Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Fisherman]

Not so, I acknowledge that In the Whitechapel Society, question and answer section, which is actually a separate podcast, I misattributed a source.

From your response one assumes that there are NO ERRORS in the main podcast You ARE ABLE TO RAISE




My suggestion is based on Neil's inquest testimony, that you do not like that does not make it go away. It is not an Error





It's not an Error at all.
The suggestion is not born out of ignorance or a failure to check facts, Rather it is based on the facts, and as been extensively checked.






It is what Neil claims in his testimony, that you do not like it, does not make it go away. It is clearly NOT an Error




Sorry we do not agree that Mizen had no light showing when he reached Whites Row.
It would of course help if you provided the full quote giving my correct response on this, that being that he would expose his lamp as needed.

"To be fair one point, had not I think.been raised before, that being Mizen would not walk his beat with his lamp light exposed, such is of course very true.
However, I do not suggest he walked his beat with the lamp exposed at all times"


Again there is No Error





No it is NOT the only logical thing for Neil to surmise, Neil's Testimony gives the distinct impression that Mizen is going along Bakers Row, not coming towards him when Neil sees him. That you believe your view is the ONLY logical choice says much.
That you find it unlikely is your choice and right, it is however completely inline with Neil's Testimony, there is again NO Error




If one were to actually check, one would notice that the lamp is not in Neil's line of sight to Bakers Row, and from the proposed Position of Mizen looking back towards Neil, the light is not visible.
To compare a street light in1888 to a cars headlights is highly misleading.





Not so. all have been checked, of course it would help to read the book before making such inaccurate statements.





There is no reason to conclude Neil is mistaken, indeed I started from the position that he was, and my analysis showed there to be no factual or logical reason to believe this, thus I changed my view.
There is NO ERROR.






Christer there is no reason to say it's impossible, the facts demonstrate that it is clearly possible. In which case Neil's testimony will not go away, no matter how much you may wish it too.
No Error




I really care not for what you invest in my interpretation, it is for others who read the book to decide.





My side?

That really puts this "debate" into its true perspective, your "side" trying to defend its theory, from a book you have not read.






You have claimed, more than once that there were errors on the podcast, and in these posts, it is however clear that apart from one minor error on my part, in a separate podcast, that this claim is untrue.


Steve

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.

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.

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.
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.
4. You said there were only press reports to use but there are also police files. 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.
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.
7. You claimed that Mulshaw was probably asleep when Mulshaw said he thought he was awake. Error. The evidence is replaced with pure invention.
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.
9. You got mixed up between Paul's newspaper interview and his witness testimony. Error.
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.
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.
12. You claimed that Lechmere only told Mizen that the woman was unwell, adding "shall we say". Error. We don't know this.

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.

You are welcome to the publicity, as always!

[Elamarna]

Since you yourself admit to the podcast not being correct on all counts, there is no further call for pointing out this.

Not so, I acknowledge that In the Whitechapel Society, question and answer section, which is actually a separate podcast, I misattributed a source.

From your response one assumes that there are NO ERRORS in the main podcast You ARE ABLE TO RAISE

The real problem arises when you speak of "interpretations". Itīs all good and well if there are different interpretations of different matters, but when it comes to the case of the supposed sighting, where Neil would have seen Mizen up at the Bakers Row junction, it must be realized that no sound interpretation can lead to the suggestion you are making: that Jonas Mizen lied to the inquest when he claimed to have gone directly to Bucks Row.

My suggestion is based on Neil's inquest testimony, that you do not like that does not make it go away. It is not an Error

Your "interpretation" of the events is that he never did so, that he intended to walk right past Bucks Row and that he never had any plans to do his duty and seek out the woman mentioned by the carman.

I am not saying that this is an error per se, since I cannot prove it. But I Can point to how it is an idea born out of sheer ignorance and a left out check of the facts, and that is perhaps worse than an error.

It's not an Error at all.
The suggestion is not born out of ignorance or a failure to check facts, Rather it is based on the facts, and as been extensively checked.

We know that it was a dark night. We are aware that Paul only says he notices Lechmere as he arrives outside Browns. We also know that Lechmere says that he HEARS Paul from 30-40 yards away, and waits for him to emerge from the darkness. Ergo, neither man seems to have been able to make out the other person from a distance of 30-40 yards ot thereabouts.

Furthermore, Neil says that he heard Thain, and signaled him. So he did not SEE his colleague, a hundred yards away.

Nevertheless, you are proposing that Neil saw Mizen from two hundred yards plus. In darkness!

It is what Neil claims in his testimony, that you do not like it, does not make it go away. It is clearly NOT an Error

if Mizen had had his bullseye lamp on, he could perhaps have seen him, but it seems clear that PC:s patrolled with the lamplight obscured. You own take of the issue was worded like this in an earlier point of yours:

"To be fair one point, had not I think.been raised before, that being Mizen would not walk his beat with his lamp light exposed, such is of course very true."

Apparently we agree that the lamp Mizen carried would have been dark - IF he intended to walk right past Bucks Row.
If NOT, and if Mizen was telling the truth when he testified, then he would probably have turned his light on, searching for the woman.

Sorry we do not agree that Mizen had no light showing when he reached Whites Row.
It would of course help if you provided the full quote giving my correct response on this, that being that he would expose his lamp as needed.

"To be fair one point, had not I think.been raised before, that being Mizen would not walk his beat with his lamp light exposed, such is of course very true.
However, I do not suggest he walked his beat with the lamp exposed at all times"


Again there is No Error

Moreover, Neil would have been acutely aware that Mizen walked a beat up at Bakers Row, and so the only logical thing for him to surmise was that IF he could see Mizen, then the latter WOULD be in Bakers Row! Neil was at that stage not aware that Mizen had been instructed by Lechmere about the presence of the woman and also that another PC was already in place, so he would not have expected Mizen to show up in Bucks Row!


As has been pointed out, if Mizen had passed up at the junction, there would have been very few seconds only for the two to take notice of each other. It would predispose that Neil - who could not know when Mizen, possibly on a half hour beat would show up at the junction - would have posed himself outside Essex Wharf at the exact two seconds when Mizen passed, plus that Mizen must have looked slightly back over his shoulder and to the left as he passed the junction if those few seconds.

If Lechmere and Paul could no see each other from thirty-forty yards away, how on earth would Neil be able to see Mizen from more than TWO HUNDRED yards away? In darkness?

No it is NOT the only logical thing for Neil to surmise, Neil's Testimony gives the distinct impression that Mizen is going along Bakers Row, not coming towards him when Neil sees him. That you believe your view is the ONLY logical choice says much.
That you find it unlikely is your choice and right, it is however completely inline with Neil's Testimony, there is again NO Error

Too add to this, there is another problem. There was a lamp burning outside Schneiders cap factory, and that lamp will have been placed in Neils line of sight. And what happens when we try to see something in the distance in darkness - and a lamp is placed in-between us and that far away point we are trying to see? We are disabled to do so, that's what happens - the light will ruin our chances of seeing what is hidden in darkness behind it. Try it out, and you will see, Steve! Put a car facing yourself fifty yards away from you in a dark forest. Put a person two hundred yards away, onehundrsed and fifty yards behind the car. If you can see that person - which gets unlikelier the darker it gets - what happens when the car turns the headlights on?
This is how the Schneiders lamp puts any idea that a person could be seen 150 yards behind it to rest. It cannot be done.

If one were to actually check, one would notice that the lamp is not in Neil's line of sight to Bakers Row, and from the proposed Position of Mizen looking back towards Neil, the light is not visible.
To compare a street light in1888 to a cars headlights is highly misleading.

These things, you have not factored in. You have factored one thing only in: That Neil said that he saw Mizen in Bakers Row. And you gloatingly tell me that what Neil said "won't go away".

Not so. all have been checked, of course it would help to read the book before making such inaccurate statements.

Well, neither does the notion that Neil simply must have been mistaken do so.

This is something that you lightheartedly want to call an "interpretation" of the facts, but it seems you have not assessed the facts at all. If you HAVE, what is it that makes you believe that Neil could see Mizen - apart from what seems to be a faulty supposition only on Neils behalf?

There is no reason to conclude Neil is mistaken, indeed I started from the position that he was, and my analysis showed there to be no factual or logical reason to believe this, thus I changed my view.
There is NO ERROR.

This is a VERY crucial matter, and not something to try and sweep under the carpet - it will help people make their minds up about whether Mizen was a likely liar or not. This is why I expected you to admit that it seems impossible that Neil could have seen Mizen up at Bakers Row if Mizen did not have any light visible - but you instead opted for telling me that Neils testimony "will not go away".

Christer there is no reason to say it's impossible, the facts demonstrate that it is clearly possible. In which case Neil's testimony will not go away, no matter how much you may wish it too.
No Error

I hope this goes to show you why I do not invest much in how you "interpret" the affair, because that interpretation seems to build on either an extensive lack of insight or a bias towards the Lechmere theory that allows for something very different from what the known facts allow for.

I really care not for what you invest in my interpretation, it is for others who read the book to decide.

I notice that Gareth on the other site urges people to never get close to the Lechmere theory since it "poisons" people. That is also an interesting "interpretation" of things - apparently, we should not be allowed to be critical to work that is critical of the Lechmere theory, come what may - your side represents pure-hearted efforts and my side malice and hatred only.

My side?

That really puts this "debate" into its true perspective, your "side" trying to defend its theory, from a book you have not read.

Another poster on the same site congratulates Edward on a brilliant series of posts.

You do neither, since you refuse to talk to "that person". Nowadays.

So talk to me.

You have claimed, more than once that there were errors on the podcast, and in these posts, it is however clear that apart from one minor error on my part, in a separate podcast, that this claim is untrue.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Please Christer, you keep talking of errors by me, apart from attributing a quote from Paul to the wrong source in the WS question and answer section, which I acknowledged, can you supply another actual error, rather than simply having a different interpretation to you?

Steve

Since you yourself admit to the podcast not being correct on all counts, there is no further call for pointing out this. The real problem arises when you speak of "interpretations". Itīs all good and well if there are different interpretations of different matters, but when it comes to the case of the supposed sighting, where Neil would have seen Mizen up at the Bakers Row junction, it must be realized that no sound interpretation can lead to the suggestion you are making: that Jonas Mizen lied to the inquest when he claimed to have gone directly to Bucks Row.

Your "interpretation" of the events is that he never did so, that he intended to walk right past Bucks Row and that he never had any plans to do his duty and seek out the woman mentioned by the carman.

I am not saying that this is an error per se, since I cannot prove it. But I Can point to how it is an idea born out of sheer ignorance and a left out check of the facts, and that is perhaps worse than an error.

We know that it was a dark night. We are aware that Paul only says he notices Lechmere as he arrives outside Browns. We also know that Lechmere says that he HEARS Paul from 30-40 yards away, and waits for him to emerge from the darkness. Ergo, neither man seems to have been able to make out the other person from a distance of 30-40 yards ot thereabouts.

Furthermore, Neil says that he heard Thain, and signaled him. So he did not SEE his colleague, a hundred yards away.

Nevertheless, you are proposing that Neil saw Mizen from two hundred yards plus. In darkness!

if Mizen had had his bullseye lamp on, he could perhaps have seen him, but it seems clear that PC:s patrolled with the lamplight obscured. You own take of the issue was worded like this in an earlier point of yours:

"To be fair one point, had not I think.been raised before, that being Mizen would not walk his beat with his lamp light exposed, such is of course very true."

Apparently we agree that the lamp Mizen carried would have been dark - IF he intended to walk right past Bucks Row.

If NOT, and if Mizen was telling the truth when he testified, then he would probably have turned his light on, searching for the woman.

Moreover, Neil would have been acutely aware that Mizen walked a beat up at Bakers Row, and so the only logical thing for him to surmise was that IF he could see Mizen, then the latter WOULD be in Bakers Row! Neil was at that stage not aware that Mizen had been instructed by Lechmere about the presence of the woman and also that another PC was already in place, so he would not have expected Mizen to show up in Bucks Row!

As has been pointed out, if Mizen had passed up at the junction, there would have been very few seconds only for the two to take notice of each other. It would predispose that Neil - who could not know when Mizen, possibly on a half hour beat would show up at the junction - would have posed himself outside Essex Wharf at the exact two seconds when Mizen passed, plus that Mizen must have looked slightly back over his shoulder and to the left as he passed the junction if those few seconds.

If Lechmere and Paul could no see each other from thirty-forty yards away, how on earth would Neil be able to see Mizen from more than TWO HUNDRED yards away? In darkness?

Too add to this, there is another problem. There was a lamp burning outside Schneiders cap factory, and that lamp will have been placed in Neils line of sight. And what happens when we try to see something in the distance in darkness - and a lamp is placed in-between us and that far away point we are trying to see? We are disabled to do so, that's what happens - the light will ruin our chances of seeing what is hidden in darkness behind it. Try it out, and you will see, Steve! Put a car facing yourself fifty yards away from you in a dark forest. Put a person two hundred yards away, onehundrsed and fifty yards behind the car. If you can see that person - which gets unlikelier the darker it gets - what happens when the car turns the headlights on?
This is how the Schneiders lamp puts any idea that a person could be seen 150 yards behind it to rest. It cannot be done.

These things, you have not factored in. You have factored one thing only in: That Neil said that he saw Mizen in Bakers Row. And you gloatingly tell me that what Neil said "won't go away".

Well, neither does the notion that Neil simply must have been mistaken do so.

This is something that you lightheartedly want to call an "interpretation" of the facts, but it seems you have not assessed the facts at all. If you HAVE, what is it that makes you believe that Neil could see Mizen - apart from what seems to be a faulty supposition only on Neils behalf?

This is a VERY crucial matter, and not something to try and sweep under the carpet - it will help people make their minds up about whether Mizen was a likely liar or not. This is why I expected you to admit that it seems impossible that Neil could have seen Mizen up at Bakers Row if Mizen did not have any light visible - but you instead opted for telling me that Neils testimony "will not go away".

I hope this goes to show you why I do not invest much in how you "interpret" the affair, because that interpretation seems to build on either an extensive lack of insight or a bias towards the Lechmere theory that allows for something very different from what the known facts allow for.

I notice that Gareth on the other site urges people to never get close to the Lechmere theory since it "poisons" people. That is also an interesting "interpretation" of things - apparently, we should not be allowed to be critical to work that is critical of the Lechmere theory, come what may - your side represents pure-hearted efforts and my side malice and hatred only.

Another poster on the same site congratulates Edward on a brilliant series of posts.

You do neither, since you refuse to talk to "that person". Nowadays.

So talk to me.

[Elamarna]

Please Christer, you keep talking of errors by me, apart from attributing a quote from Paul to the wrong source in the WS question and answer section, which I acknowledged, can you supply another actual error, rather than simply having a different interpretation to you?

Steve

[Fisherman]

So is this the probable scenario: Hmmm, Whitechapel Road, let's turn the lamp off, there is a lot of light here anyway. And now I turn into Brady Street, maybe I should leave the lamp off until I get a little further into the street? Okay, now I should turn it on, it is getting darker, and here we turn into Bucks Row, let's keep it on until we reach Schneiders cap factory, were there is a lamp shining, I can obscure my light then, and afterwards, as I have passed the lamp, it is time to turn it on again, here we go ...

I understand if it would be helpful to Steves (and you) suggestion that Mizen was a rotten liar if he had his light turned on up at the Bakers Row junction, but the odds seem stacked against it.

Maybe its just me, but I think we may sometimes need to bow to the obvious.

[Fisherman]

>> None of Steves errors are errors quoted from the book. I thought I made it abundantly clear that I have not read it? The errors pointed out are from the podcast and the boards. As I also pointed out, I would find it odd if he sats one thing in podcasts and on the net, but the polar opposite in his book. If this is so, just say it.<<

But there aren't errors, that's the point.

You seem to think if someone holds a different opinion to you it's an error. It isn't.

Hence the nitpicking.

There are parts of Steve's book were I disagree with his opinions, but that doesn't make an error.

The Bullseye lamp business is an example of an error, and it is an error that helped Steve shape the opinion that Mizen was a liar.


>>You may be aware that this thread is devoted to the podcast and not to the book.<<

Since, nowhere in the podcast does Steve talk about such things as Bullseye lanterns etc, apparently not.

Here it is again: The errors pointed out are from the podcast and ensuing discussions on the boards.
I specifically underlined the important part to facilitate for you to understand what I am saying.

[Fisherman]

>>The bullseye lantern was worn on the belt by a PC; it would have been hot to handle ...<<

If you had actually looked at the site you posted,https://www.steppeshillfarmantiques....ers/march-2013 you'd have seen the lamp had handles for holding.

Of course they could hold them.



>> If the lamp was turned on, it would have produced a wobbling light in front of the PC as he walked, and it would seriously impair his night vision.<<

According to Neil Bell's book, page 90, the lamp was worn on the side of the belt to avoid unwanted light spillage when walking.



>>There are bits and pieces that support that the lantern was normally not shining, like this one, quoting Lamb as he took a look inside Dutfields Yard...<<

Lamb was on a major road (Commercial) walking with another PC, so no surprise he didn't have a light on.

Not the best example to use.



>>A further example is found in the testimony of PC Thompson, relating to the Coles case in 1891<<

Swallow Gardens was well lit by two street lights according to Thompson's testimony and it's a very confused testimony.

First he says he saw the body, then says he couldn't see the body in the very next sentence!

Neither man had the light on until they needed to check things. They would not obscure the light on account of a road being well lit if the standard procedure was to have the light on. Why would they do that? To save fuel?

What Thompson says is that he could not see that Coles was a woman until he turned his light on. There is nothing at all to be confused about:

"When I turned into the passage I could see the woman lying under the arch on the roadway, about midway under the arch. I turned my lamp on as soon as I got there. I could not see it was a woman until I turned my lamp on."

I guess we can go on forever arguing about whether we think the article is "confusing" or not, so let's not do that since it would shift the focus. And we would not want that, would we?

PC:s normally did NOT have their light turned on when patrolling.

[drstrange169]

>> None of Steves errors are errors quoted from the book. I thought I made it abundantly clear that I have not read it? The errors pointed out are from the podcast and the boards. As I also pointed out, I would find it odd if he sats one thing in podcasts and on the net, but the polar opposite in his book. If this is so, just say it.<<

But there aren't errors, that's the point.

You seem to think if someone holds a different opinion to you it's an error. It isn't.

Hence the nitpicking.

There are parts of Steve's book were I disagree with his opinions, but that doesn't make an error.



>>You may be aware that this thread is devoted to the podcast and not to the book.<<

Since, nowhere in the podcast does Steve talk about such things as Bullseye lanterns etc, apparently not.