summer of 1992. Mike describes how he spent "hours and hours in the library, literally I spent hours and hours, you know on the microfilm or what have you." At one point, he says: "Hang on, this isn't my research. Well, when did I transfer? Is this afterwards or before?"
[One might well ask: Afterwards or before what?]

Mike goes on: "Shirley gave me this one, I think. Some of these are afterwards because I've added onto the word processor afterwards. Do you understand what I mean? Shirley's asked me to do things, go through the records, you know when we first began research? Shirley's asked me to do things and I think that I've added them on. I can't remember."

It's clear that Mike is admitting that the notes are not all his own unaided work, but include suggestions and questions from Shirley.

When Mike is interviewed at his home the following year, on 18th January 1995 [just 13 days after the date of the infamous affidavit], he describes his diary research to Keith and Shirley as "a gradual process", which could have been "ten weeks, nine weeks or twelve weeks, nobody's bothered to check the dates, but it was no longer than – put it this way, it was no longer than, put it on the outside limit, it was no longer than thirteen weeks and it was no less than nine weeks."

Nine to thirteen weeks from Tony's death on 8th August 1991 would only take us up to the November at the latest, while nine to thirteen weeks from 13th April 1992, when Shirley became involved, would take us neatly up to the summer, when Mike finally handed her the typed up notes.

Shirley goes on to ask what other books Mike used for checking out what was in the diary, and he says the only books he used: "were after you mentioned – you mentioned, you mentioned, straight from the horse's mouth, you mentioned The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick... You mentioned that and then obviously I went and got The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, which even confirmed even more."

Keith then asks if this was after Tony's death, and Mike replies: "Oh, this was after I spoke to Shirley, this was well after. This was well after. I mean, I didn't know The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick even existed. It was only Shirley that told me about that."

Keith asks if Mike ever confided in Tony that he knew the identity of Jack the Ripper, and Mike replies: "Oh no, Tony was well dead, he'd had his heart attack."

In summary, the content and context of both interviews strongly imply that Shirley mentioned Ryan's book to Mike early on in her own Maybrick research, when giving him odd jobs to do on his own in Liverpool, between April 1992 and when his notes were finally typed up and handed over. It doesn't make much sense for her to have mentioned the book to him as an afterthought, when he had supposedly already spent many weeks in the library researching the Maybricks and taking down notes, on Shirley's own advice.

There is no evidence, aside from the ToL reference, that any of the Maybrick notes were made before Shirley became actively involved in the research. One can only imagine what those notes would have looked like as of 13th April 1992, but I'd eat my mole bonnet if there was even a sniff of Ryan's book that early on.

If Mike had faked the diary, using Ryan as his main source, he'd have been taken aback and more than a bit wary when Shirley just happened to mention this book to him. Swiftly denying all knowledge of it could have been his downfall, if only the circumstantial evidence hadn't worked so well in favour of the notes reflecting a combination of his own and Shirley's input, which make it impossible even for The Good Lord to prove which, if any, were made independently of her influence.

[Scott Nelson]

He would also have been better off omitting Tales of Liverpool from the notes, and not mentioning it in connection with identifying Maybrick from the diary's internal clues. Whether one believes the diary was physically created, or suspects it was stolen, in March 1992, the notes were compiled to reflect Mike's claim to have been given the diary by Tony Devereux sometime in the late spring or early summer of 1991. If this had been true, Mike could hardly have looked in ToL for any clues after leaving his only copy in Tony's house for Janet Devereux to borrow back in the January of 1991. Naming it in his research notes would arguably have been a bigger red flag than naming or omitting Ryan's book - if this copy of ToL had played any part at all in the diary's creative process.
.
.
.
.

Since ToL would have been readily available from all good Liverpool book shops, including WH Smith, or to borrow from the library – and the 'Diary Crowd' have probably all got their own copy – it wouldn't have been an improbable coincidence on the scale of the double event of 9th March, for Mike to have found himself another copy, more than a year after taking one from Goldie Street to Fountains Road and promptly forgetting all about it, as indeed he must have done, since Janet Devereux never did return it to "Bongo". Anne Graham has said that she grew up with the stories of Richard Whittington-Egan [quite an admission if she had composed the diary text herself], so ToL would certainly not have been out of place on the Barretts' bookshelves when Tony had his accident and became housebound. Mike didn't have a copy to consult when he first acquired the scrapbook in March 1992, but it would have been easy enough to obtain one and make the breakthrough – and that's assuming Anne didn't make it for him by recognising the name Battlecrease on the second page of the diary and suggesting that he could read all about it in RWE's popular little book. One could imagine her saying: "In fact, Michael, I'm sure we had a copy but I can't see it on the bookshelf. Any idea where it might have gone?" "Search me, girl. I'll pop into town tomorrow and see if I can pick up another one. Got any spare cash in your purse?"

Maybe we have the ownership of ToL backwards. Maybe it was Tony's book which Mike borrowed and eventually returned. Possible significance: Tony was using it for diary research?

[Scott Nelson]

The other thing I thought might have been backwards is: What if Devereux gave the diary to Anne to give to Mike, not Anne giving the diary to Devereux to give to Mike?

With a character like Mike Barrett, previous interpretations of just about everything he was involved with could be subject to re-evaluation.

[erobitha]

The other thing I thought might have been backwards is: What if Devereux gave the diary to Anne to give to Mike, not Anne giving the diary to Devereux to give to Mike?

With a character like Mike Barrett, previous interpretations of just about everything he was involved with could be subject to re-evaluation.

I agree it is helpful to look at things from various perspectives, it allows us to stress test our own theories.

Tony was in ill health at the time when Mike said he received the diary from Tony. I find it implausible that Tony would traipse fifteen minutes there and back all the way up to Goldie Street, to find Anne on a day off, and when Mike was not around.

I don't think Anne even went to The Saddle. If she did, she would have been rather infrequent. The landlord, Bob Lee, at the time, remembered Mike being in there daily as he had a pint before collecting his daughter from school. He also remembered him going in with his dad Stanley on occasion. I don't believe he remembered ever seeing Anne.

Mike's original version of events, as implausible as the were, were more plausible than Tony D giving the diary to Anne.

[erobitha]

Then why have Eddie meet Robert Smith at all? As far as I’m aware, Robert was not asking to meet any electricians so why did Mike bring him? Why even bother concoct such a story (as we all believe he did) about a skip. Your reasoning for this is what exactly?

Your logic with regards to Eddie baffles me.

Just to correct myself, it would appear that in fact, Robert Smith did travel to Liverpool looking for Mike to bring Eddie Lyons along to the meeting at The Saddle. I must confess that I have only read snippets of Robert Smith's book, and this detail is one i should checked before posting. It is important to acknowledge these honest mistakes.

I would hate to be accused of leading people on a merry dance.

As I now understand it, Paul Feldman had rung Robert Smith to tell him of his hunch on the electricians excitedly. In doing so, Feldman focused on Eddie Lyons when talking about them to Robert. I do not know if Paul had spoken with Eddie at this point, as we know after Paul and Eddie had spoken on the phone Paul went cold, believing Eddie was trying to hoodwink him. My hunch is Paul contacted Robert not long after he received the information from Portus & Rhodes, but before he himself had spoken with Eddie.

Anyway, Eddie's name was the one etched into Robert Smith's mind when arranging a meeting with Mike. Robert asked Mike if he knew of Eddie or any of the electricians and if he could he arrange a meeting with any of them. Mike said he did know them, and hence, we get Eddie Lyons appearing at the pub for the meeting with Robert in June 1993.

It had crossed my mind: did Mike use a decoy of "Eddie Lyons" in order to throw Robert off the scent? Whilst possible, the decoy must have been a dead ringer for the Eddie Lyons that we know today. Robert Smith was able to identify him by photograph.

So, why did Mike bring Eddie to this meeting to discuss a fictional skip?

April 1993 - Feldman receives details of electricians from Portus & Rhodes
April 1993 - Mike gets wind of Feldman's attempts to get the electricians' contact details from Portus & Rhodes. Mike himself attempts to get a copy of those details but is denied by Colin Rhodes
25th April 1993 - Mike writes an affidavit to re-state his Tony D provenance
May 1993? - Mike visits Eddie to confront him about his suspicions of Eddie attempting to sell his story
May 1993? - Robert Smith gets a call from Feldman regarding the electricians
June 1993 - Robert Smith contacts Mike to find out more regarding Eddie and the electricians
26th June 1993 - Mike appears at The Saddle with Eddie Lyons with Eddie's old book in a skip story

All adds up to Mike panicking and getting Eddie to help throw Robert off the scent. That, to me, is the most logical explanation of the above timeline.