Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Elamarna]

Oh, fun

I am happy to respond.

When a book is published, or when a podcast is aired, the ones behind these things have a responsibility for what is put out on the market.

When the book or podcast is criticized for whatever reason, one expects this criticism to be met with a cool head and balanced answers.

Which i did to your post #8, in post 22, 23, 24 and in depth in post 27, which you have not responded to, such of course is your choice.

When Edward Stow criticized the podcast and questioned the level of understanding of the different parameters of the Nichols case in a lengthy post on JTR Forums, no such balanced answers were offered. Instead, the reply was a very short one:

"A complete misintreptation of what was said from begining to end, but one is far from surprised."

I am not communicating with that person, I saw no need for anything other than that comment, to ignore completely would have been wrong..

On this site, the author of this sentence - and of the book discussed in the podcast - made the following reply to the factually based observation that it is wrongly spoken in the podcast of a beat on behalf go Sgt Kirby:

" ...it's nit picking of the highest order, you used the wrong word, semantics is the game some pro Lechmere people love to play."

So we can see that there is a wish to present those who believe in Lechmere as the killer - in this case Edward and me - as generally speaking unreliable and playing semantic games.

You present that case very well without any help from anyone else.

To this, Jonathan Menges adds a little mockery about his mistake:

"My question, as Steve figured out, was about where Kirby was before he walked down Bucks Row and where he went afterwards. Whether he was on a round, a beat, delivering pizza or playing hopscotch."

The thing to do when caught out with a mistake is to generously admit the mistake. One can either say "I was unaware of this, thank you for pointing it out" or one can say "That's correct, it did not come out right and needs to be amended" in which case one points to having had the knowledge all along.

That is how one gains trust and makes the best of a mistake. It is how the book or podcast on offer is also best served, if one wants to retain as much credibility as possible.

I think you will find that Jonathan has happily accepted "Beat" may have been the incorrect word.

The thing NOT to do in a situation like this is to mock the ones who present fair criticism about the material. And to single a group out as unfit to criticize material is disastrous, not least if everybody knows that there is a disagreement between author and criticizer over the topic criticized. Such behavior is tantamount to credibility harakiri.

No one has said you are unfit to criticize the podcast, only that the criticisms are somewhat minor, and most so far mentioned are matters of interpretation or debate, rest assured all alternatives are mentioned in the book, which obviously cannot be covered in a 1 hour podcast. However, if those or any other comments suggest something is factually incorrect, changes will be made to the next update of the book, due in September.

From what I gather, there are parts of the book Steve has written that are useful as some sort of reference material. It is sad if that part of the effort is dragged down by an attitude that was never going to work when defending a written or aired piece.

As for the encouragement to avoid debating with Edward Stow on account of him being "unbalanced", I am happy to accept that I may have gotten it wrong myself. But I can assure you that he is anything but unbalanced in his views, plus he has a knowledge of the case - and not least of the Lechmere family - that is unsurpassed.

It is fully accepted that he has knowledge, that does not however mean he is not bias in his views. You believe he is not, to be expected given that you have the same suspect, others have a different view. Obviously we will disagree on that.

,Unbalance is not expressed in choosing a suspect, if that choice is well built under - and it is.

We disagree on that very point, I see it built on half-truths, great exaggeration and very selective use of sources, as do many others. You and Ed obviously do not.

I will say that the book does not dismiss Lechmere as a suspect, and neither did the podcast, it merely attempts to look at the sources as objectively as possible.

Unbalance is instead something that is richly exemplified by the attitude taken against the criticism offered about the podcast about Steves book, and personally, I find it sad. It inevitably affects the reliability of those who present it, and of course also the reliability of their work.

Given that I responded to your initial criticisms, you have decided not to respond to those comments in any meaningful way.

I have in the last few days, answered again the points you have raised, and you have at the time of writing not replied to those.


Can I thank you for the free publicity your continuing posts ensure.


Steve

[Fisherman]

If you want to urge others do the right thing. Stop running away from your posts and you do the right thing.

I was right about "H division" comments. Jonathon was right about "alerted not spoke"' I was right about "crouching"' I was right about "space available on the other side of the road", I was right about "perjury" comments, I was right about "Mulshaw", I was right about "knocking up" and I was right that Jonathon talked about "rounds". Because he stumbled a bit, you seem to think it's some kind of point score, it isn't, since he clearly (I'm using the word correctly, you should note) knew enough to tell the listeners about "rounds", some thing you claimed he didn't do.

Your last post is notable, not for what you wrote, but rather for what you avoided answering. Are you here just to troll?



>> Stating "I have said that I do not wish to answer him, and that stands…" is not the same as promising never to do so.<<


"I will not comment on this thread any more, and I will leave the comments of Dr Strange deservedly unanswered." Your post #33.

Reads like a "promise" to me.

Even by your standards, your posts on this thread have been a disaster. Life is so much easier if you stick to facts, be less abrasive, and be a bit more honest in your replies.

Anyway, I'm now off to see Nick Cave and Warren Ellis in what promises to be the gig of the year, so you'll have to be bitter and twisted on your own for awhile.

A prime example of why I dislike debating with you. Has it even dawned on you that you actually put "promise" within quotation marks? Talk about Freudian!

[Fisherman]

I will make a comment or two here.

It is rather unusual for the actual podcast to be attacked in the way this one has been, both here and in another place.
True the theories are often rediculed and mistakes pointed out, but there are rarely attacks on the interviewer.

The podcast is about a book, and I note neither of those who have been critical have made any attempt to purchase the actual book and read it.

Let me be very clear here, if anyone can prove factual mistakes in the book, I will correct in the 1st major update, which All purchasers will receive.

However the points raised have been more on interpretation than actual facts:

Mulshaw being possibly asleep is interpretation,

If money's were taken sometimes by officers for knocking up, is debateable, and to not mention the possibility would be dishonest.

The issue of the H Division beat maps is a pure red herring, the point is that they are official records which give an official version of the beats, no matter what the year. The comparison was there are No such records for J division.

The beat v round comments by Jonathan are a true indication of the levels of this debate, at one point in the podcast, he used the wrong term, I knew what he meant, which was simply is there a record of Kirbys location that night, the answer is no, "I have no idea".


It has also been claimed that on another forum Ed Stow was called "unstable".

What Caz actually posted was:

"I humbly suggest that you do not respond in future to this poster , whose views are far from balanced"

That says his views on Lechmere are bias, not that he is "unstable", such a blatant untruth is unacceptable.

What we are witnessing is fear of the theory being damaged, which in itself suggests a pre-knowledge of its obvious flaws.

Of course on reading the book, it is clear that I do not dismiss Lechmere, merely question some of the arguments made in favour of him, but of course one needs to read the book.

Steve

I am happy to respond.

When a book is published, or when a podcast is aired, the ones behind these things have a responsibility for what is put out on the market.

When the book or podcast is criticized for whatever reason, one expects this criticism to be met with a cool head and balanced answers.

When Edward Stow criticized the podcast and questioned the level of understanding of the different parameters of the Nichols case in a lengthy post on JTR Forums, no such balanced answers were offered. Instead, the reply was a very short one:

"A complete misintreptation of what was said from begining to end, but one is far from surprised."

On this site, the author of this sentence - and of the book discussed in the podcast - made the following reply to the factually based observation that it is wrongly spoken in the podcast of a beat on behalf go Sgt Kirby:

" ...it's nit picking of the highest order, you used the wrong word, semantics is the game some pro Lechmere people love to play."

So we can see that there is a wish to present those who believe in Lechmere as the killer - in this case Edward and me - as generally speaking unreliable and playing semantic games.

To this, Jonathan Menges adds a little mockery about his mistake:

"My question, as Steve figured out, was about where Kirby was before he walked down Bucks Row and where he went afterwards. Whether he was on a round, a beat, delivering pizza or playing hopscotch."

The thing to do when caught out with a mistake is to generously admit the mistake. One can either say "I was unaware of this, thank you for pointing it out" or one can say "That's correct, it did not come out right and needs to be amended" in which case one points to having had the knowledge all along.

That is how one gains trust and makes the best of a mistake. It is how the book or podcast on offer is also best served, if one wants to retain as much credibility as possible.

The thing NOT to do in a situation like this is to mock the ones who present fair criticism about the material. And to single a group out as unfit to criticize material is disastrous, not least if everybody knows that there is a disagreement between author and criticizer over the topic criticized. Such behavior is tantamount to credibility harakiri.

From what I gather, there are parts of the book Steve has written that are useful as some sort of reference material. It is sad if that part of the effort is dragged down by an attitude that was never going to work when defending a written or aired piece.

As for the encouragement to avoid debating with Edward Stow on account of him being "unbalanced", I am happy to accept that I may have gotten it wrong myself. But I can assure you that he is anything but unbalanced in his views, plus he has a knowledge of the case - and not least of the Lechmere family - that is unsurpassed. Unbalance is not expressed in choosing a suspect, if that choice is well built under - and it is. Unbalance is instead something that is richly exemplified by the attitude taken against the criticism offered about the podcast about Steves book, and personally, I find it sad. It inevitably affects the reliability of those who present it, and of course also the reliability of their work.

[Elamarna]

I will make a comment or two here.

It is rather unusual for the actual podcast to be attacked in the way this one has been, both here and in another place.
True the theories are often rediculed and mistakes pointed out, but there are rarely attacks on the interviewer.

The podcast is about a book, and I note neither of those who have been critical have made any attempt to purchase the actual book and read it.

Let me be very clear here, if anyone can prove factual mistakes in the book, I will correct in the 1st major update, which All purchasers will receive.

However the points raised have been more on interpretation than actual facts:

Mulshaw being possibly asleep is interpretation,

If money's were taken sometimes by officers for knocking up, is debateable, and to not mention the possibility would be dishonest.

The issue of the H Division beat maps is a pure red herring, the point is that they are official records which give an official version of the beats, no matter what the year. The comparison was there are No such records for J division.

The beat v round comments by Jonathan are a true indication of the levels of this debate, at one point in the podcast, he used the wrong term, I knew what he meant, which was simply is there a record of Kirbys location that night, the answer is no, "I have no idea".


It has also been claimed that on another forum Ed Stow was called "unstable".

What Caz actually posted was:

"I humbly suggest that you do not respond in future to this poster , whose views are far from balanced"

That says his views on Lechmere are bias, not that he is "unstable", such a blatant untruth is unacceptable.

What we are witnessing is fear of the theory being damaged, which in itself suggests a pre-knowledge of its obvious flaws.

Of course on reading the book, it is clear that I do not dismiss Lechmere, merely question some of the arguments made in favour of him, but of course one needs to read the book.

Steve

[drstrange169]

If you want to urge others do the right thing. Stop running away from your posts and you do the right thing.

I was right about "H division" comments. Jonathon was right about "alerted not spoke"' I was right about "crouching"' I was right about "space available on the other side of the road", I was right about "perjury" comments, I was right about "Mulshaw", I was right about "knocking up" and I was right that Jonathon talked about "rounds". Because he stumbled a bit, you seem to think it's some kind of point score, it isn't, since he clearly (I'm using the word correctly, you should note) knew enough to tell the listeners about "rounds", some thing you claimed he didn't do.

Your last post is notable, not for what you wrote, but rather for what you avoided answering. Are you here just to troll?



>> Stating "I have said that I do not wish to answer him, and that stands…" is not the same as promising never to do so.<<


"I will not comment on this thread any more, and I will leave the comments of Dr Strange deservedly unanswered." Your post #33.

Reads like a "promise" to me.

Even by your standards, your posts on this thread have been a disaster. Life is so much easier if you stick to facts, be less abrasive, and be a bit more honest in your replies.

Anyway, I'm now off to see Nick Cave and Warren Ellis in what promises to be the gig of the year, so you'll have to be bitter and twisted on your own for awhile.

[Trevor Marriott]

>> A section sergeant would not walk a beat, he would make rounds not determined in advance in order to check on the PC:s making beats. The difference is a major one.<<

And, of course, Jonathon did say rounds. If only your posts were as clear as his broadcasts.

Just for clarity Sgts would arrange to meet beat constables at fixed points on their beat on the hour or on the half hour. This would be pre determined before they left the police station. This was to ensure they were on their beats, and to relay any information to them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I´ll make quick work of this.

Stating "I have said that I do not wish to answer him, and that stands…" is not the same as promising never to do so. It explicitly says that I have no WISH to debate with you, and I really, really don't.

But when you misrepresent things it may be that I make the call that there is reason to step in and correct you.

Which is what I just did. You claim that it is "hypocrisy" on my behalf to first say that I do not wish to answer you and then do so.

The fact of the matter is that I dislike your debating techniques so very much that I find it utterly unpleasant to have anything at all to do with you. meaning that I will once again say that I do not wish to answer you after this post of mine. I however reserve myself the right to show the community out here what you amount to, should I feel so inclined.

In fact, even if I had said that I would never answer you, I would still reserve myself the right to do so, since that is MY prerogative, not yours.

So much for your first post - it goes awry from the outset, as always when somebody uninterested in the facts allows himself to get consumed by his own lacking judgment.

In your next post, you say that Jonathan Menges says that Kirby made rounds. Perhaps you missed out on my quotation? If so, here it is again: Jonathan Menges spoke of "the sections sergeants beat".

It could easily be said that a PC is making his rounds when on his beat. It cannot, however, be said that a section sergeant making his rounds is out on a beat.

This is the long and the short of it. The facts, as it were.

The moment I feel you need more tutoring in that field, I will make my own decisions about whether I want to take the trouble and abuse it will earn me to do so.

[drstrange169]

>> A section sergeant would not walk a beat, he would make rounds not determined in advance in order to check on the PC:s making beats. The difference is a major one.<<

And, of course, Jonathon did say rounds. If only your posts were as clear as his broadcasts.

[drstrange169]

>>I have said that I do not wish to answer him, and that stands…<<


And yet here you are answering me. So, status quo for hypocrisy in your posts.



>>I wrote about errors in the podcast, and Dr Strange took it upon himself to try and prove how the one in error was me, stating that I make "distorted claims". Well, let's look at it:<<


You’d have been better letting sleeping dogs lie, but it’s your apparent need for ego over evidence that lets you down every time.

So be it. Facts v fiction.



>>-About Sgt Kirbys "beat", this is something that is laid down by Jonathan Menges as an existing fact when he speaks of "the section sergeants beat". Steve had all the time in the world to point out to Menges that a section sergeant did not have any established beat, but instead he says that he has "no idea" what Kirbys movements looked like. <<

Let’s look at what Johnathon actually said rather than your interpretation of it.

When the subject of Sergeant Kirby comes up Jonathon says,

“… making his rounds as a section sergeant.”

He then makes a mistake, but corrects himself,

“Their beats .. then ..then.. Sgt Kirby’s .. um .. section sergeant rounds …”

Ergo, your claim that,

“beat, this is something that is laid down by Jonathan Menges as an existing fact…”

is incorrect and also contrary to your claim, Steve was under no obligation to correct anything.
It appears it was just to be a desperate attempt to find minor quibbles that fail when it's checked against the facts.



>>Neil and Thain alike were J division officers. But the criticism offered here is that Steve says that "for H division ... … THIS is what is criticized, and I'm afraid Steves mentioning that we do not have the exact beats for Neil and Thain has nothing to do with it.<<

Facts v fiction.

Here is exactly what you wrote in post #33,

"“…we do not know the beats of any division until later in time than 1888" …”

You'’ve dishonestly (how else should we describe it?) now changed your claim to H division only.

The mistake is yours, and yours alone. No amount of abusing other posters will change that.




>>-As for whether Mizen perjured himself or not, I have not read the Ripperologist articles referred to, so I cannot judge the viability of them in this context. I would, however, say that since we do not have the report, there must always be some wiggling room in either direction. <<

Fact v fiction.

You wrote in post # 33,

“Mizen would not have been able to perjur (sic) himself …”

Now that you've been challenged you've acknowledge their is "wriggle room".




>>This is what Mulshaw tells us: He was not asleep between three and six, as far as he can tell. <<

Exactly, as far as he could tell, in other words he cannot be sure, ergo your claim,

“Mulshaw clearly stated that he was awake” was misleading and deceptive.




>>Steve is at liberty to assume that Mulshaw was not telling the truth, of course.<<

But Steve never said Mulshaw was not telling the truth did he? Could you quote where Steve says he lied? No, I thought not.




>>-The question about whether the police were paid for knocking up is much the same. Whether there is pieces of evidence that PC:s were payed for the service or not in 1862, it nevertheless applies that it was against police regulations to do so in 1888.<<

It was against regulations in 1862. It had been against regulations since 1853, so as I noted in post #35, “there is no clear evidence about this”. If you believe there is definitive proof as you claimed in post #33 that it did not happen feel free to prove your claim.


So, the facts are that, your posts here are filled with errors. The simple thing to have done would have been to acknowledge them, but instead you've chosen to try, as you tend to do, bluff you way out of your mistakes, wasting everyones time.

[Fisherman]

Ok then Kirby was doing his section sergeant “rounds”. How a “round” differs from a “beat”- and if there was a pattern to Kirby’s “rounds” or “beat” I had no idea. So I guess according to Fish there wasn’t any pattern whatsoever Kirby walked on his “rounds” that we can use to place him at a certain place at a certain time other than when he said he had earlier been down Bucks Row (which is all I was trying to establish) and Fish knows this as a fact. That’s why discussion threads for podcasts are created.
When I ask questions to a guest on the podcast I usually don’t already know the answer to them. If by asking this question in such a way I was inadvertently presenting “false information” then I apologize.

JM

There's no need to overdramatize. A beat is a fixed stretch, walked round and round. A section sergeant would not walk a beat, he would make rounds not determined in advance in order to check on the PC:s making beats. The difference is a major one.

I did not point to this out of malice, believe it or not. I pointed it out because it gave the wrongful impression about Kirbys duties. And now it is said by Steve that I am "using a game of semantics"...? The way people promoting Lechmere are prone to do...??

It would help a whole lot with a little less touchiness. If we cannot discuss as grownups, we´d better not discuss at all. It´s up to you.

[jmenges]

My question, as Steve figured out, was about where Kirby was before he walked down Bucks Row and where he went afterwards. Whether he was on a round, a beat, delivering pizza or playing hopscotch. The answer is ‘we don’t know’, and that is all I was wondering about.

JM

[Elamarna]

No need to apologise Jonathan, it's nit picking of the highest order, you used the wrong word, semantics is the game some pro Lechmere people love to play.

To address a few points.

My comments about the beats were obviously about how in H Division we have some official records to go by, yes it may have changed, but it's official. With J division we have only the Echo.
That the report of Neil backs this up is nicely glossed over by Christer.

Mulshaw , clearly does not say he was awake, but he "thinks he was". If he had said I never dozed and was awake all night, I would not question it, but he doesn't

With regards to knocking up, I provide links in the book which go into great detail on the issue.

No need to write more given Dusty has said it all already.

Steve

[jmenges]

Ok then Kirby was doing his section sergeant “rounds”. How a “round” differs from a “beat”- and if there was a pattern to Kirby’s “rounds” or “beat” I had no idea. So I guess according to Fish there wasn’t any pattern whatsoever Kirby walked on his “rounds” that we can use to place him at a certain place at a certain time other than when he said he had earlier been down Bucks Row (which is all I was trying to establish) and Fish knows this as a fact. That’s why discussion threads for podcasts are created.
When I ask questions to a guest on the podcast I usually don’t already know the answer to them. If by asking this question in such a way I was inadvertently presenting “false information” then I apologize.

JM

[GUT]

Big difference between “I don’t think I was” and “I wasn’t”

[Fisherman]

It is a rot when a poster goes to the lengths that Dr Strange does in an effort to vilify and tarnish things.

I have said that I do not wish to answer him, and that stands - he is, as far as I can tell, not worthy of being answered by anybody with a genuine interest in discussing the case fairly. He has a record of making up strange things about the position of Lechmere in Bucks Row and entrances to the Broad Street depot, for example, that is severely unbecoming. I have taken him to task over this, and he has seemingly not benefited from the criticism but instead he has embarked on some sort of weird crusade against the Lechmere theory, seeking revenge for having had the shortcomings pointed out.

I will now make a final post out here, and it is quite likely to be my final post to Dr Strange as well.

I wrote about errors in the podcast, and Dr Strange took it upon himself to try and prove how the one in error was me, stating that I make "distorted claims". Well, let's look at it:

-About Sgt Kirbys "beat", this is something that is laid down by Jonathan Menges as an existing fact when he speaks of "the section sergeants beat". Steve had all the time in the world to point out to Menges that a section sergeant did not have any established beat, but instead he says that he has "no idea" what Kirbys movements looked like. This exchange between the two establishes that Kirby DID have a beat, and since Steve does not deny that this was so, he in practicality goes along with Menges´suggestion. If you know that somebody is presenting false information, then. why would you not point it out?

-About what knowledge there is about the police beats, Dr Strannge posts this:

"Neil and Thain's beat was published in the Echo on the 20th. In his book and the broadcast, Steve notes that he does not know:

A: if the Echo's report was accurate
B: that he does not know the exact beats."

Neil and Thain alike were J division officers. But the criticism offered here is that Steve says that "for H division, we have the beat books still left", without mentioning that these beat books are not from 1888, but from a later date meaning that we cannot tell whether those beats had changed or not.
THIS is what is criticized, and I'm afraid Steves mentioning that we do not have the exact beats for Neil and Thain has nothing to do with it.

-As for whether Mizen perjured himself or not, I have not read the Ripperologist articles referred to, so I cannot judge the viability of them in this context. I would, however, say that since we do not have the report, there must always be some wiggling room in either direction. Basically, though, since Mizen was not called by Neil but by two civilians, the logical thing to surmise is that this would have been mentioned. All in all, I'm nevertheless happy to concede that sponge doubt remains.

-As for Mulshaw and whether he slept or not, the Morning Advertiser is always useful, reporting ad verbatim as it is:

"The Coroner. -- Do you go to sleep? -- Witness: Sometimes I do.

The Coroner. -- Were you alseep between three and six o'clock? -- Witness: I don't think I was."

This is what Mulshaw tells us: He was not asleep between three and six, as far as he can tell. Steve is at liberty to assume that Mulshaw was not telling the truth, of course. He is at liberty to assume that Mulshaw had teleported himself to Preston for that matter. The crucial thing nevertheless remains that Mulshaw told the coroner that he believed that he was awake.
How that testimony can be used to vilify me as part of a claim that I "distort" is totally and absolutely indicative of Dr Stranges work.

-The question about whether the police were paid for knocking up is much the same. Whether there is pieces of evidence that PC:s were payed for the service or not in 1862, it nevertheless applies that it was against police regulations to do so in 1888. If Steve has evidence that the general practice was one where the PC:s WERE payed - and that is not the same as evidence that it happened on one or a few occasions - then I am fine with him claiming that this was the practice of the day. If he has not, I am less fine with it. And I am anything but fine with having a poster like Dr Strange saying that it is distorting the truth to point this out.

There, now I am done with this, and I will not return to the discussion or the thread in this context. And that is NOT because I am not willing to discuss the factualities, its because I am not willing to discuss them with somebody who has nothing to offer but a misguided and factually disastrous desire to inflict whatever damage he can to a theory he is apparently unfit to understand.

Now I am off to discuss things on threads destined for longer lives than this one, and with posters with more serious intentions.