One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

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.

Some advice to my dear readers ...

Imagine any of this happening if that old scrapbook had never seen light of day in Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992.

Mike's fears were very apparent. He was starting to realise where his precious 'DAiry' had come from and he was determined that it would not be handed back to Paul Dodd, the rightful owner, so he roped-in Eddie Lyons to throw a curve-ball and hopefully switch off the whole Electricians' Story before it grew arms and legs.

Amongst all of the many conflicting tales, information, and misinformation around James Maybrick's confessional, there is an obvious, simple truth. If you just strip away at the nonsense and the daydreaming with Soothsayer's Razor, you will soon see it too, dear readers. The scrapbook was found on March 9, 1992, in Battlecrease House. It was sold to Mike Barrett who sold the story to Robert Smith who published it. Barrett's life went rapidly downhill and the rest is rather unpleasant history, but the provenance is obvious and you really should not look beyond it unless you have extremely strong evidence for doing so.

Ike

[FISHY1118]

So its still a fake Diary and watch tho yeah ?, gee for a minute i thought i was missin something .

The whole things had more short falls the Joe Biden

[StevenOwl]

So its still a fake Diary and watch tho yeah ?, gee for a minute i thought i was missin something .

The whole things had more short falls the Joe Biden

You got any actual evidence that either the watch or Diary are fake? You know, some original ideas or thoughts of your own that actually bring something of worth to the discussion?? Nope, thought not - jog on...

[FISHY1118]

You got any actual evidence that either the watch or Diary are fake? You know, some original ideas or thoughts of your own that actually bring something of worth to the discussion?? Nope, thought not - jog on...

You got any their ''Real'' buddy ? HMMM Thought not ? stop being a sook .

[StevenOwl]

You got any their ''Real'' buddy ? HMMM Thought not ? stop being a sook .

In English please.

[FISHY1118]

Not worth the effort.

[erobitha]

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.

I realised after I posted this timeline that I actually had specific dates for most of these and a couple of other events I had missed out:

20th April 1993 - Feldman receives details of electricians from Portus & Rhodes
21st 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 when he calls him
21st April 1993 - An article appears in The Liverpool Daily Post about "Diary of Jack the Ripper"
22nd April 1993 - James Maybrick named as suspected diarist in Liverpool Daily Post
22nd April 1993 - James Maybrick named in London Evening Standard article
23rd April 1993 - James Maybrick now being named in many newspapers
24th April 1993 - Liverpool Daily Post starts to question the provenance and mentions Battlecrease House
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 or muscle in
May 1993? - Robert Smith gets a call from Feldman regarding the electricians
circa 19th 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

[Iconoclast]

So its still a fake Diary and watch tho yeah ?, gee for a minute i thought i was missin something .

The whole things had more short falls the Joe Biden

It's rarely obvious to what you are replying, Fishy, but I'll assume it was to my post #10036. If it was, then I am really confused by your comment as there was nothing whatsoever in my post that could be interpreted as anything other than the James Maybrick scrapbook was written by James Maybrick.

[Iconoclast]

Not worth the effort.

A claim generally made by people who have been caught out for posting too quickly and not actually making any sense whatsoever.

This is an English site (it doesn't have to be, it just is). If you write in English, there's a half decent chance you'll be understood, but if it isn't worth the effort it does rather beg the question of why you posted it in the first place.

Smacks of trolling, Fishy. Surely that's beneath you?

[FISHY1118]

A claim generally made by people who have been caught out for posting too quickly and not actually making any sense whatsoever.

This is an English site (it doesn't have to be, it just is). If you write in English, there's a half decent chance you'll be understood, but if it isn't worth the effort it does rather beg the question of why you posted it in the first place.

Smacks of trolling, Fishy. Surely that's beneath you?

No ,a claim made after 10,000 post on a nothing topic about a fake watch and diary.

Just a quick one if may tho Ike

Like most theories jtr related, when a poster make a claim about a periculer suspect and states he was the killer or it must of happened this way above all else without any proof whatsoever. Then il troll them all the way to the bank for their stupidity .

Remember, theories not proof is all we have with any suspect.

Its insulting to push the latter .

[Iconoclast]

No ,a claim made after 10,000 post on a nothing topic about a fake watch and diary.

Just a quick one if may tho Ike

Like most theories jtr related, when a poster make a claim about a periculer suspect and states he was the killer or it must of happened this way above all else without any proof whatsoever. Then il troll them all the way to the bank for their stupidity .

Remember, theories not proof is all we have with any suspect.

Its insulting to push the latter .

Fishy,

This is all predicated on your obsession with the scrapbook and watch being hoaxes and the assumption that I have made is that you have researched the evidence behind both in some depth. But then you post inane comments like the one above and I wonder to myself whether you have actually researched anything at all. You say "without any proof whatsoever" and I think, "This bloke hasn't read a thing about the scrapbook nor the watch otherwise he wouldn't be so categorical".

So, building on a platform of the recent admission by that arch-scrapbook-critic Aethulwulf that - despite his incredibly trenchant views on the Maybrick case (and Jack generally), much like your own - he has not read a single book on Jack the Ripper in his entire life, can you please list for us the sources you have used when concluding that the scrapbook and the watch are fakes? So that's books you've read, videos you've watched, researchers you've contacted, research you yourself have conducted, texts that you yourself have written on the subject, et cetera.

I think it's really important that my dear readers are given a fair opportunity to assess the substance behind the frequently dismissive claims, don't you?

On that note, I have 35 books on the Ripper, the scrapbook, and the watch. I've read at least 25 of them in full and used the rest for reference material. Each of the Maybrick scrapbook and watch books I have read at least three times each. I am in regular contact with many of the original and current researchers into the case. I have even written a short booklet on the case which I have provided free in PDF to anyone who wants to better understand why I take the stance that I do.

Can you just quickly run us through your credentials regarding the scrapbook and the watch, and clarify how many works on the Ripper you have either read or even written, please? I would hate anyone else to suspect that you are a complete dilettante if it turns out that you aren't.

Many thanks,

Ike

[FISHY1118]

What you think you the only one thats read mutiple books on JTR .??? Gimmi a break Ike . Weve all been there and done that mate ,so no point you thinking your somehow any more an expert on the subject than the next man .

Ill let you in on a little secret too . 10000 post , ive read 1000s of them both for and against, so again ill put it to you again '' All you have is a Theory'' and you know it and so does everyone else here ,so when you have the courage to admit it then ill be happy to discuss it .

All you have to do is say these words '' In My Opinion James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, but just like all the suspects ever mentioned i can,t prove it to be tru . there thats not so hard is it , or is it ????????

[Iconoclast]

What you think you the only one thats read mutiple books on JTR .??? Gimmi a break Ike . Weve all been there and done that mate ,so no point you thinking your somehow any more an expert on the subject than the next man .

Ill let you in on a little secret too . 10000 post , ive read 1000s of them both for and against, so again ill put it to you again '' All you have is a Theory'' and you know it and so does everyone else here ,so when you have the courage to admit it then ill be happy to discuss it .

All you have to do is say these words '' In My Opinion James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, but just like all the suspects ever mentioned i can,t prove it to be tru . there thats not so hard is it , or is it ????????

Okay, I'll take that as a "All I've read is one or two threads on the Casebook (and not even all of each thread) but that's made me an expert on Jack the Ripper so why on earth would I actually buy a book and read it?".

I haven't claimed to be an expert (at least, not without my tongue firmly in my cheek) but I can certainly claim to have offered a great deal more than mere opinion. I'm staggered to find that you don't realise that which - honestly - just confirms my view that your position is little better (maybe even worse) than that of a dilettante.

If you genuinely wanted to know more about the case against Maybrick, you'd read one of the many books on the subject - both for and against his candidature - and really you should try to read them all if you can spare the time and the cash. On the subject of cash, I might tentatively suggest that you read my brilliant Society's Pillar. The current version is rather short - around 125 pages IIRC - but the 2025 version (to be published in 2026 or whenever it suits me) will be probably three times that so pretty much covering every aspect of the Maybrick case for those who prefer their information more concise (one book instead of many) and free.

I think the important message for my dear readers is that there are actually only three informed critics of the scrapbook to my knowledge (still alive, that is) - Barrat, Palmer, and Jones - and therefore the outrageous dismissals of dilettantes should be considered with a profound degree of caution. I would hate them to be misled by the loudmouthed antagonisms of the unread who seem to outnumber the read on this site.

Ike

[FISHY1118]

Okay, I'll take that as a "All I've read is one or two threads on the Casebook (and not even all of each thread) but that's made me an expert on Jack the Ripper so why on earth would I actually buy a book and read it?".

I haven't claimed to be an expert (at least, not without my tongue firmly in my cheek) but I can certainly claim to have offered a great deal more than mere opinion. I'm staggered to find that you don't realise that which - honestly - just confirms my view that your position is little better (maybe even worse) than that of a dilettante.

If you genuinely wanted to know more about the case against Maybrick, you'd read one of the many books on the subject - both for and against his candidature - and really you should try to read them all if you can spare the time and the cash. On the subject of cash, I might tentatively suggest that you read my brilliant Society's Pillar. The current version is rather short - around 125 pages IIRC - but the 2025 version (to be published in 2026 or whenever it suits me) will be probably three times that so pretty much covering every aspect of the Maybrick case for those who prefer their information more concise (one book instead of many) and free.

I think the important message for my dear readers is that there are actually only three informed critics of the scrapbook to my knowledge (still alive, that is) - Barrat, Palmer, and Jones - and therefore the outrageous dismissals of dilettantes should be considered with a profound degree of caution. I would hate them to be misled by the loudmouthed antagonisms of the unread who seem to outnumber the read on this site.

Ike

''One or two threads ''!!!!!! i think ill leave you too it , but ill be back when you or anyone claims any suspect ''was'' the jack the ripper that cant prove it to be the case. Which is exactly the case here with James Maybrick .

[caz]

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?

Or maybe the copy Janet borrowed is a little red herring, like the little red diary?

Love,

Caz
X