New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[Herlock Sholmes]

Towards the end of June 1993, when Eddie agreed to meet Robert Smith and Mike Barrett in the Saddle, he volunteered a story that he had found an old book in Dodd's house, but said he had thrown it in a skip - which wasn't there. It would still have been taken from the house without Dodd's knowledge or permission, but Eddie must have thought the childish lie about the skip would satisfy Robert that he hadn't literally 'stolen' anything and it could not have been the diary in any case.

Perhaps you could explain why Eddie said anything at all. Was he covering his back, or was he an even bigger fantasist than Mike?

Love,

Caz
X

According to Robert Smith, in his 2017 book, Eddie Lyons "told me that he had found a book under some floorboards at Battlecrease...". Then a little later he says, "Remember, Lyons told me at The Saddle on 26th June 1993 that he found a book under the floorboards at Battlecrease..." A little bit later in the same paragraph he asks "Had Lyons found "a book" at Battlecrease on 9th March 1992....?"

Three references to what Lyons told him, all of which are "a book", none of which are an "old book".

So Lyons can't be the "witness" who mentioned an old book, if Robert Smith's account is correct, of course.

The only issue I thought I was dealing with was who was the witness who mentioned an "old book". If you want me to comment on what Eddie Lyons said to Robert Smith in June 1993 Caz I'd be happy to have a stab at it but could you first tell me where I can find a copy of Robert Smith's contemporaneous note of his conversation with Eddie? If no such note exists, I'm worried that, writing 14 years later, Robert may have forgotten what Eddie said to him. Memory, as I've said elsewhere, can play tricks on anyone. I'd also like to see exactly what Eddie Lyons said when asked about this meeting. Are you able to direct me to a transcript of any interview in which he was asked this question?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, I am presuming he didn't do it because the evidence for it has not been forthcoming and the evidence we do have points in another direction entirely, which would make it impossible for him to have done it, even if he might have had the intellect, the patience, the persistence, research skills and the literacy to forge a document of this nature.



'If' there were mistakes in it?? Of course there would have been a danger to Anne in Mike announcing to the world that they had forged the diary 'if' that had been the case, but the degree of danger would have depended on whether Mike would ever be capable of making yet another confession statement, but with all the right notes in the right order. Anne could only have crossed her fingers and hoped that day would never come. She might have guessed he didn't have any physical proof, such as the auction ticket, or a receipt for Diamine ink, or it would have saved him - not to mention Alan Gray - all the time and trouble of making such an error filled statement in the first place. But back in July 1994, when she came out with her new story, she couldn't have known that Mike hadn't managed to gather the hard evidence he needed, following the hasty retraction of his first forgery claim - unless no such evidence ever existed.



Not if the diary was the only 'weapon' Mike had to use against Anne. She had used it against him the previous July after all, so it would have been natural enough to throw it back in her face. Since the affidavit has managed to convince so many armchair theorists over the years, Mike might well have imagined it would have the power to scare Anne into making contact with him, if she thought enough people would actually believe what was in it.

But it didn't match with Melvin Harris's nest of forgers, and it wasn't made public until it reached the internet two years later, so Anne was right not to be intimidated by Mike's efforts.

Love,

Caz
X

Oh well if you're only presuming that Mike wasn't one of the forgers, that's fine. I thought you were telling us that Mike definitely couldn't have been involved because he wasn't capable. But if it's only an argument that he didn't do it because of a lack of evidence, that's fine. I'm not aware, incidentally, of the evidence which points elsewhere, and you didn't mention it in your post, but that may just be because I'm relatively new to the subject.

I still don't understand your point about the affidavit. My question was premised on the assumption that Anne assisted Mike in the forgery. So coming back with an argument based on the premise that she did not, doesn't get us anywhere. So to repeat what I said

"if she had assisted her husband in the forgery, wouldn't there have been a danger to her in him announcing this to the world?"

Are you willing to start with this premise? I'm not asking you to accept it, but, in the hypothetical, if she was one of the forgers there would have been a danger to her in Mike's affidavit being released to the world wouldn't there? And surely that's true whether the affidavit contained factual mistakes or not (and I'm not saying it didn't).

As for what was going on in Mike's mind, in another post you told me that Mike wasn't the type of person to hang around. Yet he'd told Alan Gray in October 1994 that his wife had assisted him with the forgery, hadn't he? He'd repeated this in November. Yet he'd said nothing in public. He didn't do anything through the whole of December. Is it your contention that Mike was slowly laying the groundwork through October, November and December ready for the big reveal in January when he could use this totally fake story about Anne's involvement in an affidavit to blackmail her into speaking to him? That idea doesn't sit well with me. Does it with you?

I find the idea that Anne was terrified about Mike falsely claiming that she was involved in forging the diary to be wholly unconvincing myself. And I have to say that, yes, Anne could have known very well in July 1994 that Mike hadn't managed to gather the hard evidence he needed to prove his story if she had destroyed it all herself, or was aware that it had all been destroyed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When Keith Skinner and his partner Coral interviewed some of the Battlecrease witnesses, Coral noticed the diary being referred to, quite unprompted, as "the old book". I remarked on the same thing independently to Keith, when listening to the recordings. As far as I'm aware, the diary had been described variously in the available books as a diary, journal, photo album, scrapbook, guard book or ledger, but not as simply an old book, or the old book. It somehow only seems appropriate in conversation, and it is by far the simplest, clearest and most accurate description to use for the physical book which contains the words we all know and love so well.

Love,

Caz
X

Hold on Caz, which witnesses are you talking about, what did they witness and in what year did they give their accounts to Keith Skinner and Coral? I've no doubt that some of the electricians, having been told about a theory that one of their number had found a diary of Jack the Ripper, might well have spoken informally of the possibility of someone having found an old book. Perhaps someone had put the idea into their heads. But is there an actual witness to an actual event or conversation in 1992 who spoke, unprompted, of the discovery of an old book? Surely that must be very important information. Who is the witness, or witnesses, who mentioned "an old book" and in what context did they mention it? This all seems basic stuff that needs to be out there.

[Lombro2]

It was Alan Davies, the other witness, who told his wife about an "old book" and told Alan Dodgson about a diary.

The advantage of Google Search.

I should have known it wasn't Eddie who said it was an old book. Why would a thief say anything about what he stole that would make it seem valuable? He wouldn't say it was old and valuable and he definitely wouldn't say it was a diary much less the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

It also explains why nobody really knows what he was claiming to have found.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was Alan Davies, the other witness, who told his wife about an "old book" and told Alan Dodgson about a diary.

The advantage of Google Search.

I should have known it wasn't Eddie who said it was an old book. Why would a thief say anything about what he stole that would make it seem valuable? He wouldn't say it was old and valuable and he definitely wouldn't say it was a diary much less the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

It also explains why nobody really knows what he was claiming to have found.

What did Alan Davies witness?

[Lombro2]

Look it up.

But thanks for helping me prove once again the Battlecrease Provenance Theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Look it up.

But thanks for helping me prove once again the Battlecrease Provenance Theory.

I've checked in Robert Smith's book and I think I can see why you're refusing to answer my question. He didn't witness a single thing. Smith tells a story of Alan Davies at some unknown date after November 1992 informing someone that Eddie Lyons had found "a leather-bound diary" under the floorboards of Battlecrease. It seems to me that this probably occurred in 1993 after Feldman and started this rumour among the electricians. Also, if "a Battlecrease witness" had spoken of "a leather-bound diary", I can't understand why Caz didn't mention this? Surely that's way more significant than an "old book" (which expression Smith doesn't attribute to Davies at all). Presumably it's because Alan Davies isn't "a Battlecrease witness". Someone must have told him about the Maybrick diary in 1993, after Feldman started pestering the electricians, and he passed this rumour on. That hardly "proves the Battlecrease Provenance". In fact, it doesn't prove anything.