Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Harry D]

im in fact a dude, I have the hair on my back to prove it!

That doesn't prove anything. Believe me

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do you think a crap theory deserves books to be written against it ?

Can you point me to a better theory please? I am not Lechmerian, but I still don't see any theory that can compete with it.



The Baron

The theory to compete with it, is that Lechmere was not the killer of Nichols or any other victim, and that Nichols and others were killed by an unknown killer or killers, and why you or others cannot see the major flaws in what has been put forward to suggest he was the killer I fail to comprehend.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Fisherman,
I thought it was Ed Stow's theory.Promote it all you want,but you are correct,I do not believe in it one little bit.So listen up everyone,do not heed me,do not call it crop,it must be true .Fisherman has put his mark on it.

[The Baron]

As for the Lechmere theory it's still a crap theory.

Why do you think a crap theory deserves books to be written against it ?

Can you point me to a better theory please? I am not Lechmerian, but I still don't see any theory that can compete with it.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

I don't know what are the personal attacks against Steve are about but they suck. As for the Lechmere theory it's still a crap theory.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman might be perplexed as to why I raised the matter,he shouldn't be,he is once again using a post to promote his own theory.

Oh, dear - I am so, so sorry, Harry. I was not aware that I am not supposed to promote "my" theory.

Listen up everybody! Don't read what I am saying about Lechmere - its all designed to lead you all astray; an elaborate scheme to push a suspect Harry does not believe in one little bit. Beware, beware!

[Fisherman]

To claim 'ah but this thread is only to do with the podcast' insults the numerous independent readers of it. The podcast, as you well know and fully understand, is an interview by Jonathan regarding the book.

The thing is, this thread carries the title "Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer". And so, it actually IS a thread about the podcast. Accordingly, the criticism I brought concerned itself with the podcast and what was said therein, much of which I found incorrect or lacking in quality. At that stage, Steve stated that I really needed to read the book before I criticized anything.

The podcast was a one-hour long show where a lot of time was reserved for discussing matters linked to Charles Lechmere and the Lechmere theory, and so I have no problems saying that once that took place, and was aware a thread out here, I see no reason why anybody should be in any way disallowed to discuss the matter - if so, without having read the book. It is just as legal as it is to criticize a theory on a public podcast.

That criticism did not go down very well, as you may be aware - it was vehemently denied that there was anything at all amiss in the podcast, and so I pointed to the perhaps most obvious matter, that of sergeant Kirby being described as having a beat. There are other points that I could have used that I thought - and still think - were lacking in different ways, but to be honest, I am not sure that the bandwidth out here would stand for the barrage of denials I foresee if I did such a thing.

I cannot say that there is a problem with the book since I have not read it. But I CAN say that there is a problem when fair and just criticism is leveled at a podcast and met with the kind of response that has been the case on many hands here. Jonathan Menges has been the only person to intelligibly and wisely approach the criticism. I have commended him on it and am happy to do so again.

To me, the perhaps greatest problem involved in Steves project has been how he has chosen to make himself a megaphone for a type of criticism of the Lechmere theory that can never be regarded as unbiased in a million years. Certainly, he has throughout stated that he does not rule out that Lechmere could have been the killer, but in the end, that has never obscured the fact that he has not been able to keep a cool head in the debates, instead opting for a stance involving himself endlessly repeating that I (or anybody else with a suspect) am less trustworthy than posters who have no suspects. Once you take that stance, I'm afraid you simultaneously set yourself up for never being acknowledged as a truly unbiased person, something Steve claims (and I dare say actually believes, which is quite alarming) he is. Regardless if you have a suspect or not, it must be accepted that any student of the case can potentially do his work in as unbiased a manner as can be asked for (which is not the same as saying that everybody does, it goes without saying that having a suspect comes with a risk of skewing perspectives - but NOT with a certainty that this happens). It is a very important principle, but one that Steve has decided not to honor.

[harry]

All events could have been covered Steve,without mention of the so called scam.Fisherman might be perplexed as to why I raised the matter,he shouldn't be,he is once again using a post to promote his own theory.Now you Steve may not have written with a suspect in mind,how could you,there wasn't one,but the opening post on this thread created one.Of course I could be wrong,you may all just be good friends having a friendly chat about a book.One question,can we m ention the Mizzen scam,without referring to Cross/Lechmere theory?

[Robert St Devil]

Firstly Robert, if I’ve never exchanged a post with you before then there’s no particular reason for that fact. There will be numerous posters that I haven’t exchanged posts with. This doesn’t mean that I hold any detrimental opinion of them.

Second, I don’t really understand the comment about Steve? I just thought your post strangely bitter. I’ve always found Steve vary fair as a poster and I’d guess that the majority posters would agree with me on that.

Thirdly, my username comes from the fact that I’m interested in all things Doyle and Holmes and have a book parodies where the main character is Herlock Sholmes written by the creator of Billy Bunter.

And fourthly, Steve is the only poster that I’ve actually met in person (once in The Ten Bells and I can assure you that neither of us were dressed as Victorian Prostitutes) and he will confirm that I’m 6’2” tall, 20 stone, I have a beard and a shaved head and that my name is Michael. I won’t go into further detail but I can assure you that I’m not a woman.


Why would it matter if I was a man or a woman?

It wouldn't matter in the slightest; just a curiosity since I have no clue who Billy bunter is, and I thought that you had formed your handle based on a particular wit.

as for majority of posters considering Steve to be a round-about guy, yes, I am sure that 7 out of the ten usual suspects found traipsing these forums on the daily consider him a real ace of a fellow, not exactly the numbers that used to participate but still good odds and, like I mentioned prior, he's adept at social networking. And it's admirable that you would vouch for him in spite of my bitterness. Still, there is that slim minority who know exactly why he focused in on Bucks Row, that the inspiration for his research was biased from the jump (this coming despite his affirmations that his scientific background qualifies him as a neutral party), that remember how malignantly he shifted his focus from Pierre's subject to holding Christer accountable for all-things Lechmere, that can pinpoint the moment when he formulated this grand endeavor (hint: it came during his earliest diatribes against Christer), and that his imagination for the case is severely limited. i'd agree if you claimed that he has maintained a civility on these forums better than most (myself included); but those would have to be some abstract terms to claim that he has been a "fair" poster. I was subject to that fairness when I was requested not to criticize his compilation of newspaper clippings that he qualified as research because he had worked so hard at it (this coming from that helluva guy who has no qualms dog-snapping at the heels of other published CB members). Now, here we are, years later, and for all practical purposes, Steve's profitable work may be ground-breaking and earth-shattering. I'll never know because I have never once been able to derive anything from any of Steve's writings other than verbiose letching.

A 20 stone bearded Victorian prostitute... now that's actually funny

[Herlock Sholmes]

because of my user name im often mistaken as female. and while ive never met anyone on these boards to verify im in fact a dude, I have the hair on my back to prove it!

I recall that just after I’d joined, and for some inexplicable reason, I assumed Sam was a she until you informed me that she was called Gareth.

[Abby Normal]

Firstly Robert, if I’ve never exchanged a post with you before then there’s no particular reason for that fact. There will be numerous posters that I haven’t exchanged posts with. This doesn’t mean that I hold any detrimental opinion of them.

Second, I don’t really understand the comment about Steve? I just thought your post strangely bitter. I’ve always found Steve vary fair as a poster and I’d guess that the majority posters would agree with me on that.

Thirdly, my username comes from the fact that I’m interested in all things Doyle and Holmes and have a book parodies where the main character is Herlock Sholmes written by the creator of Billy Bunter.

And fourthly, Steve is the only poster that I’ve actually met in person (once in The Ten Bells and I can assure you that neither of us were dressed as Victorian Prostitutes) and he will confirm that I’m 6’2” tall, 20 stone, I have a beard and a shaved head and that my name is Michael. I won’t go into further detail but I can assure you that I’m not a woman.


Why would it matter if I was a man or a woman?

because of my user name im often mistaken as female. and while ive never met anyone on these boards to verify im in fact a dude, I have the hair on my back to prove it!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I rarely post here, choosing instead to learn from far more knowledgeable people than myself. What I have seen, repeatedly, on this thread has really disappointed me. Steve has spent the last three years writing a complete account of all scenarios regarding the Bucks Row murder. His aim has been to provide the reader with all the facts so they may make their own minds up. I've actually read the book, and it's good, well researched and innovative. It is most importantly unbiased. All statements are linked to source material, it is therefore factual by default. You can't spin a primary source. Any criticism regarding Steve being selective in his sources is simply nonsense, all aspects of the case are addressed so I'm failing to understand the criticism. How can your take aim at an individual, out of context comment when you've not read the book? To claim 'ah but this thread is only to do with the podcast' insults the numerous independent readers of it. The podcast, as you well know and fully understand, is an interview by Jonathan regarding the book. To split hairs regarding this insults our intelligence. This, however, is nothing compared to the vicious personal comments regarding Steve. You are grown men, act like it. It's like being in a keyboard warrior kindergarten.

Good post NFS,

This subject tends to raise the hackles on occasion. Some of it I think is down to this form of debate. Some issues when discussed across a table might tend to be discussed more evenly, and I dare say in most cases, more amicably. Posts can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Tones that are intended reasonable can be inferred as hostile. Frustrations can definitely set in. Things escalate. Sharpe comments and sarcasm can follow. Once a thread or a dispute between posters starts along a certain path it’s difficult to repair the damage (and it does require effort.) When it comes to sharp comments and sarcasm I can certainly lay no claim to innocence.

At the end end of the day we are all interested in this case. None of us has anything like all of the answers and we probably never will. Perhaps we should all heed the words of a new poster like you and try taking a deep breath before posting and realise that it’s not all about proving each other wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And without Fisherman, and his great research into Lechmere, this book wouldn't have seen the light.



The Baron

?????

[Abby Normal]

Fair as normal Abby, (No pun intended).

My reasons for my view on Mizen are where the evidence as lead me. It would have been far easier to stick with the misunderstanding, and far less controversial.
However I do say in the book, it for you, the reader to decide which explanation you think is the most reasonable.

Steve

thanks el
and the usual level headed and gentleman response and again congrats on your book and Ill refrain from any other comments re mizen scam until I am an aforementioned reader to decide. I probably should have kep my trap shut like I intended.

[The Baron]

And without Fisherman, and his great research into Lechmere, this book wouldn't have seen the light.



The Baron