The Battlecrease Scam

I've dealt previously with diary defender scams in Diary Defender Scams Exposed! but here's another one that needs exposing.

RJ Palmer recently made a straightforward comment about how people's memories can be influenced and improved by things they are told, such as likely happened with the Battlecrease electricians. Caroline Morris-Brown couldn't let this uncontroversial statement pass without comment and, on 23 July 2024, posted in the Lechmere "Evidence of Innocence" thread on Casebook:

"The first Colin Rhodes knew about Feldman's suspicions was in April 1993, when he requested and was supplied with contact details for some - but not all - of the electricians who were in Rhodes's employ before Mike Barrett's diary emerged. Feldman immediately began phoning the numbers he was given, but it wasn't just one of his contacts who claimed to know something about it. Unless the first one on the list had had the presence of mind - and had thought it a good idea - following Feldman's call, to alert his mates to what was going on and what the story was, before Feldman had a chance to dial the next number, nobody would have had their own side of the story to add if there was no story, and it would have been down to the one opportunist, with the other electricians all shaking their heads in the beginning, having no clue what Feldman was on about. How were they all so well rehearsed?

Once Feldman had unleashed the beast and the newspapers got wind of it, Rhodes was then obliged to quiz any of his men who had worked in Dodd's house, who - big shock coming - denied everything. Fancy that. However, the beast wouldn't be silenced for long and the stories kept coming, from electricians and other witnesses, who didn't know Feldman from a bar of soap and had had no contact with him or from him, to Paul Dodd himself, who was visited later in 1993 by one worried electrician, for the purpose of denying that he had personally taken anything and naming two others [who had worked with him in the house on 9th March 1992] who allegedly knew about it. Everyone appeared willing to throw the name of Eddie Lyons about, so was it one giant scapegoating conspiracy, involving an assorted and disparate bunch of liars and con artists, who never gained a penny and didn't even know all their fellow conspirators, let alone what some of them would go on to claim in their police statements in October 1993, or tell various researchers between then and now? What did they all have against Eddie, if he was more sinned against than sinning? Or is there another, more rational but less palatable explanation for those who prefer to believe the liar and con artist who claimed the diary was in his own wife's handwriting, when she committed the ultimate sin of divorcing him and not letting him see his only daughter again?"

Let's dissect this argument piece by piece. So:

"The first Colin Rhodes knew about Feldman's suspicions was in April 1993,"

Not according to Paul Feldman who tells us in his 1997 book that, immediately after learning from Paul Dodd in February 1993 that electrical work had been done in Battlecrease, he obtained the telephone number of Portus & Rhodes from Paul Dodd, and:

"I contacted the company's owner, Mr Rhodes. He said that he had never heard any whispers from his staff about anything unusual happening while they were working on the premises. He went as far as to say that one electrician had found a Victorian newspaper and asked if he could keep it. Paul had said he could. Although I had got Paul Dodd's mind wondering, he and Mr Rhodes said that they would be very surprised if anything had been taken. I, however, remained suspicious".

For all we know, Colin Rhodes immediately started contacting his electricians to ask them about the possibility of Jack the Ripper's diary having been found during their work. So, as early as February 1993, it would seem, Feldman had potentially inserted into the minds of the electricians the idea of the diary discovery at Battlecrease.

Certainly, if Feldman's account is correct, the claim by Morris- Brown that the first Rhodes knew about Feldman's suspicions was in April 1993 is false.

Feldman then says in his book:

"I obtained the telephone numbers of the electricians involved with the job".

While it is supposedly true that a list of contact details was faxed by Colin Rhodes to Feldman on 23 April 1993 (although this is another document that is being suppressed, so that we've never seen it), we really have no idea if Feldman managed to obtain telephone numbers of electricians from any other source prior to this date. In his book, Feldman doesn't tell us how he obtained the telephone numbers. It's just an assumption that he first received them when he was faxed the list by Colin Rhodes. Exactly what Feldman was doing and when is a very murky area.

But if Feldman's account is correct and his suspicions about the electricians were aroused in February 1993, it's difficult to see him doing nothing at all to speak to them until the end of April.

Anyway, Feldman tells us that whenever he spoke to an electrician, he asked these three questions:

• Can you remember anything being found?

• Do you know the Saddle in Anfield?

• Do you know the names of Devereux and Barrett?

He says: "In each case the answers were negative".

We can see here that he was particularly fishing for electricians in Liverpool who knew of or drank in the Saddle. That is kind of loading the dice. He was always going to focus on anyone who did so.

The Morris-Brown argument continues:

"Feldman immediately began phoning the numbers he was given, but it wasn't just one of his contacts who claimed to know something about it. Unless the first one on the list had had the presence of mind - and had thought it a good idea - following Feldman's call, to alert his mates to what was going on and what the story was, before Feldman had a chance to dial the next number, nobody would have had their own side of the story to add if there was no story, and it would have been down to the one opportunist, with the other electricians all shaking their heads in the beginning, having no clue what Feldman was on about. How were they all so well rehearsed?"

The fundamental flaw in her thinking should be obvious.

Morris-Brown assumes that Feldman received an immediate answer to each call as he went through the list, so that it was virtually impossible for any one electrician to influence the others, because there was no time. That's just a fairy tale. She doesn't consider that possibility that Feldman first contacted Electrician A and told him all about his theories of the discovery of the diary under the floorboards of Battlecrease but then wasn't immediately able to contact Electricians B, C and D etc. Perhaps he left messages for them, perhaps no one answered the telephone because they were out and Feldman tried again on another day.

Indeed, we know that this did happen, and that Feldman wasn't able to contact all the electricians at almost the same time, because he tells us that:

"One evening as I returned home from my office in Baker Street, together with Martin Howells, my wife informed me that a man with a Liverpool accent had telephoned wanting to speak to me.

He had not left a name or phone number, and would ring back later."

It turned out to be Arthur Rigby.

So here we have confirmation from Feldman that he did not speak to all the electricians in one go. There had clearly been time for word to spread through the electricians (like wildfire) about what he was looking for.

And it's clear from the way Feldman tells this story that Rigby wasn't simply returning Feldman's call but was calling to pass on his suspicions about a couple of electricians who he thought might have found the diary. This means that he already knew what Feldman was looking for. Someone else must have told him!

So there is the potential contamination. Rigby hears that some big shot film maker from London with lots of cash to spend thinks that an electrician - likely one who drank at the Saddle pub - might have found the diary, wants to be helpful, searches his memory and pieces together fragments which now seem to him to be suspicious.

Thus, Rigby told Feldman that he remembered two electricians (one of whom was Eddie Lyons who drank at the Saddle pub) mentioning "something to do with Battlecrease". Such a conversation could have been perfectly innocent but now, in the light of Feldman's inquiries, it takes on a sinister meaning. Then Rigby told the story of the journey to Liverpool University with a parcel in the car. There could have been a perfectly innocent explanation for this but, once again, viewed through the prism of suspicion, the parcel contains the diary. Finally, Rigby said he remembered something being "thrown out of the window of the room we were working at Mr Dodd's house" and "put into a skip". It's harder to think of anything more innocuous occurring during some electrical work than something being thrown into a skip, although we are told by those who know that there was no skip outside Dodd's house at any time, so Rigby's memory seems to have let him down.

The worst thing about it is that, according to Feldman, Rigby said:

"With everything I've since heard about the diary, and considering the trip to Liverpool University, I think I've solved your problem."

If Feldman's memory of what Rigby said is right, it's perfectly obvious that Rigby had heard stories about the Jack the Ripper diary before he even spoke to Feldman and was relying on hearsay and speculation to pin the discovery of the diary on Eddie Lyons. Rumours must have been flying around amongst the electricians, presumably started by Colin Rhodes in February 1993. And, from some half-remembered fragments that might have had nothing whatsoever to do with the diary, and probably did not, Rigby felt able to tell Feldman that he'd solved his problem, demonstrating a perfect awareness of what Feldman was looking for.

We mustn't forget Morris-Brown's claim that the electricians had rehearsed their story. Hence:

"How were they all so well rehearsed?"

What is she talking about? She seems to be assuming that there are multiple electricians who are all telling the same story? It's a fantasy!

All we have in respect of the supposed discovery of the diary in March 1992 is what Rigby told Feldman. To this day, we haven't seen any more evidence than this. Not a single other electrician was able to corroborate any of it. So where is the rehearsal?

The irony, of course, is that it's Caroline Morris-Brown's good friend, Robert Smith, who believes that the electricians rehearsed their story. The explanation for why Eddie Lyons supposedly told Robert Smith in June 1993 that he'd found a book under the floorboards of Battlecrease and "thrown it into a skip" is set out in Robert Smith's 2017 book (p.18) whereby he tells us:

"At the time, I did not know that Arthur Rigby had told Feldman practically the same story about himself. In retrospect one has to wonder whether the skip event was their agreed cover story".

In other words, boys and girls, they had rehearsed their story!!! The very thing which Caroline Morris-Brown now pooh poohs!

Anyway, let's look at the next paragraph of the Morris-Brown post which opens with this beauty:

"Once Feldman had unleashed the beast and the newspapers got wind of it, Rhodes was then obliged to quiz any of his men who had worked in Dodd's house, who - big shock coming - denied everything. Fancy that."

It doesn't even seem to have occurred to her that the electricians might have "denied everything" because everything being suggested was untrue and no one found the diary! Fancy THAT!

Talk about having a closed mind. There's just no objectivity from her here at all.

Furthermore, even on the best diary defender account of events, not a single diary defender actually saw a diary being found by Eddie Lyons!

Arthur Rigby who was working at Battlecrease on 9 March 1992 certainly didn't. He was trying to be helpful to Feldman, so he would surely have told him if he'd seen Lyons find or even just hold the diary.

The only other two electricians whose stories are cited by diary defenders are Brian Rawes and Alan Davies.

Brian Rawes never knew anything about a discovery of a diary. His story is that Eddie Lyons told him he'd found either "something" or a "book". But this was in June or July 1992. So he didn't know anything about the discovery of a diary, or, indeed, about anything that Eddie Lyons did or did not do in March 1992.

Alan Davies was apparently told by someone about the discovery of a diary but it's never been established when he was told about this and, to my mind, the likelihood is that it was in early 1993, after Feldman started making enquiries.

We can see that it's hardly surprising that the electricians "denied everything". They didn't know anything.

Then we get this:

"However, the beast wouldn't be silenced for long and the stories kept coming, from electricians and other witnesses, who didn't know Feldman from a bar of soap and had had no contact with him or from him, to Paul Dodd himself, who was visited later in 1993 by one worried electrician, for the purpose of denying that he had personally taken anything and naming two others [who had worked with him in the house on 9th March 1992] who allegedly knew about it."

Who are the "electricians and other witnesses" she's speaking of? If, by "other witnesses" she means those two individuals connected with the APS shop in Bootle, this story means nothing unless it can be positively dated to before 1993. The entire essence of RJ Palmer's post to which she was responding was that it was Feldman who poisoned the well amongst the electricians. So it only needs one electrician - Alan Davies - to have been influenced by Feldman (either directly or indirectly) and to have told Alan Dodgson and Tim Martin-Wight about the diary to have led the them to believe that a diary was for sale. So neither of them needed to know Feldman from a bar of soap. If the conversation that they recalled occurred in early 1993 it has no value.

We are also told that Paul Dodd was visited by one "worried electrician" who denied that he had taken anything and named two others who allegedly knew about it. Are the names of these people top secret? Why hasn't she given us the names? If she means Arthur Rigby as the person who spoke to Paul Dodd, we already know that he was influenced by Feldman.

Next we had:

"Everyone appeared willing to throw the name of Eddie Lyons about, so was it one giant scapegoating conspiracy, involving an assorted and disparate bunch of liars and con artists, who never gained a penny and didn't even know all their fellow conspirators, let alone what some of them would go on to claim in their police statements in October 1993, or tell various researchers between then and now?"

This is where the scam really kicks in. Look at the first word of this sentence: "Everyone".

Who is she talking about? You'll notice that she doesn't name a single person. But she nevertheless tells us that "Everyone" was willing to throw the name of Eddie Lyons about.

Has she forgotten that one of the three questions that Feldman asked every single electrician was "Do you know the Saddle in Anfield?". Considering that Eddie Lyons drank at the Saddle in Anfield, it's hardly surprising that some electricians mentioned the name of Eddie Lyons. But who did so?

Sure, Arthur Rigby named Eddie Lyons as someone he suspected of finding the diary. Brian Rawes remembered a conversation much later than March 1992, during which Eddie apparently told him that he'd found something (but not necessarily the diary of Jack the Ripper). And, as far as I'm aware, that's it. That's "Everyone". That's all the people who mentioned Eddie Lyons. Two people, neither of whom could confirm that Eddie Lyons found the diary!

So, no, there was not "one giant scapegoating conspiracy". But it's so psychologically interesting that Caroline Morris-Brown seems to think that there is this huge group of people who named Eddie Lyons as having found the diary. It just doesn't exist. It's why she doesn't name them but prefers to give the impression of a large cast of characters who all pointed the finger at Eddie.

She then talks about what was said in "police statements" in October 1993. The only police statement of which I'm aware involves Brian Rawes who mentioned a conversation with Eddie Lyons but that conversation not only took place in the summer of 1992 - far too late to relate to the discovery of the diary in early March which Mike had already taken down to London - but it supposedly didn't even mention anything about a diary. We've already seen that Feldman claims to have been told by Paul Dodd that one of the electricians confessed to having found an old newspaper. So something definitely was found by an electrician and perhaps that is what Eddie Lyons was talking about. Or maybe Eddie did steal something from Battlecrease but it wasn't the diary.

One can only admire the barefaced cheek of Caroline Morris-Brown referring to what electricians have told "various researchers between then and now?" Not a single transcript of any interview with an electrician has been made public, with the full agreement of Caroline Morris-Brown herself to suppress and withhold them - so we don't really know what has been said to researchers. It's all a big mystery and I can't help feeling that diary defenders prefer to keep it that way. It allows them to make posts of the type that Caroline Morris-Brown regularly makes, hinting at all kinds of evidence which is never revealed.

She rounded off her post in familiar terms:

"What did they all have against Eddie, if he was more sinned against than sinning? Or is there another, more rational but less palatable explanation for those who prefer to believe the liar and con artist who claimed the diary was in his own wife's handwriting, when she committed the ultimate sin of divorcing him and not letting him see his only daughter again?"

Isn't it odd how she moves from a discussion about whether the diary was found at Battlecrease back over to Mike Barrett?

Yes, he was a "liar and con artist" plus, what she doesn't mention, a professional freelance journalist. Just the type of person, in fact, to forge a diary of Jack the Ripper.

Yes, he only revealed his wife's involvement in the forgery scheme after Anne commenced divorce proceedings but that's what happens when conspirators fall out and, more importantly, there wouldn't have been much point claiming that the diary was in his wife's handwriting if it was not. That's the extraordinary thing that Morris-Brown omits: some of the handwriting in the diary DOES appear to be similar to Anne's handwriting. Mike Barrett didn't invent that. It's just a fact.

And that's the Battlecrease scam ladies and gentlemen, or at least part of it because it's a three-part scam and there's an additional part which relates to statistics which you're probably already familiar with, but which I'll be mentioning again in forthcoming post, plus another part relating to brown paper. This too will be dealt with in a future post.

LORD ORSAM

1 August 2024