Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Elamarna]

Nothing new I see Christer, the same tedious points made several weeks ago, they were rebutted then, and I will rebut them again, and show that this is all about interpretation not fact.

What a long post! I notice that you say "Sorry we do not agree that Mizen had no light showing when he reached Whites Row". But I never mentioned Whites Row at all. Are you now saying that Mizen LEFT Bakers Row with his light off and entered Whites Row with it on? Because it is becoming a tad confusing, so there is need for you to be exact about this.

The position I suggest Neil saw Mizen is at the junction of Whites Row and Bakers Row, not sure why you have an issue with this.

I also note that you say something else that I have not commented on. You say it is untrue that there were errors in the podcast, but I didn't go into that topic in my last post. You yourself pointed out that you had made an error, so I thought it was kind of unnecessary to further point it out. But now that you mention it:

1. Suggesting that Tomkins may have been the witness at the inquest due to the slaughtermen agreeing amongst themselves or Tomkins pushing himself forward shows a lack of knowledge of how witnesses were summoned to an inquest - at the coroner's discretion. He would have interviews taken from all three from which to choose. So we know it was the coroner's choice. Error.

I asked several questions in the podcast, as to why ONLY Tomkins appeared at the inquest? Did the Police pick him? Did the other two select him? Did he push himself forward?
I actually gave no answer and said we do not know why Only Tomkins gave evidence.

What we do know, is that at the close of the 1st day of the inquest Baxter said he wished to see the slaughtermen, and Abberline said two had been summoned.
We still do not know why only one was called. There was NO Error.

You are attempting to portray questions as Errors.

2. You mixed Lechmere's testimony up with Mizen's testimony of his account of the Mizen Scam. You mixed up who said what. Error.

Would you care to point out what I said which you claim is incorrect? I am not aware of any such slip.

3. You said there were less papers available for the Nichols case than any other, which was not true, it was the same as for Stride and Chapman. Error.

The press reports were less than in the following cases, the volume of material appears to be substantially less. Which was my point, there is No Error.

4. You said there were only press reports to use but there are also police files. Error.

I made it clear I was talking about the inquest, the beats and the wounds, I referred to police files at other points in the podcast. There is NO Error.

5. You claimed that the police beats are known for the H Division. But the maps you used relate to the 1930:s and not the 1880:s. Error.

What I said was that we have no official records at all for J division beats, but that there are some surviving official records for H division, that they are from a later date was not the issue. It is Not an Error.

6. You seemingly thought Sergeant Kirby had a beat - the interviewer said this twice and you didn't correct it. Instead you said that we have "no idea" about it when Menges said that we did not know the beat Kirby had. Error.

This has been rebutted so many times, and you are just not listening
Jonathan used the word "rounds" twice when specifically referring to Kirby, and "beat" once for Kirby as well. Additionally, he used "beats" when referring to both Neil and Kirby. I simply did not pick up on the word "beat" in alive recording. It was a mistake by Jonathan, which he acknowledged. People were well aware of what Jonathan meant, nitpicking does not even begin to address this.
There was No Error on my part.

7. You claimed that Mulshaw was probably asleep when Mulshaw said he thought he was awake. Error. The evidence is replaced with pure invention.

Not so Christer, the evidence is that Mulshaw admitted he slept at times, he was unsure if he was awake between 3-4, that is what "i dont think so" means.
In addition, he appears not to see the slaughtermen pass on their way to the murder. the evidence is clearly open to interpretation. There is No Error.

8. You ignored the police orders which outlawed payment for knocking up. Mizen admitted knocking up and wasn't punished so he will not having been charging any money for it illegally. Error. And an error that is in line with the bullseye lamp business implicating Mizen as a rotten egg.

What I said is that the police "sometimes got paid", that is an indisputable fact.
The source quoted by Mr Stow, is the same i quote in the book. Agreed they were no meant to be paid, but records show that some were caught doing so and disciplined.
The fact it was banned does not mean it did not occur. There is No Error.

The fact that someone is not punished for rule breaking simply means they have not been caught, not that they have not done it.

9. You got mixed up between Paul's newspaper interview and his witness testimony. Error.

Which I have acknowledged several Times, it was in a separate podcast, question and answer section. I made a simple mistake.

10. You got the date of the Echo article about police beats wrong, claiming it was on the 20:th of September when instead it was on the 21:st. Error.

A slip of the tongue, which I was aware had occurred in some posts, but was not aware of in the podcast until I listen to it again. We all make minor mistakes, the book correctly says the 21st

11. You claimed that Abberline was brought in because J Division was out of its depth. Error. The material shows that this was not true.

The material certainly does not show that at all, it gives no indication of why he was sent by Scotland yard. I speculate that is what may have occurred. It may not be reason, but such is Not an Error.

12. You claimed that Lechmere only told Mizen that the woman was unwell, adding "shall we say". Error. We don't know this.

Lechmere said he told Mizen that Nichols was either dead or dead drunk, that suggests unwell. As you say we do not KNOW this, its interpretation, Not a factual Error.

For a man who speaks of "half-truths" in the Lechmere theory, this is anything but a flattering list. But you may "interpret" that differently? That would be another error if so.

It does not matter that Neil said that he saw Mizen in Bakers Row, because it is impossible to do in the darkness. If Mizen had his light on, then he was en route to Bucks Row, if he did not, he would not have been able to see.

Its not impossible, that is simply your opinion. That he would have had his light on ONLY if he was going to Bucks row, is speculation, does that make that an error too?

You are welcome to the publicity, as always!

What is clear from your list is that the vast majority of the Errors are no such thing, it is simply that you do not agree with the interpretation.

[drstrange169]

Just to be clear, I don't know what the bullseye lantern situation was as per the force in general, which is why I asked. What's now also clear is you don't know either, despite your claiming you do.

You claim the bullseye was too hot to handle and then you post a link to a site showing that the lights were handled!

You give two incidents that have totally different circumstances, but you don't mention the actual evidence from that night.

Did Neil say he turned on his light?

No, he didn't.

So we know at least one policeman was patrolling with his light on. And, according to you, Mizen had his light on as he walked up towards Mizen.

Two policemen (the two relevant policeman) appear to have been walking with their lights on, so why are we even debating this?

[Fisherman]

Just to be clear, I don't know what the bullseye lantern situation was as per the force in general, which is why I asked. What's now also clear is you don't know either, despite your claiming you do.

You claim the bullseye was too hot to handle and then you post a link to a site showing that the lights were handled!

What a sad thing to say. Yes, it was handled, but it would nevertheless be an advantage to have it in the belt, because that would keep your hands away from then hot parts of it. It is described by many as becoming hot while lit, and may will have burnt themselves on it in spite of the handles. So don't even try to make out as if I was not aware of the handles, please.

You give two incidents that have totally different circumstances, but you don't mention the actual evidence from that night.

In one example we have lamb turning on his light when looking at Stride, meaning that he had the lamp turned OFF in Berner Street. In the other we have Thompson turning on his light when looking at Coles, meaning he had it OFF before. That amounts to two PC:s who both turned their lights on to be able to better see the people they wanted to look at. If you want to speak of "totally differen circumstances", be my guest. Most of the rest of us are literate and able to judge things ourselves.

Did Neil say he turned on his light?

No, he didn't.

So we know at least one policeman was patrolling with his light on.

Did he say that he didn't have to turn it on because it already WAS? One really needs to be able to see how the language works before one tries to be clever.

And, according to you, Mizen had his light on as he walked up towards Mizen.

Actually, that is not something that must have been the case, and even if it was, we can see that he was NOT on ordinary patrol - he was looking for Nichols. So NOW we have "totally different circumstances" - THAT is how they look.
There is of course the possibility that he only exposed the light when answering Neil, and that he had kept it hidden before, and I for one will not rule out that possibility.

Two policemen (the two relevant policeman) appear to have been walking with their lights on, so why are we even debating this?

Because you are making baseless assumptions and/or confusing regular beat walking with looking for a body, and because I am not willing to let that pass unremarked upon, of course.

That's why.

[Fisherman]

Nothing new I see Christer, the same tedious points made several weeks ago, they were rebutted then, and I will rebut them again, and show that this is all about interpretation not fact.





The position I suggest Neil saw Mizen is at the junction of Whites Row and Bakers Row, not sure why you have an issue with this.





I asked several questions in the podcast, as to why ONLY Tomkins appeared at the inquest? Did the Police pick him? Did the other two select him? Did he push himself forward?
I actually gave no answer and said we do not know why Only Tomkins gave evidence.

What we do know, is that at the close of the 1st day of the inquest Baxter said he wished to see the slaughtermen, and Abberline said two had been summoned.
We still do not know why only one was called. There was NO Error.

You are attempting to portray questions as Errors.



Would you care to point out what I said which you claim is incorrect? I am not aware of any such slip.



The press reports were less than in the following cases, the volume of material appears to be substantially less. Which was my point, there is No Error.




I made it clear I was talking about the inquest, the beats and the wounds, I referred to police files at other points in the podcast. There is NO Error.



What I said was that we have no official records at all for J division beats, but that there are some surviving official records for H division, that they are from a later date was not the issue. It is Not an Error.





This has been rebutted so many times, and you are just not listening
Jonathan used the word "rounds" twice when specifically referring to Kirby, and "beat" once for Kirby as well. Additionally, he used "beats" when referring to both Neil and Kirby. I simply did not pick up on the word "beat" in alive recording. It was a mistake by Jonathan, which he acknowledged. People were well aware of what Jonathan meant, nitpicking does not even begin to address this.
There was No Error on my part.




Not so Christer, the evidence is that Mulshaw admitted he slept at times, he was unsure if he was awake between 3-4, that is what "i dont think so" means.
In addition, he appears not to see the slaughtermen pass on their way to the murder. the evidence is clearly open to interpretation. There is No Error.



What I said is that the police "sometimes got paid", that is an indisputable fact.
The source quoted by Mr Stow, is the same i quote in the book. Agreed they were no meant to be paid, but records show that some were caught doing so and disciplined.
The fact it was banned does not mean it did not occur. There is No Error.

The fact that someone is not punished for rule breaking simply means they have not been caught, not that they have not done it.




Which I have acknowledged several Times, it was in a separate podcast, question and answer section. I made a simple mistake.




A slip of the tongue, which I was aware had occurred in some posts, but was not aware of in the podcast until I listen to it again. We all make minor mistakes, the book correctly says the 21st




The material certainly does not show that at all, it gives no indication of why he was sent by Scotland yard. I speculate that is what may have occurred. It may not be reason, but such is Not an Error.



Lechmere said he told Mizen that Nichols was either dead or dead drunk, that suggests unwell. As you say we do not KNOW this, its interpretation, Not a factual Error.







Its not impossible, that is simply your opinion. That he would have had his light on ONLY if he was going to Bucks row, is speculation, does that make that an error too?



What is clear from your list is that the vast majority of the Errors are no such thing, it is simply that you do not agree with the interpretation.

I can only see wringing and squirming here, so I will not spend much time on it. If one thinks it is not an error to say that there are beat maps existing for a police division when these maps are half a century removed from the period of time we are looking at, then I can only feel sorry for the ones who listened to the podcast and were mislead by it in this respect. Of course it is an error, because nobody who listens are going to think that the maps you referred to were NOT viable evidence.

Frankly, I think it is sad when you do things like these, because I think the audience are entitled to an admittance and an apology for having been led to think that these beat maps are in existence, and that you have been able to draw viable conclusions on basis of them.

Would you have said the same if you -theoretically - knew the maps were from 2012? Of course - you would of course feel the need to say that we have access to the H division maps, so we are on safer grounds in that case than when it comes to J division? Or?

I am not saying that you Madde the error of not knowing that the maps were not admissible as 1888 evidence. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. I am saying that it was an error to mention them AS IF they were admissible evidence and a grave error not to qualify what they were - if you indeed were aware of it.

I note that you seemingly admit to one error ( the Echo report), at any rate, and since it is like freeing blood out of a stone, that's a remarkable thing. But you feel you must tel us that it was a "slip of the tongue", as if you MEANT to give the right date, but it came out wrong. If that was what happened, why did you not correct it?

Last, but not least:

"The position I suggest Neil saw Mizen is at the junction of Whites Row and Bakers Row, not sure why you have an issue with this."

I want to know whether you still stand by what you said, that it was of course the case that PC:s did their beats with the light of their lamps hidden, or if you are now going to make an exception for Mizen. That is why I am asking.

[drstrange169]

I also don't know whether Mizen was "passing along Baker's Row" or walking towards Mizen, as I've ready said.

To me it doesn't matter, as both are potentially very damning to Mizen.



Scenario :1.

Mizen walked past the entrance to Whites Row.

Given his encounter with Cross and Paul, it is a given that he would have looked up towards Bucks Row. He may have even walked to the middle of the crossing to get the clearest view up the street.

Also, given that Neil had already sent Thain for the doctor and Kirby had already been through, it is logical that Neil would keep an eye towards Baker's Row as the only likely place to see another policeman.

If he saw Mizen from in front of Essex Wharf, then his window of opportunity, time wise, was very brief, although we can't rule out Mizen standing in the middle of the junction looking for something.

What we do not know, is where Neil was when he saw Mizen. Neil stated he searched the area whilst waiting for the doctor, so he could have been anywhere. If he ventured down towards the Board School, his view would increase with each step.

So to sum up, to see Mizen "pass along Baker's Row" is problematic, but categorically NOT impossible.


Scenario :2.

Mizen was walking towards Neil when Neil saw him.

First problem we have is modern researchers claiming to be more knowledge about Baker's/ Bucks Row than PC Neil.

I don't know how many hours, days, weeks, years Neil walked around his beat, but I do know he would have know every door, every window, every dark spot, every piece of rubbish, in short, EVERYTHING about his beat.

The idea that he wouldn't know where Baker's Row was and how easy or difficult or easy the view was, is patently silly. This man was, in every sense, an expert on the area.

We know that Neil wasn't a cadet, he had years of experience behind him, so it is very unlikely that he panicked.

So, when Neil said he saw Mizen "pass along Baker"s Row" there is a very good change that Neil knew what he was saying.

The next problem is that phrase "pass along". If Mizen was walking towards Neil why did Neil say Mizen was going from north to south?

If Neil saw Mizen walking towards him, then his first question would have been, why is a H division Bobby on J division's patch? Neil never asked that.

Then we have the biggest problem for Mizen. If he truly was told he was wanted by a policeman, why did he have his light on?

He would only need a light if Cross and Paul's version were true, that being, there was a body somewhere in Buck's Row, ergo he would be walking up shining his light left and right looking for a woman on the ground.

If he really believed there was a policeman already there, he needed no light, the policeman would be obvious and as coincidence would have it that is exactly what Mizen said, namely that he saw a policeman shining his light.

[drstrange169]

>> THAT"S WHY<<

I repeat,

... we know at least one policeman was patrolling with his light on. And, according to you, Mizen had his light on as he walked up towards Mizen.

Two policemen (the two relevant policeman) appear to have been walking with their lights on, so why are we even debating this?

[Fisherman]

>> THAT"S WHY<<

I repeat,

... we know at least one policeman was patrolling with his light on. And, according to you, Mizen had his light on as he walked up towards Mizen.

Two policemen (the two relevant policeman) appear to have been walking with their lights on, so why are we even debating this?

No, we of course do not know that Neil patrolled with his light on. We only know that it was on as he examined Nichols. We have no idea whatsoever whether that was due to him always patrolling with his light on or whether he had turned it on when noticing Nichols. Well, we DO have SOME idea, since we know how Lamb and Thompson did it, but if we look at Neil in isolation, it is a case of us not knowing.

[Fisherman]

I also don't know whether Mizen was "passing along Baker's Row" or walking towards Mizen, as I've ready said.

I know that you don't know.

To me it doesn't matter, as both are potentially very damning to Mizen.

Really? The fantasy people have these days!

Scenario :1.

Mizen walked past the entrance to Whites Row.

Given his encounter with Cross and Paul, it is a given that he would have looked up towards Bucks Row.

No, but it is probable.

He may have even walked to the middle of the crossing to get the clearest view up the street.

He would have the clearest view towards the murder site (which would nevertheless be out of his view) from the south side of the junction. And I thought you implies it was a given that he would look towards that site?

Also, given that Neil had already sent Thain for the doctor and Kirby had already been through, it is logical that Neil would keep an eye towards Baker's Row as the only likely place to see another policeman.

Likely enough for such a man to pass in two seconds every half hour, yes.

If he saw Mizen from in front of Essex Wharf, then his window of opportunity, time wise, was very brief, although we can't rule out Mizen standing in the middle of the junction looking for something.

We cannot even rule out that he sneaked down Bucks Row, his lamp shut, and staked out the murder site. Its all a question of how much fantasy we want to add.

What we do not know, is where Neil was when he saw Mizen. Neil stated he searched the area whilst waiting for the doctor, so he could have been anywhere. If he ventured down towards the Board School, his view would increase with each step.

Mmm. If he went halfway up Whites Row, it would become even better.

So to sum up, to see Mizen "pass along Baker's Row" is problematic, but categorically NOT impossible.

Actually, if he did not have his lamp on, it WOULD be impossible to see him from 200 yards plus away in darkness, as gleaned by how Lechmere and Paul did not see each other from 40 yards away. But depending on different circumstances, it cannot be categorically ruled out, no.


Scenario :2.

Mizen was walking towards Neil when Neil saw him.

First problem we have is modern researchers claiming to be more knowledge about Baker's/ Bucks Row than PC Neil.

I donat see anybody claiming that. We cannot possibly know what level of knowledge Neil had. But it is fair to suggest that he may not have been aware of the exact options of sight offered by the scene.

I don't know how many hours, days, weeks, years Neil walked around his beat, but I do know he would have know every door, every window, every dark spot, every piece of rubbish, in short, EVERYTHING about his beat.

Exactly, yo do not know how familiar Neil was with the beat, since you do not know how long he had walked it. Agreed.

The idea that he wouldn't know where Baker's Row was and how easy or difficult or easy the view was, is patently silly. This man was, in every sense, an expert on the area.

Even if had walked it for a short period only? You see, if I cannot say how expert Neil was, it actually applies that you cannot either. It works both ways, believe it or not.

We know that Neil wasn't a cadet, he had years of experience behind him, so it is very unlikely that he panicked.

Who says he did? What Edward expressed was that his pulse would start pounding, and I agree. That's not panicking, it is more like getting tunnel vision. Which he may or may not have.

So, when Neil said he saw Mizen "pass along Baker"s Row" there is a very good change that Neil knew what he was saying.

No, there is not. The very obvious inference is that he THOUGHT that Mizen was in Bakers Row because he KNEW that Mizen did not enter Bucks Row/Whites Row on his beat. And it is impossible to see dark people in dark streets 200 yards away. So no, there was never any "very good chance" that this was correct. There is a near certainty that it was not, in fact.

The next problem is that phrase "pass along". If Mizen was walking towards Neil why did Neil say Mizen was going from north to south?

Because he knew that Mizen would pass the junction like that, and so he surmised that this was what he saw. He could not make it out in the darkness. A possible explanation if he DID see a movement from north to south could be that he saw Mizen signaling him. You move your lamp from left to right when signaling, and that would have been north to south to Neil. So Neil may (a suggestion, not a certainty) have seen the light moving in that direction and thought that it was Mizen up at Bakers Row. of course that would involve an illogical showing of light on Mizens behalf, but the possibility is there.

If Neil saw Mizen walking towards him, then his first question would have been, why is a H division Bobby on J division's patch? Neil never asked that.

Of course he did not. He believed that Mizen was there in answer to his own signaling him down. He signaled Mizen down! Would he then ask "What are you doing here?" You may need to rethink that one.

Then we have the biggest problem for Mizen. If he truly was told he was wanted by a policeman, why did he have his light on?

He answered Neils signaling. That is hard in the extreme to do with a dark lantern.

He would only need a light if Cross and Paul's version were true, that being, there was a body somewhere in Buck's Row, ergo he would be walking up shining his light left and right looking for a woman on the ground.

Eh - no. He would open up for the light in order to be able to answer Neils signal.

If he really believed there was a policeman already there, he needed no light, the policeman would be obvious and as coincidence would have it that is exactly what Mizen said, namely that he saw a policeman shining his light.

If that PC signaled him with his lantern, he would be obliged to answer the signal. How that is damning for the poor man, I do not know.

[drstrange169]

But according to you, (Post #302 "I myself am convinced that Mizen DID have his light showing as Neil saw him.") Mizen already had his light on and according to Neil, Mizen was going from north to south.

Damning indeed.

[Elamarna]

I can only see wringing and squirming here, so I will not spend much time on it. If one thinks it is not an error to say that there are beat maps existing for a police division when these maps are half a century removed from the period of time we are looking at, then I can only feel sorry for the ones who listened to the podcast and were mislead by it in this respect. Of course it is an error, because nobody who listens are going to think that the maps you referred to were NOT viable evidence.

Frankly, I think it is sad when you do things like these, because I think the audience are entitled to an admittance and an apology for having been led to think that these beat maps are in existence, and that you have been able to draw viable conclusions on basis of them.


Would you have said the same if you -theoretically - knew the maps were from 2012? Of course - you would of course feel the need to say that we have access to the H division maps, so we are on safer grounds in that case than when it comes to J division? Or?

I am not saying that you Madde the error of not knowing that the maps were not admissible as 1888 evidence. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. I am saying that it was an error to mention them AS IF they were admissible evidence and a grave error not to qualify what they were - if you indeed were aware of it.

Avoiding the point that was made in the podcast, that there are NO RECORDS at all for the Beats in J division, while some survive for H. it was not a mistake to mention them at all.
The point about 2012 is truly ludicrous.

I note that you seemingly admit to one error ( the Echo report), at any rate, and since it is like freeing blood out of a stone, that's a remarkable thing. But you feel you must tel us that it was a "slip of the tongue", as if you MEANT to give the right date, but it came out wrong. If that was what happened, why did you not correct it?

When exactly was I meant to correct it? I was not aware I had inadvertently given the incorrect date. The podcast is not played back to the interviewee, there was no chance to correct it.

Last, but not least:

"The position I suggest Neil saw Mizen is at the junction of Whites Row and Bakers Row, not sure why you have an issue with this."

I want to know whether you still stand by what you said, that it was of course the case that PC:s did their beats with the light of their lamps hidden, or if you are now going to make an exception for Mizen. That is why I am asking.

I have said very clearly he would open his lamp when he wanted or needed to. Hence, it must be clear the suggestion is that he decided to open his lamp when he reached the junction. Mizen's possible actions on reaching the junction are all discussed in the book you have not read, and were not mentioned at all in the podcast.


You have not provided the example of me Mixing Lechmere and Mizen up? i have listened to the podcast several times and have not found this "error" so I would be grateful for your help, on this matter.


This rather pathetic response which is post #319 avoids dealing with any of the responses given to tediously repetitive post #315.
I repeat most of what you term as Errors are in fact disagreements over interpretation, nothing else.


Steve

[Fisherman]

But according to you, (Post #302 "I myself am convinced that Mizen DID have his light showing as Neil saw him.") Mizen already had his light on and according to Neil, Mizen was going from north to south.

Damning indeed.

This is becoming bizarre. Yes, I am convinced that Mizen had his lamp on as Neil saw him.
Equally, I am convinced that Neil only saw him long after he had exited Bakers Row.
Equally, I am convinced that Mizen answered Neils signaling - something he could not have done had he not had his light turned on.

I kind of sympathize with the problem you are having trying to make it look as if Neil and Mizen paraded their beats with their lights turned on. However, just because it says that Neil shone his lamplight on Nichols, that does not mean that he had had his lamp on when walking his beat. That assumption on your behalf is perhaps the most bizarre matter of them all. So why don't we put the suggestion to sleep?

From the 19:th of September police report, signed by Swanson, Abberline and Shore:

"Neil had found the woman, and was calling for assistance. P C Neil had turned on his light and discovered that the woman throat was severely cut."

So once again, we have a PC that arrives at a spot where he needs to examine a woman, and he turns his light on. And this time over, there is no case to be made for him having walked a well lit street, is there? No, Bucks Row was very dark, and Neil nevertheless did not patrol with his light on. He only turned it on when noticing Nichols.

Very far from knowing that he patrolled with his light on as you claimed - with no evidence whatsoever to back it up - we now have Swanson, Abberline and Shore telling us the polar opposite. Unless you want to claim that he had turned his light on as he commenced his beat? Nothing surprises me anymore, and it would be par for the course so by all means, try it and see how it goes down and what it will do for your, ehrm, credibility.

So we now have it even more sorted than before: Mizen would reasonably not have had his light on if he was walking his beat with no intention to go down Bucks Row. And that is because it is clear from our three examples that PC:s patrolled their beats with the light off.
And Neil would not have been able to see him up at the Bakers Row junction if he didn't have his light turned on. Conversely, if he DID have his light on when turning into Whites Row, then that would have been because he was en route to Bucks Row - just as he said at the inquest.

Ergo, Mizen was not lying about this at the inquest, he was telling the truth.

[Fisherman]

Avoiding the point that was made in the podcast, that there are NO RECORDS at all for the Beats in J division, while some survive for H. it was not a mistake to mention them at all.
The point about 2012 is truly ludicrous.

No, because it reveals that you made an error, thinking that people will let it pass because it is just an error of half a century. Not a soul will think that you are speaking of the overall survival rate of the beat maps. And indeed, why would they...?


When exactly was I meant to correct it? I was not aware I had inadvertently given the incorrect date. The podcast is not played back to the interviewee, there was no chance to correct it.

Ah, you were not aware of it? I thought you said it was a slip of the tongue? Which in my world means that we know the correct answer but we just happen to give the wrong answer instead. In such cases, we can say "No, sorry, I mean the 21:st, not the 20:th". If we are not aware that we have made a mistake, then how can it not be an error? Because it is in the book?


I have said very clearly he would open his lamp when he wanted or needed to. Hence, it must be clear the suggestion is that he decided to open his lamp when he reached the junction. Mizen's possible actions on reaching the junction are all discussed in the book you have not read, and were not mentioned at all in the podcast.

And why do you think he felt an urge to open his lamp at the junction if he intended to just keep on walking his normal beat? When do you think he would have obscured the light? After having passed the junction?


You have not provided the example of me Mixing Lechmere and Mizen up? i have listened to the podcast several times and have not found this "error" so I would be grateful for your help, on this matter.

In the podcast you say "They didn’t tell him the woman was dead they only said she appeared to be unwell shall we say."
Actually, it was MIZEN who claimed that they never spoke of death, while Lechmere very clearly claimed that the message forwarded to Neil claimed that the woman was dead or drunk.


This rather pathetic response which is post #319 avoids dealing with any of the responses given to tediously repetitive post #315.
I repeat most of what you term as Errors are in fact disagreements over interpretation, nothing else.


Steve

You really should not do so, because it is not true. Take for example Abberline, where you claim that he was only brought in to the investigation because the Yard was out of their depth. Edward Stow made it very clear on JTR that Abberline was sent on day one, and accordingly not as any result of the Yard not being able to cope with the case. Of course, they proved themselves unfit to do so in some ways further down the line, but that apparently had nothing to do with Abberline being called in.

You also claimed that there are only paper reports to go on in the Nichols case, whereas there are actually also police files. Obviously, that is simply erroneous.

Likewise claiming that there are less paper reports available for the Nichols case than for any other case is untrue - since it is on par with the Stride and Chapman cases.

So it would seem that I am not the "pathetic" one. Some errors you have admitted to already, and denying obvious other ones will do you no favors at all.

Unless, of course, this debate sells a copy or two of your book. You cannot fault me for not trying!

[Elamarna]

Avoiding the point that was made in the podcast, that there are NO RECORDS at all for the Beats in J division, while some survive for H. it was not a mistake to mention them at all.
The point about 2012 is truly ludicrous.

No, because it reveals that you made an error, thinking that people will let it pass because it is just an error of half a century. Not a soul will think that you are speaking of the overall survival rate of the beat maps. And indeed, why would they...?

There was No Error. It seems you have a problem over the definition of that word.

When exactly was I meant to correct it? I was not aware I had inadvertently given the incorrect date. The podcast is not played back to the interviewee, there was no chance to correct it.

Ah, you were not aware of it? I thought you said it was a slip of the tongue? Which in my world means that we know the correct answer but we just happen to give the wrong answer instead. In such cases, we can say "No, sorry, I mean the 21:st, not the 20:th". If we are not aware that we have made a mistake, then how can it not be an error? Because it is in the book?

A very poor interpretation of my comment!
In saying, I was not aware, I was not aware that I had given the edition of 20th rather than the 21st. There was therefore no chance to correct it. If the recording had been played back, the mistake would have been picked up.
I have admitted it was a mistake in the podcast in the last post.
One of Two mistakes, one in a separate podcast, with its own thread.

I have said very clearly he would open his lamp when he wanted or needed to. Hence, it must be clear the suggestion is that he decided to open his lamp when he reached the junction. Mizen's possible actions on reaching the junction are all discussed in the book you have not read, and were not mentioned at all in the podcast.

And why do you think he felt an urge to open his lamp at the junction if he intended to just keep on walking his normal beat? When do you think he would have obscured the light? After having passed the junction?

Now you wish me to discuss the book, which you claim over and over this debate is not about.
All that the sources actually tell us, is that Neil signalled and that he saw Mizen in Bakers Row, apparently going down it.

In answer to your question, I suggest Mizen opened the lamp as he approached the junction, he then responded to Neil's lamp, it is therefore folly to speculate on what he may or may not have done, if he had not done so.

You have not provided the example of me Mixing Lechmere and Mizen up? i have listened to the podcast several times and have not found this "error" so I would be grateful for your help, on this matter.

'
In the podcast you say "They didn’t tell him the woman was dead they only said she appeared to be unwell shall we say."
Actually, it was MIZEN who claimed that they never spoke of death, while Lechmere very clearly claimed that the message forwarded to Neil claimed that the woman was dead or drunk.

They clearly did not know if she was dead or drunk, so my paraphrasing is perfectly acceptable. There is no mixing of the comments. a truly pathetic attempt to justify the claim.

This rather pathetic response which is post #319 avoids dealing with any of the responses given to tediously repetitive post #315.
I repeat most of what you term as Errors are in fact disagreements over interpretation, nothing else.


Steve



You really should not do so, because it is not true. Take for example Abberline, where you claim that he was only brought in to the investigation because the Yard was out of their depth. Edward Stow made it very clear on JTR that Abberline was sent on day one, and accordingly not as any result of the Yard not being able to cope with the case. Of course, they proved themselves unfit to do so in some ways further down the line, but that apparently had nothing to do with Abberline being called in.

That is Mr stows opinion, the reasons for Abberline being sent are certainly not clear, or documented. my opinion is different working from the same facts. There is no factual Error, it is interpretation pure and simple.

You also claimed that there are only paper reports to go on in the Nichols case, whereas there are actually also police files. Obviously, that is simply erroneous.

I have commented on this at least 3 times, that you chose to ignore such is your choice.

To repeat from my previous post:

"I made it clear I was talking about the inquest, the beats and the wounds, I referred to police files at other points in the podcast. There is NO Error."

Likewise claiming that there are less paper reports available for the Nichols case than for any other case is untrue - since it is on par with the Stride and Chapman cases.

I obviously disagree.

So it would seem that I am not the "pathetic" one. Some errors you have admitted to already, and denying obvious other ones will do you no favors at all.

Unless, of course, this debate sells a copy or two of your book. You cannot fault me for not trying!

It is very clear there is a failure to understand the difference between Factual errors, getting a date or report wrong, and a difference in interpretation of the facts.

What we have witnessed on this thread is a desperate attempt to discredit a work, apparently out of concern that it may damage a theory, unsurprisingly it has failed miserably.


Steve

[Fisherman]

I will pick just the parts I find interesting, and leave the rest since it is not very productive.


There was No Error. It seems you have a problem over the definition of that word.

Maybe we just "interpret" the word in different ways. It gave the listeners an erroneous picture of what kind of beat maps there are left, and to me, that IS an error.


[SIZE=14px]Now you wish me to discuss the book, which you claim over and over this debate is not about.
All that the sources actually tell us, is that Neil signalled and that he saw Mizen in Bakers Row, apparently going down it.

No, the sources do NOT tell us that Neil saw Mizen in Bakers Row. They tell us that Neil CLAIMED he saw Mizen there, but once we make a reality check, we can see that this is not likely.

In answer to your question, I suggest Mizen opened the lamp as he approached the junction, he then responded to Neil's lamp, it is therefore folly to speculate on what he may or may not have done, if he had not done so.

Okay. So if Mizen opened the lamp "as he approached the junction", would you not say that this clearly implicates that his intention was to go down to find the woman he had been told about?
It is interesting that an author who has speculated that Mizen was a liar finds other speculation a folly, I dare say.

They clearly did not know if she was dead or drunk, so my paraphrasing is perfectly acceptable. There is no mixing of the comments. a truly pathetic attempt to justify the claim.

Actually, no - you paraphrasing is not acceptable because it presents the picture Mizen gave of the matter as Lechmeres picture, while we know quite well that Lechmere said something entirely different - according to himself. These matters are at the very core of the Mizen scam, they are the corner stones of it and understanding them is of pivotal importance. If we cannot present them and the questions the rise in a clear and fair manner, we rob the listeners of the tools to make a correct evaluation of what was said.

That is Mr stows opinion, the reasons for Abberline being sent are certainly not clear, or documented. my opinion is different working from the same facts. There is no factual Error, it is interpretation pure and simple.

Then you presented your interpretation as fact, and since Abberline was brought into the case on day one, that interpretation is - at best - wobbly in the extreme. It would predispose those in command agreeing in day one that they were out of their depth, and I dare say that would border on the ridiculous (my interpretation, of course).

What we have witnessed on this thread is a desperate attempt to discredit a work, apparently out of concern that it may damage a theory, unsurprisingly it has failed miserably.

Steve

Another "interpretation" would be that we have witnessed an authors´ unwillingness to accept responsibility for errors made in a podcast and in the ensuing discussion on the boards. And surely, my interpretation is every bit as good as yours, is it not?

This is as far as we are going to get. I trust it is quite enough.

[Elamarna]

It would be nice if one day you would simply use the quote facility, it makes replying so much easier, but so be it.

Originally posted by Elamarna View Post


I will pick just the parts I find interesting, and leave the rest since it is not very productive.
There was No Error. It seems you have a problem over the definition of that word.

Maybe we just "interpret" the word in different ways. It gave the listeners an erroneous picture of what kind of beat maps there are left, and to me, that IS an error.

We certainly do have different interpretation of the word, the podcast gave a truthful picture that there are no official records of the beats for J division which was the issue being talked about. there was NO ERROR

[SIZE=14px]Now you wish me to discuss the book, which you claim over and over this debate is not about.
All that the sources actually tell us, is that Neil signalled and that he saw Mizen in Bakers Row, apparently going down it.

No, the sources do NOT tell us that Neil saw Mizen in Bakers Row. They tell us that Neil CLAIMED he saw Mizen there, but once we make a reality check, we can see that this is not likely.

Neil is very clear he says he SEES Mizen IN Bakers Row. There is no solid evidence to dispute that Neil was incorrect, other than "speculation" that it was unlikely.

The "reality check" as you refer to it is simply opinion, the science shows it is very possible.
Once again this is interpretation, not Error.

In answer to your question, I suggest Mizen opened the lamp as he approached the junction, he then responded to Neil's lamp, it is therefore folly to speculate on what he may or may not have done, if he had not done so.

Okay. So if Mizen opened the lamp "as he approached the junction", would you not say that this clearly implicates that his intention was to go down to find the woman he had been told about?
It is interesting that an author who has speculated that Mizen was a liar finds other speculation a folly, I dare say.

Not at all, he simply looked down Bucks Row, it appears he responded to Neil at that POINT.

The Suggestion (speculation) that Mizen had not intended to go down Bucks Row is supported by evidence, that you do not accept such is irrelevant to this question. To speculate on what he may have done after the event, would be itself based on pure speculation, not evidence, which does not exist.
Such speculation we know, is commonly used for the Lechmere theory.

They clearly did not know if she was dead or drunk, so my paraphrasing is perfectly acceptable. There is no mixing of the comments. a truly pathetic attempt to justify the claim.

Actually, no - you paraphrasing is not acceptable because it presents the picture Mizen gave of the matter as Lechmeres picture, while we know quite well that Lechmere said something entirely different - according to himself. These matters are at the very core of the Mizen scam, they are the corner stones of it and understanding them is of pivotal importance. If we cannot present them and the questions the rise in a clear and fair manner, we rob the listeners of the tools to make a correct evaluation of what was said.

I disagree, it presents the view that the Carmen believed there was a woman in need of attention in Bucks Row, but they were not sure of her actual condition. Again we see its interpretation, NOT an Error

That is Mr stows opinion, the reasons for Abberline being sent are certainly not clear, or documented. my opinion is different working from the same facts. There is no factual Error, it is interpretation pure and simple.

Then you presented your interpretation as fact, and since Abberline was brought into the case on day one, that interpretation is - at best - wobbly in the extreme. It would predispose those in command agreeing in day one that they were out of their depth, and I dare say that would border on the ridiculous (my interpretation, of course).

Yes thats your interpretation, not FACT. My interpretation may be wrong, as may yours be, that does not make either of them Errors

What we have witnessed on this thread is a desperate attempt to discredit a work, apparently out of concern that it may damage a theory, unsurprisingly it has failed miserably.



Another "interpretation" would be that we have witnessed an authors´ unwillingness to accept responsibility for errors made in a podcast and in the ensuing discussion on the boards. And surely, my interpretation is every bit as good as yours, is it not?

Once again it is clearly demonstrated by this very post, that these are not Errors, but differences in interpretation.

This is as far as we are going to get. I trust it is quite enough.

The transparent nature of these posts clear demonstrates the objection to the work is not based serious factual flaws, but a concern that the work may damage a theory.
The real concern of course, is that those objecting do not Know what the work actually proposes.