Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[John Wheat]

One more thing, Herlock: I am not saying that Steve is dishonest, I an saying that his bias has gotten the better of his judgment. The difference is huge.

Pot calling the kettle black.

[FrankO]

If Mizen had his lamp on in search of Neil, then that implicates that he had an intention of seeking out the PC mentioned by Lechmere.

Quite possibly, yes, but, seeing that Lechmere had not told him exactly where the woman was supposed to be lying and Mizen (oddly) hadn’t asked about it, Mizen may also have put on his lamp in search of the woman. Would that be odd or, even, impossible?

As for Neil, he says that he went over to Essex Wharf AFTER he had seen Mizen. He does never say a word about going over the street in order to be able to see Bakers Row, he simply says that on seeing another PC in Bakers Row, he signaled him down.

In fact, at NO point does he say a word about "going over" to Essex Wharf. So, how does he get there then? Doesn't this prove that he can have gone to Essex Wharf without explicitly saying it or without it having been explicitly written down by the journalists?

Neil just says that he "in the meantime rang the bell" there. As far as I'm concerned it's perfectly possible, too, that he went over to Essex Wharf to ring the bell when he spotted Mizen, so he signalled Mizen, waited for him, sent him for the ambulance and then turned back to what he was about to do when he spotted Mizen: ring the bell at Essex Wharf. Something like what seems to have happened with Mizen when Lechmere & Paul came along. He was just about to knock up at a house when Lechmere spoke to him and after the men had left, he continued his knock up there. Does Mizen say this explicitly? No. Still, it is a view that fits with his statement.

Whatever the case, none of the possibilities I've put forward violate what Neil stated. Just like the one you propose doesn't.

You make the suggestion that Neil was aware of the difficulties involved in seeing all the way up to Bakers Row from the murder site, and although it may sound credible at first glance, I think it becomes less so when we give it some afterthought. It is only if we identify a future need to see all the way down to Bakers Row from the exact spot where Nichols was found that we will check such a thing out. It would have been a gliding scale, where the opening to Bakers Row gradually came into sight as Neil walked over to the other side, and if he came walking down that side it would have been the same thing - a gliding scale.

You don’t seem to get my stance, Christer. I'm not saying that Neil saw Mizen when he was in Baker’s Row. I'm saying he could have seen him walking on the footway just west of upper Thomas Street. Not much gliding scale there from a position close to Essex Wharf.

Are we to surmise that he know exactly how much of a street that could be seen from every spot along the beat?

What a ridiculous thing to suggest. Common sense was ALL that Neil needed. If he wanted to see as much as he could down the western part of Buck's Row (even if that would turn out to be little), staying by the body simply wouldn't have been the best thing to do. Knowing there was a bend in the wider part of Buck's Row, he would know he just HAD to move towards Essex Wharf. Of course, he could have strayed a bit from Essex Wharf to the east or the west and/or return a bit towards the southern side of the street to see if he could see more and in so doing decide what would be the best position. And no one is talking about how Neil MUST have known distances EXACTLY. As you well know.

And did he ever walk Bucks Row from east to west, or was it always walked from west to east - in which case the panorama would be BEHIND him...?

We both know the answer to that one, Christer, so the question belongs to the same category as the previous one.

Personally, I think the logical thing to expect is that Neil would have been aware that Mizens beat took him through Bakers Row but NOT down Bucks Row. Therefore, if he saw him, he would very naturally surmise that Mizen was in Bakers Row!

And that last thing is exactly what poses the “problem” for me. How would he “naturally” surmise that Mizen was in Baker's Row when he was actually so very much closer to him and would have arrived much earlier at the crime scene than if he would actually have come all the way from Baker's Row? Again, I have no doubt that Neil knew his beat very well indeed, including the layout of Buck's Row. I'm also sure that he may not have known the exact (or perhaps even approximate) distances in yards, but that he, nonetheless, had a very good feel for the distances involved is quite clear to me. He HAD to, as it was part of his job to walk at a certain, not normal, walking speed. Every round that he made, over and over again.

PS. I live in a winding street in Helsingborg, Sweden. If you ask me, I cannot say how far I can see in either direction. Then again, I am no PC.

But I'm guessing that you DO know that your line of view reaches until the first bend - whatever the distance - and that you'll know which bend it is.

Vi ses!

[drstrange169]

>> ...Mizen may also have put on his lamp in search of the woman.<<

As I understand it, policemen's Bullseye lanterns were always on.
They had a leather shield to prevent it burning them when it was hooked on their belt.
They also had the ability to make it brighter or darker, but it always stayed on.

[Simon Wood]

Check it out, guys.

PC Neil could not have had line of sight to PC Mizen's Bullseye lamp.

And vice-versa.

The idea is BS.

[Fisherman]

You don’t seem to get my stance, Christer. I'm not saying that Neil saw Mizen when he was in Baker’s Row. I'm saying he could have seen him walking on the footway just west of upper Thomas Street. Not much gliding scale there from a position close to Essex Wharf.

Okay, so you do not agree with Steve that Neil would actually have seen Mizen up at Bakers Row? And you do agree that Mizen was on his way to the body when Neil DID see him? Steves version of the truth seems to be that Mizen never intended to go to Bucks Row and only did so on account of Neil signalling to him. Apparently, Steve believes Mizen managed to see that signalling from opposite the murder site, and there would have been a minuscule window allowing for this, plus it would demand Neil having been at Essex Wharf and Mizen passing - and glancing to his left, noticing the lantern - up at the opening to Bakers Row at the exact same smallish fraction of time. I think that would be a stretch, to say the least.

I have not checked whether the material allows for Neil having gone over to the Essex Wharf side before signalling to Mizen, but I note that whereas you have Mizen at Thomas Street, Edwards sketch allows for him being at Queen Anne Street when Neil saw him, and the distance between these streets is not very long. The distance from Thomas Street to Bakers Row is much longer, as is the distance from Queen Anne Street to the murder site. And so I don't know if we can allow for Neil having thought that Mizen was in Bakers Row when he was at Thomas Street, but not that he made that mistake if Mizen had advanced to Queen Anne Street. But I note your remark, of course.

[DJA]

Check it out, guys.

PC Neil could not have had line of sight to PC Mizen's Bullseye lamp.

And vice-versa.

The idea is BS.

Never the Thain shall meet

[Elamarna]

Check it out, guys.

PC Neil could not have had line of sight to PC Mizen's Bullseye lamp.

And vice-versa.

The idea is BS.

Sorry Simon
The maps and the geometry say he could. You may not like it, but physical science says very different to your view.

Hope you are well btw.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Okay, so you do not agree with Steve that Neil would actually have seen Mizen up at Bakers Row? And you do agree that Mizen was on his way to the body when Neil DID see him? Steves version of the truth seems to be that Mizen never intended to go to Bucks Row and only did so on account of Neil signalling to him. Apparently, Steve believes Mizen managed to see that signalling from opposite the murder site, and there would have been a minuscule window allowing for this, plus it would demand Neil having been at Essex Wharf and Mizen passing - and glancing to his left, noticing the lantern - up at the opening to Bakers Row at the exact same smallish fraction of time. I think that would be a stretch, to say the least.

I have not checked whether the material allows for Neil having gone over to the Essex Wharf side before signalling to Mizen, but I note that whereas you have Mizen at Thomas Street, Edwards sketch allows for him being at Queen Anne Street when Neil saw him, and the distance between these streets is not very long. The distance from Thomas Street to Bakers Row is much longer, as is the distance from Queen Anne Street to the murder site. And so I don't know if we can allow for Neil having thought that Mizen was in Bakers Row when he was at Thomas Street, but not that he made that mistake if Mizen had advanced to Queen Anne Street. But I note your remark, of course.

Christer et al

1/3 plus of the junction is visible from Neils possible position.
you think it's highly unlikely they could have seen each other, that the timing is too unlikely, however the maps and the geometry show such was very possible, and as for being unlikely Such things do happen. There is nothing to say it did not.

I understand that many reject such a claim out of hand, my initial response was to do the very same. Extensive checking changed my mind.
This included 3 D visualisations from both Bucks Row and from Bakers Row. The person who prepared these used the same base Map Mr Stow did, and they were not told initially what I was looking for, so they had no idea if I wanted to prove a line of sight or disprove.
It happens after Thain has left him according to Neil. Mizen confirms there was no one else around.

Again there is nothing above in any of the posts which shows Neil could not see Mizen in Bakers Row.
Neil's testimony just cannot be dismissed.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Sorry Simon
The maps and the geometry say he could. You may not like it, but physical science says very different to your view.

Hope you are well btw.


Steve

Edward Stow did a little counting on it, based on the suggested speed of walking furnished by Frank O. If Mizen was passing along Bakers Row and had no intention of going down Bucks Row to seek out the woman he had been told about, then there would have been a time window of less than three seconds during which Mizen would have passed the stretch of the opening in Bakers Row that Neil was able to see from Essex wharf. It therefore predisposes that during these two or three seconds, Neil must have been outside Essex Wharf, peering through the darkness up towards the minuscule opening into Bakers Row that was visible from the wharf, while Mizen must have walked southwards past that minuscule opening at the exact same time, peering over his left should down towards Essex Wharf. And as it was very dark when Neil would have seen Mizen, something like a stiff two hundred yards away, that sounds like a very odd theory.

But it is nevertheless the scenario you favor, right, Steve - one that points Mizen out as a liar?

To those with an interest in the case, I recommend taking a look at the thread about the errand on the other site, where Edward Stow examines Steves podcast revelations and finds them, shall we say, lacking sorely factually. As do I.

[Fisherman]

Christer and all

1/3 plus of the junction is visible, you think it's highly unlikely they could have seen each other, that the timing is too unlikely, however the maps and the geometry show such was very possible.
I understand that many reject such a claim out of hand, my initial response was to do the very same. Extensive checking changed my mind.
The point remains that is what Neil said in his testimony, and it happens after Thain has left him according to Neil. Mizen confirms there was no one else around.


Steve

A little more "extensive checking" could perhaps have saved you from many of the other mistakes you offered on that podcast. But of course, in the book everything is revealed... Certainly, much less than one third of the junction is visible, going on the map Edward provided - and even seeing the minuscule part that is on offer would predispose that Neils eyes were glued onto the wall of Essex Wharf. If he was any little stretch away from the wall, the visible part of the junction would get even smaller and quickly disappear out of sight.

Of course, if he crossed the railway bridge, he would see slightly more of the junction, but he never says he does.

Maybe you found a better, more useful map, though?

[Fisherman]

Neil's testimony just cannot be dismissed.

Steve

True. It can only be pointed out as being unlikely in the extreme on the Baker´s Row issue.

[Elamarna]

A little more "extensive checking" could perhaps have saved you from many of the other mistakes you offered on that podcast. But of course, in the book everything is revealed... Certainly, much less than one third of the junction is visible, going on the map Edward provided - and even seeing the minuscule part that is on offer would predispose that Neils eyes were glued onto the wall of Essex Wharf. If he was any little stretch away from the wall, the visible part of the junction would get even smaller and quickly disappear out of sight.

Of course, if he crossed the railway bridge, he would see slightly more of the junction, but he never says he does.

Maybe you found a better, more useful map, though?

Christer,

Firstly many of those "mistakes are not mistakes, but differences in interpretation.


Using the same OS map that Mr Stow used, the junction comes into view from around halfway across Bucks Row, from Browns yard towards Essex wharf . At the largest extent 9ft of the eastern side of the junction is visible to over 10 ft on the western side

Steve

[Elamarna]

Edward Stow did a little counting on it, based on the suggested speed of walking furnished by Frank O. If Mizen was passing along Bakers Row and had no intention of going down Bucks Row to seek out the woman he had been told about, then there would have been a time window of less than three seconds during which Mizen would have passed the stretch of the opening in Bakers Row that Neil was able to see from Essex wharf. It therefore predisposes that during these two or three seconds, Neil must have been outside Essex Wharf, peering through the darkness up towards the minuscule opening into Bakers Row that was visible from the wharf, while Mizen must have walked southwards past that minuscule opening at the exact same time, peering over his left should down towards Essex Wharf. And as it was very dark when Neil would have seen Mizen, something like a stiff two hundred yards away, that sounds like a very odd theory.

But it is nevertheless the scenario you favor, right, Steve - one that points Mizen out as a liar?

To those with an interest in the case, I recommend taking a look at the thread about the errand on the other site, where Edward Stow examines Steves podcast revelations and finds them, shall we say, lacking sorely factually. As do I.

None of which means it did not, or could not occur.
Neil says it did.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer,

Firstly many of those "mistakes are not mistakes, but differences in interpretation.


Using the same OS map that Mr Stow used, the junction comes into view from around halfway across Bucks Row, from Browns yard towards Essex wharf . At the largest extent 9ft of the eastern side of the junction is visible to over 10 ft on the western side

Steve

There were serious conflations of the material, as you were shown, leading to a wrongful picture emerging. So it was not about "interpretation" at all but instead of misunderstandings, but speaking of interpretation, I find it odd that you seem hellbent on interpreting Mizen as a bad egg and a liar. But that may well be for another thread. And we all remember how you put Mulshaw to sleep as part of one of your interpretations, in spite of him saying that he did NOT think he was asleep. He was wrong, that was your interpretation in that case.

As for the junction, I am at a loss to understand why you speak of the eastern and the western sides of it, since the opening of the junction runs from south to north. Furthermore, when standing in the middle of Bucks Row, the houses between Thomas Street and Bakers Row, on the northern side of Bucks Row, will together with the schoolhouse corner disallow seeing the junction. Please post the map with your filed of sight marked, and we shall see.

[FrankO]

Okay, so you do not agree with Steve that Neil would actually have seen Mizen up at Bakers Row? And you do agree that Mizen was on his way to the body when Neil DID see him?

I'd think that I've been clear enough on these points, so, just to oblige you: yes, on both counts, Christer.

I think that would be a stretch, to say the least.

Not impossible, but a stretch, yes.

I have not checked whether the material allows for Neil having gone over to the Essex Wharf side before signalling to Mizen, but I note that whereas you have Mizen at Thomas Street, Edwards sketch allows for him being at Queen Anne Street when Neil saw him, and the distance between these streets is not very long. The distance from Thomas Street to Bakers Row is much longer, as is the distance from Queen Anne Street to the murder site.

As a picture is worth a thousand words, here's my stance: Neil could have spotted Mizen when the latter was at the green cross.