Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[drstrange169]

Re: Police being paid for "knocking up",

"... 'if it weren't for the knocking-up money a policeman in London couldn’t do it nohow." I inquired what he meant by 'knocking-up money' and was informed that it was the custom in London, and in all the large towns, for labouring men, who had to rise to their work at an early hour, to pay a small weekly sum to the policeman in whose 'beat' they resided, for knocking loudly at the door in the morning to awaken them. It is usual for policemen to add several shillings to their weekly wages by this practice ..."

Continental Monthly', in July 1862

[drstrange169]

Just out of interest, I checked all the Mulshaw testimony reports and the bulk refer to him saying he only "thinks" he was awake. So Christer couldn't be more wrong in claiming he "clearly stated" he was awake, but nothing new in Christer being wrong;-)

For those who like actual the facts, most newspapers, including all the ones that said he was awake, paraphrase his testimony.

Two give direct quotes:

"Alfred Malshaw, a night watchman in Winthorpe-street, had also heard no cries or noise. He admitted that he sometimes dozed.
The Coroner: I suppose your watching is not up to much?
The Witness: I don't know. It is thirteen long hours for 3s and find your own coke. (Laughter.)"

Daily Telegraph


"Edward Muleham, night watchman at the Whitechapel District Board of Works, said -- On the night of the murder I was in Winthorpe-street during the whole of the night. I did not leave till about five minutes to six in the morning. I was in the open street, watching some drainage works.
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. "

Morning Advertiser

Once again we see the quality of arguments put up by some Lechmerites. This field of research is forever doomed to be dogged by distorted claims from people with agendas.

[drstrange169]

>> ...a number or errors committed; <<

You mean alleged errors, which is probably why Steve didn't waste time responding.



>>Sgt Kirby never had a beat as such,<<

In the broadcast cast Steve specifically said he had "no idea" re Kirby's movements outside of those recorded in the newspapers.

So this "error" needed no comment as the person making it did not listen to what Steve said correctly.



>> ...we do not know the beats of any division until later in time than 1888<<

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.

So, again, this "error" needed no comment as the person making it did not listen to what Steve said correctly.



>> Mizen would not have been able to perjur himself since he will have had handed in a written report <<

Have you seen how P.C.'s wrote their notes?

I'd recommend Ripperologist #79 and #80. In it Adam Wood and Keith Skinner publish extracts from PC 22H, Charles Roberts, reports.

In it, he uses terms such as, "being called to", no mention of who called him.


>> Mulshaw clearly stated that he was awake...<<

Depends which newspaper you read, in some he says he "thinks" he was awake, so to claim he "clearly states" is to not accurately reflect all the available evidence.

In the broadcast Steve makes it clear that is his personal opinion that Mulshaw might have been asleep.

Yet again, this "error" needed no comment as the person making it did not listen to what Steve said correctly.


>> ... the police did not get paid extra for knocking up etcetera.<<

There is no clear evidence about this, if you'd have read Steve's book you'd have known that he noted that.

Although it appears to be against police regulations, there is evidence that policemen did, in fact, receive gratuities for this service.

All in all the errors are with Steve's accuser, not with Steve.


Now about the "errors" in your posts here that you refuse to discuss ...

[drstrange169]

Just so we're clear, you are criticizing Steve for not answering somebody's post elsewhere and then you refuse to answer the posts here.

Do you want to be taken seriously?

Addressing the errors and double standards the three posts you've posted on this thread so far, would be a good start.

[Fisherman]

The ability to critise, without readinģ the book is remarkable Christer.

I would want to comment on this rather odd post. I am here told - on a thread that very clearly is about the podcast interview with Steve - that I would somehow be unable to criticize what that podcast delivered because I have not read the book it discusses.

As far as I understand I am perfectly able to criticize any element of the podcast that I find lacking in any way for the simple reason that I have taken part of that podcast. After all, that IS what this thread is about.

Correct me if I am wrong. And of course, if Steve presents a diametrically different view in the book to the one he states in the podcast, then I may need to read the book and forget the podcast to get things correct. ..?

This rhymes well with the posts of Steve on the other site, where Edward Stow pointed out a number or errors committed; Sgt Kirby never had a beat as such, we do not know the beats of any division until later in time than 1888, Mizen would not have been able to perjur himself since he will have had handed in a written report, Mulshaw clearly stated that he was awake, the police did not get paid extra for knocking up etcetera.

This Steve addresses with the sentence "a complete misinterpretation of what was said from beginning to end, but one is far from surprised" although these errors are very clear in the interview. And then he goes on to answer Caz - who has claimed that Edward is "unstable" and that it is best not to answer his posts at all - that he will adjust to that take on things.

For a poster who has always made a meal of how important it is to be correct and fair, it is quite a baffling behavior.

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

It is time to move on.

[Busy Beaver]

Very enjoyable podcast, learnt stuff I never knew before. Cheers Steve and Johnathan.

[FISHY1118]

Easy one....no.

Then heres a man who discovered the first C5 victim, went on to give his evidence and statement at the inquest of said victim , then goes on to murder 4 other women, the whole time the police didnt give him a second thought ? Somehow i dont think Lechmere would have gotten a way with being jack the ripper.

[Michael W Richards]

AT the time, was Lechmere suspected of being Nichols killer in any official capacity . i.e in a police interview before his inquest testimony?

Easy one....no.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for the clarification.

Regards,

Simon

[Elamarna]

Steve's book deserved a dedicated podcast.

People will differ over various points raised, but there is nothing wrong with that.

Well done!

thank you

[Elamarna]

So I just listened to the podcast about Steves book. I cannot say that I found it very good. It sets out with Jonathan Menges stating that both Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen and this is something that we cannot conclude - although there are those who claim we can. Regardless, it makes for a one-eyed presentation of the facts, and that was never a good thing. If both carmen spoke to Mizen and heard all of what was said, we get a very different case, and as long as we don't know what applies, I would recommend a less tilted version. In the light of how I am often accused of tilting the story myself, one would think that such things would not pass on a podcast.

Christer, it is one eyed to suggest that both Carmen did not speak to Mizen, both Carmen say they did, and the police report of the 19th September, says "they" as Dusty points out.

It has been promised that we would get to know why Mizen was the liar and not Lechmere, but once the revelation is made, Jon Menges actually disagrees with Steve about the matter. Steve wants to take the policemen assertion that they had not seen anybody to leave the spot so as to attract attention as evidence that Mizen withheld his knowledge about the carmen. Menges disagrees, and so do I. Menges points out that the carmen could not leave the spot so as to attract Mizens attention as they were not AT the spot at that stage, which is perfectly true. I would also say that since Mizen had arrived at the murder spot and found Neil there, then if Mizen was told by Lechmere that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row, he would expect Neil to be the one to report any odd behavior on behalf of the carmen at the murder site. To me, it is perfectly logical that Mizen answers the question, put as it were, with a "no".

Oversimplified, the discussion regards the Scam, is far more complicated and involved than is possible to cover in a one-hour podcast, and one not exclusively devoted to that issue.
Jonathan questions one aspect of the evidence presented in the book, there are a few more which he did not disagree with. Anyway we will not all agree on every aspect, indeed many disagree with your version of events too.

Steve then gets the opportunity to attack the documentary and chooses a few matters to do so:

He points out that the docu has Lechmere crouching over the body of Nichols. What one needs to realize is that the documentary works from the idea that Lechmere actually killed Nichols, and in order to do so, he must have crouched over her body at some stage. Attacking that depiction is attacking the sheer idea that Lechmere could be the killer, and that is not a wise thing to do. Colored figures are used to depict the persons and it should be perfectly obvious that they are suggesting a scenario that is entirely necessary for the concept of the documentary to work.
I have often said myself that if Lechmere killed Nichols and bluffed it out, he would not begin by leaning in over her body as Paul arrived, he would instead take some steps away from the body so that he could say "Oh look, isn't that a woman lying there? Let's go check her out, shall we?"

I am really sorry, but the documentary is a visual presentation, it is misleading and gives a false impression. That you do not accept that is sad.

Steve also says that the police beats are represented as if there were policeman swarming over the place all the time. He correctly points out that the beats took half an hour to do. What he forgets to say is that the narrator actually ALSO points this out. He says that the PC:s passed every half hour. My take on things is that the filmmakers did not want to make the graphical representation one where the dots representing the beats took half an hour to appear on the screen. They probably gathered that such a thing would bore and deter the spectators.

I do not forget it at all, indeed in my book i am very clear that the voice over at the beginning of the program says that PC Neil was at the murder site 15 minutes before Polly is killed.

A meal is made of how Paul, in the guise of Andy Griffiths, crosses the street in a manner that is not consistent with the facts. Nothing, however, is said about how the road construction work did not allow for doing it factually correct, and even less is said about how that particular detail is in all probability of no consequence at all.

Wrong, its not Andy crossing the street, but the CGI which shows Paul on the southern side, which i am alluding to, still misleading, even in this small arena

Steve says that it is said that there was a nine minute gap and that there is no further discussion about that gap. Which there is. It is shown how the maths were done, and it is laid out that IF these maths are correct, THEN there is a nine minute gap.

There is no discussion about the fact that the nine minutes is based on Paul's 3,45 timing, and how this is highly debatable, yes the maths are given based purely on that viewpoint, it is misleading.

Steve then goes on to add all of these wisdoms up by saying that the docu is "cheating" people. And yes, SOMEBODY is being cheated, but that somebody seems to be Mr Blomer cheating himself.

All is backed up in the book, you can agree or disagree once you read it.

Jon Menges then grasps the opportunity to deliver what he seemingly thinks is the decisive blow against the Lechmere theory - Paul was not asked about the Mizen scam, and so the police must have cleared that up before Pauls appearance at the inquest.
What I think is important to keep in mind here is that we have 125 years of people not recognizing the potential of the conversation between Mizen and Lechmere. Nobody has ever pointed it out as potentially being part of the solution to the Ripper crimes before I did so. It has been looked upon as some uncontroversial misunderstanding of minuscule importance. What's to say that the police did not think the same? We have no evidence at all that the press reacted to it, and they would have had time to point it out before it was supposedly discussed and cleared up by the police. But no such luck!
Also, any such interest in the disagreement, based on the conception that Lechmere could perhaps have had something to hide, should undoubtedly have resulted in him being raked over the flames.
Where is the evidence that this ever happened? What police bigwig recognizes this in his memoirs, telling us about the carman they believed was a liar until it was all cleared up? And if they delved into the life of the carman - why is it that they call him Cross when we know that the police would likely give BOTH names, Cross AND Lechmere - if they knew about them?

Once again we have a starting point that Lechmere is hiding something, what is this based on? The evidence such as it is does not lead an unbiased researcher in that direction

One of the indicators Menges uses to ensure himself of Lechmeres innocence is that Paul was never asked about when he first saw "Cross". Really? He says that he met no-one until he met Cross and he says that as he arrived outside Brown´s, he noticed his fellow carman. "He had not met any one before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away." (Times, Sept 18 1888).

Covered this in a previous post, however let's be very clear.

Paul is not asked when he first sees Lechmere, he is simply saying that he saw no one before he got to Bucks row and no one leaving the scene.
He is never asked when he first becomes aware of Lechmere is he? nor does he say when, at what distance, does he?

No, it was not a good podcast. Not if you are interested in the actual facts. But if you dislike the Lechmere theory, then I can understand why some take a fancy to it.

Of course, if somebody wants to present the case in a way that tilts the facts in a "Lechmere must have been innocent" fashion, then they are free to do so.

Luckily, I am equally free to point pout when and where it goes awry.

It's not Lechmere must be innocent, neither Jonathan nor I say that, indeed the book makes it very clear.

Steve

ps thank you for the comments, most welcome.

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, if somebody wants to present the case in a way that tilts the facts in a "Lechmere must have been innocent" fashion...

If the evidence is presented "as is", then Cross is simply a man who, along with Paul, found a body as he walked to work and immediately sought to alert a policeman. No "tilting" required.

[Elamarna]

Hi Fisherman,

What road construction work?

Regards,

Simon

Simon, Christer is talking about roadworks during filming. Which apparently ment the CGI, was unable to saw Paul walking on the correct side of the road.

Steve

[Elamarna]

So I just listened to the podcast about Steves book. I cannot say that I found it very good. It sets out with Jonathan Menges stating that both Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen and this is something that we cannot conclude - although there are those who claim we can. Regardless, it makes for a one-eyed presentation of the facts, and that was never a good thing. If both carmen spoke to Mizen and heard all of what was said, we get a very different case, and as long as we don't know what applies, I would recommend a less tilted version. In the light of how I am often accused of tilting the story myself, one would think that such things would not pass on a podcast.

It has been promised that we would get to know why Mizen was the liar and not Lechmere, but once the revelation is made, Jon Menges actually disagrees with Steve about the matter. Steve wants to take the policemen assertion that they had not seen anybody to leave the spot so as to attract attention as evidence that Mizen withheld his knowledge about the carmen. Menges disagrees, and so do I. Menges points out that the carmen could not leave the spot so as to attract Mizens attention as they were not AT the spot at that stage, which is perfectly true. I would also say that since Mizen had arrived at the murder spot and found Neil there, then if Mizen was told by Lechmere that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row, he would expect Neil to be the one to report any odd behavior on behalf of the carmen at the murder site. To me, it is perfectly logical that Mizen answers the question, put as it were, with a "no".

Steve then gets the opportunity to attack the documentary and chooses a few matters to do so:

He points out that the docu has Lechmere crouching over the body of Nichols. What one needs to realize is that the documentary works from the idea that Lechmere actually killed Nichols, and in order to do so, he must have crouched over her body at some stage. Attacking that depiction is attacking the sheer idea that Lechmere could be the killer, and that is not a wise thing to do. Colored figures are used to depict the persons and it should be perfectly obvious that they are suggesting a scenario that is entirely necessary for the concept of the documentary to work.
I have often said myself that if Lechmere killed Nichols and bluffed it out, he would not begin by leaning in over her body as Paul arrived, he would instead take some steps away from the body so that he could say "Oh look, isn't that a woman lying there? Let's go check her out, shall we?"

Steve also says that the police beats are represented as if there were policeman swarming over the place all the time. He correctly points out that the beats took half an hour to do. What he forgets to say is that the narrator actually ALSO points this out. He says that the PC:s passed every half hour. My take on things is that the filmmakers did not want to make the graphical representation one where the dots representing the beats took half an hour to appear on the screen. They probably gathered that such a thing would bore and deter the spectators.

A meal is made of how Paul, in the guise of Andy Griffiths, crosses the street in a manner that is not consistent with the facts. Nothing, however, is said about how the road construction work did not allow for doing it factually correct, and even less is said about how that particular detail is in all probability of no consequence at all.

Steve says that it is said that there was a nine minute gap and that there is no further discussion about that gap. Which there is. It is shown how the maths were done, and it is laid out that IF these maths are correct, THEN there is a nine minute gap.

Steve then goes on to add all of these wisdoms up by saying that the docu is "cheating" people. And yes, SOMEBODY is being cheated, but that somebody seems to be Mr Blomer cheating himself.

Jon Menges then grasps the opportunity to deliver what he seemingly thinks is the decisive blow against the Lechmere theory - Paul was not asked about the Mizen scam, and so the police must have cleared that up before Pauls appearance at the inquest.
What I think is important to keep in mind here is that we have 125 years of people not recognizing the potential of the conversation between Mizen and Lechmere. Nobody has ever pointed it out as potentially being part of the solution to the Ripper crimes before I did so. It has been looked upon as some uncontroversial misunderstanding of minuscule importance. What's to say that the police did not think the same? We have no evidence at all that the press reacted to it, and they would have had time to point it out before it was supposedly discussed and cleared up by the police. But no such luck!
Also, any such interest in the disagreement, based on the conception that Lechmere could perhaps have had something to hide, should undoubtedly have resulted in him being raked over the flames.
Where is the evidence that this ever happened? What police bigwig recognizes this in his memoirs, telling us about the carman they believed was a liar until it was all cleared up? And if they delved into the life of the carman - why is it that they call him Cross when we know that the police would likely give BOTH names, Cross AND Lechmere - if they knew about them?

One of the indicators Menges uses to ensure himself of Lechmeres innocence is that Paul was never asked about when he first saw "Cross". Really? He says that he met no-one until he met Cross and he says that as he arrived outside Brown´s, he noticed his fellow carman. "He had not met any one before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away." (Times, Sept 18 1888).

No, it was not a good podcast. Not if you are interested in the actual facts. But if you dislike the Lechmere theory, then I can understand why some take a fancy to it.

Of course, if somebody wants to present the case in a way that tilts the facts in a "Lechmere must have been innocent" fashion, then they are free to do so.

Luckily, I am equally free to point pout when and where it goes awry.

As for Paul not being asked when he first saw Lechmere, he wasn't, Jonathan is correct, he is aked if he saw anyone else.
He does not say at what point or distance he became aware of Lechmere, only that he saw him in Bucks Row.
Talk about misleading, you just can't help it can you Christer.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Construction work. Part of the road was fenced of.

Which of course stops the CGI from portraying the truth.

And it's such a small point in my view on the documentary, which I many respects I am complimentary on in the book.
But you wouldn't know that.

Steve