New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who is Alan Rigby? By coincidence, IIRC, David Barrat made the identical mistake over the name of the poor chap.

I don't know how many times this has been posted, Herlock, but the evidence tells us that the first occasion, since being taken on by Colin Rhodes in late 1991, that Eddie could have been free to pop into his local, the Saddle, on a Monday afternoon, was on - er - bear with me, I have the date on the tip of my tongue - ah yes, 9th March 1992. He was only helping out in Paul Dodd's house that morning on a casual basis with his mate Jim Bowling, so Dodd wasn't being charged by the hour for their labour - just the hours worked by the main man, Arthur, and an apprentice, JC, who did two hours. Mike Barrett would have been in the Saddle as usual, but this was not a usual day for Eddie, who was living very close to the pub and might have fancied a pint after knocking off for the day, in which case it would have been a chance meeting, with no need for the two men to have met before. Mike was everyone's friend and nobody's, and Eddie would have been a new face with a fresh pair of ears to bend. If this stranger had Jack the Ripper's diary with him, Mike's curiosity would have known no bounds. Collecting Caroline from the school just across the road at 3.15, they'd have been home before 3.45 - with or without the diary - with time for Mike to make a couple of phone calls. Tomorrow was another day.

There can be no rigid Battlecrease 'theory' until the pieces of the jigsaw all fit together perfectly to form a complete picture - as few gaps as humanly possible, and no pieces forced in where they don't belong. If and when that happens it won't be a theory any more. Any theory needs to be reasonably flexible and regularly tested, because by definition it is not yet a fully fledged truth and there will be more to learn. If a theory becomes fixed in the mind, where no new evidence in the world can penetrate and force a rethink, it will stagnate and forever be just an article of faith. That's clearly not the case with RJ Palmer's GBH - his Great Barrett Hoax conspiracy theory. His approach is flexible enough to allow for different 'creation' scenarios, playing with the individual roles that he thinks Anne and Mike may have played in the days, months and even years before the diary was seen in London on 13th April 1992. He may be fixed on Anne, and what he believes she could tell us, but then I'm still drawn to Eddie, and what was behind his strange behaviour if he knew nothing at all.

Love,

Caz
X

So what time of day was the visit with the diary to Liverpool University? Or did that not happen?

And what's the evidence to support your claim that Eddie was "only helping out that morning on a casual basis with his mate Jim Bowling"? How do we know what he was doing that morning?

[caz]

Hi Ike,

I'm now up to Line 25 on the 1040 Form, so I'm entitled to a small break. Next year I promise to start my taxes before Barrett Believer Day (April 13th)!

I think, if you read carefully, that Herlock was commenting on "the Battlecrease theory"---ie., as presented on this forum--and not to a specific comment by Mr. Rigby.

I'm not sure he could do otherwise, since most of these statements come to us through a gatekeeper rather than from access to unedited transcripts.

Do you see how this might pose a problem as we discuss things?

RP

Absolutely there's a problem for anyone who has been confidently, openly - and dare I say smugly in many instances - arguing from a position of knowing they don't have all the information that currently exists, that would better inform their thinking.

That body of existing material, which includes the personal recollections, knowledge and experience of a good many individuals still with us, who were directly or indirectly involved with the people and events, from the documented starting point of 9th March 1992, might contain the evidential support wished for, by the few who still invest so much time and nervous energy speculating without it, while demanding answers based on it. That's quite a gamble, to rely on all those with knowledge of material that is currently unpublished to have missed or misinterpreted chunks of it, or worse.

If it goes the wrong way for the speculators and inquisitors, and their empty rhetoric, accompanied by the desperate suggestion that people's words or actions have been misrepresented or even imagined, comes back to bite them, I wouldn't be in their shoes if they have to "rip it up and start again" [thank you, Edwyn Collins].

[caz]

For someone like yourself Ike, who has read everything on the case (probably several times) I wouldn’t have thought a Johnnie-Come-Lately would need to explain this. Rigby's story, as set out by Robert Smith, is that during a tea-break while working at Battlecrease he overheard two of his colleagues mentioning something to do with Battlecrease. At some point after this, so the story goes, he was given a lift into town by one of them, stopping off at Liverpool University while Rigby waited in the vehicle. The idea, so the theory goes, is that Eddie Lyons was trying to get the diary authenticated by the university. If, on your version of events, this didn't occur on 9th March 1992 when could it possibly have happened? Yet on 9th March 1992 Rigby recorded 8 hours on his timesheet, making it difficult to see when he would have had time to get to the university to enable Eddie to get to the Saddle before 3.30.

But the main point is that had the electricians worked in Battlecrease and lifted the floorboards a few days earlier than 9th March, this would be at least as good for your theory if not better because so many things don't then have to have been done in such a condensed time period. The idea that electrical work being done on 9th March makes it more likely that the diary was found than if such work had been done a mere few days earlier is obviously an illusion. Feldman thought the floorboards had been lifted in 1989 and was excited by that! I don't understand why, in your mind, everything had to happen on the same day. Clearly it didn't all need to happen on the same day, which means we may well be talking about a simple coincidence.

Unfortunately, Herlock, it would do nobody any good to pretend that the electrical work might have been done any earlier or later than has been indicated by everyone directly involved, and confirmed by the worksheets. It's an unhelpful mental exercise of the 'what if...?' variety.

The problem with Robert Smith's interpretation of what Feldman wrote in his book about his electrical contacts [if you'll pardon the pun] is that no names were named. Certain inferences could be drawn from the context, and confirmed or supported by the related documentation, but it would still have been a presumption on Feldman's part, based on the information he was being given, that Arthur Rigby was the mystery informant who had spoken to him about being given a lift into town etc etc. It would have been far more logical for the apprentice, who did not have his own transport, to have begged a lift into town and been left sitting in the vehicle, while EL and JB were supposedly asking someone in the uni about whatever was in the parcel wrapped in brown paper, which he had noticed under the front passenger seat. Colin Rhodes only charged Dodd for two hours on the Monday for the apprentice, and no hours on the Tuesday, so assuming the young lad worked from 8 to 10, with EL and JB on hand to help out, all three could have buggered off together in the same vehicle, leaving Arthur there for the rest of the day, finishing off the job on the Tuesday morning - with or without assistance.

Arthur's claim to diary fame came the following summer, when he went to see Paul Dodd, worried about being associated with a theft, and claiming that it was EL and JB who knew about it. I'm not sure he'd have opened up to Feldman, a total stranger, earlier in the year, offering to go on video and state that the diary had been removed from Dodd's house by his fellow employees, as long as he wasn't identified.

Feldman would have been taking it on trust that his mystery caller had been Arthur. I don't think he ever met any of them in person, to put names to faces or voices, so it would have been easy enough to give him the wrong name if the original caller got cold feet.

Oh, and Eddie himself has admitted to working in Dodd's house on the day the floorboards were lifted for the first floor rewire, and what he was able to say about it corresponds with the documentation, but only in relation to 9th and 10th March, and Colin Rhodes had previously confirmed that he would have sent EL and JB to help out if there was no other work lined up for them, but their names and hours worked would not have been on the time sheet used to invoice Dodd. Eddie could have denied being there if he knew there was no official record of it, but it would have been risky, with at least four others knowing he was there, any of whom might have had a separate note of it, or mentioned it to friends or family.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unfortunately, Herlock, it would do nobody any good to pretend that the electrical work might have been done any earlier or later than has been indicated by everyone directly involved, and confirmed by the worksheets. It's an unhelpful mental exercise of the 'what if...?' variety.

The problem with Robert Smith's interpretation of what Feldman wrote in his book about his electrical contacts [if you'll pardon the pun] is that no names were named. Certain inferences could be drawn from the context, and confirmed or supported by the related documentation, but it would still have been a presumption on Feldman's part, based on the information he was being given, that Arthur Rigby was the mystery informant who had spoken to him about being given a lift into town etc etc. It would have been far more logical for the apprentice, who did not have his own transport, to have begged a lift into town and been left sitting in the vehicle, while EL and JB were supposedly asking someone in the uni about whatever was in the parcel wrapped in brown paper, which he had noticed under the front passenger seat. Colin Rhodes only charged Dodd for two hours on the Monday for the apprentice, and no hours on the Tuesday, so assuming the young lad worked from 8 to 10, with EL and JB on hand to help out, all three could have buggered off together in the same vehicle, leaving Arthur there for the rest of the day, finishing off the job on the Tuesday morning - with or without assistance.

Arthur's claim to diary fame came the following summer, when he went to see Paul Dodd, worried about being associated with a theft, and claiming that it was EL and JB who knew about it. I'm not sure he'd have opened up to Feldman, a total stranger, earlier in the year, offering to go on video and state that the diary had been removed from Dodd's house by his fellow employees, as long as he wasn't identified.

Feldman would have been taking it on trust that his mystery caller had been Arthur. I don't think he ever met any of them in person, to put names to faces or voices, so it would have been easy enough to give him the wrong name if the original caller got cold feet.

Oh, and Eddie himself has admitted to working in Dodd's house on the day the floorboards were lifted for the first floor rewire, and what he was able to say about it corresponds with the documentation, but only in relation to 9th and 10th March, and Colin Rhodes had previously confirmed that he would have sent EL and JB to help out if there was no other work lined up for them, but their names and hours worked would not have been on the time sheet used to invoice Dodd. Eddie could have denied being there if he knew there was no official record of it, but it would have been risky, with at least four others knowing he was there, any of whom might have had a separate note of it, or mentioned it to friends or family.

Love,

Caz
X

If it was an apprentice who went to Liverpool University, why did Rigby's brother supposedly give a detailed account of Arthur being given "a lift into town but stopped at the university building at the top of Pembroke Place and took something in a bag" prior to which he had seen one of the electricians "quickly put something that was in a pillow case or shopping bag under the seat of the van as he approached" as set out by James Johnston in 2017 (chapter 6 of The Diary of Jack the Ripper 25 Years of Mystery)?

As I'm sure you must appreciate by now Caz, you telling me what Eddie Lyons said isn't evidence of him saying it. If, as you say, "Eddie himself admitted to working in Dodd's house on the day the floorboards were lifted for the first time" could you please provide the evidence of him admitting this? What were his exact words? Similarly, if Colin Rhodes previously confirmed that he would have sent Eddie Lyons to the house if he had no other work can you provide the evidence of this as well?

[Iconoclast]

Eddie could have denied being there if he knew there was no official record of it, but it would have been risky, with at least four others knowing he was there, any of whom might have had a separate note of it, or mentioned it to friends or family.

And, presumably, Caz, Eddie wouldn't have known whether his presence there on March 9, 1992, had been recorded on that day's timesheet so - to deny it - would have run the risk of being shown up as a liar. To avoid that, he could have just said, "It was a long time ago, I think I was only there on July 17, 1992" but he didn't - he came out and said he'd been there on the earlier date. This suggests that he was fishing to see what the researchers knew about the events of March 9, 1992, so - not knowing if they knew he was on the timesheet or not - he fessed-up (which is strange because - as I say - he could have just played dumb).

I think the timesheet information was public knowledge in 2017 and Eddie was recorded saying what he said in 2018 so it's possible he did know he wasn't on the timesheet for March 9, 1992, I suppose.

[rjpalmer]

he came out and said he'd been there on the earlier date.

Did he?

If Ed really said "I was there twice--I was there on the earlier date--around March 1992" why is everyone so hesitant to quote his actual words?

Wouldn't you want to show off this crown jewel?

It's not a matter of accusing anyone of lying--it's a matter of having been down these roads many times, when the source material states something very different than what the 'gatekeeper' thought it did.

I mean, look at the Martin-Wright episode. According to his own testimony, his employee saw a 'copy' of the diary. The comment stopped Feldman in his tracks!

As well it should have.

Ciao.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And, presumably, Caz, Eddie wouldn't have known whether his presence there on March 9, 1992, had been recorded on that day's timesheet so - to deny it - would have run the risk of being shown up as a liar. To avoid that, he could have just said, "It was a long time ago, I think I was only there on July 17, 1992" but he didn't - he came out and said he'd been there on the earlier date. This suggests that he was fishing to see what the researchers knew about the events of March 9, 1992, so - not knowing if they knew he was on the timesheet or not - he fessed-up (which is strange because - as I say - he could have just played dumb).

I think the timesheet information was public knowledge in 2017 and Eddie was recorded saying what he said in 2018 so it's possible he did know he wasn't on the timesheet for March 9, 1992, I suppose.

I echo what Roger said and ask again, is there any actual evidence to support the statement that "he came out and said he'd been there on the earlier date"?

At the moment, in the absence of any such evidence, it all seems like speculation and theory.