Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[drstrange169]

>>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!

[Fisherman]

>> I am glad we at least got the bullseye matter sorted.<<

Always good to agree, the claims about "stealth" were quite bizarre and a good indicator of the quality of the criticism.

I believe the term "stealth" was a quotation from Neil Bells book about London policing.

But now that we agree, can you also see how that affects the whole matter of whether Neil was likely to have been able to see Mizen more than 200 yards away in the dark of the night, as the latter passed a minuscule section of the junction up at Bakers Row? It would seem that Steve claims to have been aware of how the lamp worked ("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."), but if so, I fail to understand how he could persist in thinking that Neil would have glanced west in the exact two seconds that Mizen passed (which may have been once per half hour!), and was able to grab hold of his bullseye lamp and start signaling in that same period of time, while Mizen simultaneously would have looked over his shoulder to his left and seen the signaling - and all the (extremely short) while it was pitch dark and Neil would have to make out a dark figure from 200 yards plus...?

To me, the mere suggestion becomes quite futile - and it is in no way helped by how Mizen will NOT have had his lamp turned on if he was the scoundrel he is pointed out as.

It therefore seems to me a near certainty that Steve has painted Mizen out as a man skipping over his duties and lying about it, while all the while he seems to have done the exact opposite.

In your book this may perhaps amount to "nitpicking", I don't know. In my book, it amounts to a seriously flawed and extremely unhealthy reasoning.

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

[drstrange169]

Re post #31 >> I disagree, of course ...<<

What's to disagree? Either there are errors in Steve's book or there aren't.

Can you name any error in the book that has been brought up here or on jtr forums thus far?

[drstrange169]

>> I am glad we at least got the bullseye matter sorted.<<

Always good to agree, the claims about "stealth" were quite bizarre and a good indicator of the quality of the criticism.

[Fisherman]

I'm off to the gym now, so I will not comment any further until at a later stage. I am glad I at least got the bullseye matter sorted. Perhaps something to agree on, at long last?

Of course, in spite of my having found that Lamb and Thompson normally would have carried their lamps with the light hidden, that does not mean that PC Mizen can not have been an exception to that rule, and you are welcome to push that option if you want to. It would be a welcome and much needed addition to the proposition that Neil could have seen him from 200 yards plus away in utter darkness as he in two seconds passed up at the Bakers Row junction.
To be fair, I myself am convinced that Mizen DID have his light showing as Neil saw him. The only little difference between your take and mine is that he had turned it on because he was on his way down Bucks Row, searching for the woman and the PC he had been told about by Charles Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

>> I should say your claim the the criticism is about "nitpicking".<<

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Just to be clear, can you point to any errors in the book that need correcting?

Because, as I've already pointed out, they can be corrected.

So far nobody has suggested any.

All we've had thus far is bluster.

I disagree, of course, with the possible exception that I agree that you are likely not understanding what I am saying. Let's leave it there.

PS. Since I have not read the book, I find it difficult to point out errors in it. But I work from the assumption that what Steve says on the boards and on podcasts is representative of what he says in the book. Maybe that is wrong, though, in which case I would be happy to have it pointed out that he says one thing on the boards and another in the book.

[Fisherman]

>> 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. <<

Can anyone point me to a citation that Victorian Bobbies didn't walk their night beat with the light on?

As I understand it, the whole purpose of a beat bobby was to check dark spaces, doors, windows, passers-by etc. all of which entailed the use of their Bullseye lantern.

According to Monty's book, they blocked the light to "improve stealth", walking beats wasn't a stealth issue, quite the opposite, they were there to be seen.

One can imagine Bobbies hiding, awaiting catching criminals, would want to block there lights, but what "stealth" was involved with Mizen walking down Baker's Row?

It has always been my understanding that the light was used to shine on things and to signal, whereas the light was hidden during normal patrolling.

The bullseye lantern was worn on the belt by a PC; it would have been hot to handle and it allowed for the PC to have his hands free. 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. Plus, of course, I think we would have read about PC.s parading the streets like a string of pearls if the light was left on. The lantern was referred to as a "dark lantern". Here is a post on Bullseye lamps by poster Graham:

"Policemen (and others, nightwatchmen, etc) used what was known as a dark lantern. These utilised either a candle or oil, and had a sliding panel to shut off the beam. They must have got rather hot... Sherlock Holmes had a dark lantern with him in several of his adventures, and a dark lantern was issued to one of the pirates in Gilbert & Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance."

Some believe the shutter was part of a signaling system, but it was not. A PC who signaled a colleague simply waved the lantern from side to side.

This link: https://www.steppeshillfarmantiques....ers/march-2013 leads to a site where there is a picture of two policemen, one using the lit lamp and one wearing it in his belt, with the light hidden.

The text of the site also tells us that it was common practice to put the lamp under your clothes on cold nights, thereby supplying extra warmth. Another curiosity is the name "Black Lantern"; that name was also used as a description of any PC who would take bribes to allow criminals to get away.

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:

"Seeing people moving about some distance down Berner-street, I ran down that street followed by Constable 426 H. I went into the gateway of No. 40, Berner-street and saw something dark lying on the right-hand side, close to the gates. I turned my light on and found it was a woman."

Note how this must have meant that Lamb had carried his lamp with the light hidden to be able to turn the light on.

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

"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."

[drstrange169]

>> I should say your claim the the criticism is about "nitpicking".<<

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Just to be clear, can you point to any errors in the book that need correcting?

Because, as I've already pointed out, they can be corrected.

So far nobody has suggested any.

All we've had thus far is bluster.

[Fisherman]

>>Have you gentlemen seen Edwards latest post on JTR? It revolves around the matter of where Mizen was when first spotted by Neil, and adds quite a lot of material to what has previously been discussed. It seems the post has been left uncommented on for some reason.<<

With good reason, it's error filled, biased and since the person is discussing Steve's theory, claims not to have read his book, is tantamount to trolling.

Which is a great shame, because of its digital nature, Steve's book lends itself to correcting errors.

All the criticism so far has been contained to petty and largely irrelevant nitpicking, factually incorrect information, character assassination and alternative speculation, speculation which, as anyone who has actually read the book knows, is canvassed in Steve's book anyway.

So what's to comment on?

I should say your claim the the criticism is about "nitpicking".

[Elamarna]

>> 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. <<

Can anyone point me to a citation that Victorian Bobbies didn't walk their night beat with the light on?

As I understand it, the whole purpose of a beat bobby was to check dark spaces, doors, windows, passers-by etc. all of which entailed the use of their Bullseye lantern.

According to Monty's book, they blocked the light to "improve stealth", walking beats wasn't a stealth issue, quite the opposite, they were there to be seen.

One can imagine Bobbies hiding, awaiting catching criminals, would want to block there lights, but what "stealth" was involved with Mizen walking down Baker's Row?

That's a fair point, and one I may address in the next update, if we get a definitive reply Dusty.
I have assumed he turned the beam on and off as he felt was needed.


Steve

[drstrange169]

>> 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. <<

Can anyone point me to a citation that Victorian Bobbies didn't walk their night beat with the light on?

As I understand it, the whole purpose of a beat bobby was to check dark spaces, doors, windows, passers-by etc. all of which entailed the use of their Bullseye lantern.

According to Monty's book, they blocked the light to "improve stealth", walking beats wasn't a stealth issue, quite the opposite, they were there to be seen.

One can imagine Bobbies hiding, awaiting catching criminals, would want to block there lights, but what "stealth" was involved with Mizen walking down Baker's Row?

[drstrange169]

>>Have you gentlemen seen Edwards latest post on JTR? It revolves around the matter of where Mizen was when first spotted by Neil, and adds quite a lot of material to what has previously been discussed. It seems the post has been left uncommented on for some reason.<<

With good reason, it's error filled, biased and since the person is discussing Steve's theory, claims not to have read his book, is tantamount to trolling.

Which is a great shame, because of its digital nature, Steve's book lends itself to correcting errors.

All the criticism so far has been contained to petty and largely irrelevant nitpicking, factually incorrect information, character assassination and alternative speculation, speculation which, as anyone who has actually read the book knows, is canvassed in Steve's book anyway.

So what's to comment on?

[Fisherman]

It is a personal issue, unconnected to Ripperology Christer.
Indeed my first response was so short that you criticised me for it.

Apparently, that "issue" was not around until today?

If you had read the book, you would know, I actually do not paint Mizen as a villain at all, not even a rotten egg, just a man covering his back.

Then Iīd be interested to know why you DO paint him as a rotten egg out here? Because that IS what you do. No police should "cover his back" if it involves lying, because that DOES make you a rotten egg. So please do not try to make it out as if you are not pointing a finger at him as a liar.

I see the point about Neil "thought he saw" which gives an impression to the reader when compared to Mizen is not mentioned, Fair enough it was not your post.

However, one could have just said Neil "said he saw", or both men "claimed". But such was not said.

If you could avoid being ridiculous, much would be gained. Compare this choice of words to your flat out claim that Mizen lied. Proportions, please!

Of course, you don't know how credible any of my suggestions are, because you have not read the book, and hence do not know what those suggestions really are, or the arguments for and against.

I know quite well how credible your suggestion is that Neil could see Mizen in darkness 200 yards plus away, as he passed the smallish fraction of the Bakerīs Row junction in two seconds or so. I need no book to realize the overall credibility of that suggestion.

Followers? it's not about egos, or who believes who.

Making a sound impression and being in the know is what will provide followers. And book buyers. Failing to do so and instead presenting untenable speculation to tarnish PC:s for obvious reasons will result in the opposite. That has nothing to do with egos, but everything to do with handling the evidence in a fashion that attracts positive attention.

Actually there are plenty who like the work overall.

Well, then I can only guess that the book is the polar opposite of the thoughts you expand on here and in podcasts.

The publicity that you and Mr Stow have provided is fantastic, thank you.


Steve

Then you should be ecstatic to learn that there is more to come.

[Elamarna]

Well, you did not seem to have any problems debating with "that person" initially? The problems only seem to have arrived now?

I fail to see how it is presenting Mizen as "a shining light of accuracy and truth", to accept as the more likely thing that he was en route to the murder spot when Neil saw him. I actually find it a lot more dubious to paint Mizen out as a liar, the way saying that he never headed for Bucks Row at all does. That is by far more controversial.
As for Neil, of course he may have guessed and been mistaken - he is tasked by you to pierce through 200 yards plus of darkness, picking out Mizen as the latter passes up at the dark junction of Bakers Row, you know. And that is no easy task by any means. It will be nigh on impossible.

It is not as if a great difference is made by me between the two, where one is painted out as a villain and the other as an angel, is it? It is instead accepting that Mizen probably did what he said he did and that Neil was unable to see as far and accurately as he believed he did. It is a very mundane explanation.
Yours, though, painting Mizen out as a rotten egg, is nothing of the sort. Itīs highly remarkable.

And of course Neils testimony will not "go away". Ripperology is not about making things go away (or turning PC:s into villains for no reason at all). It is about offering as simple and credible solutions to apparent enigmas as can be done.

I find that is exactly what "that person" does in this case. He rules the totally improbable out in order for the very mundane and credible, whereas you choose to do it the fundamentalist way - and end up with a lying PC. After which you accuse ME of painting with too broad a brush...?!

I guess its everybody to this own, but I don't see any cadres of followers any time soon for you. Least of all when you first debate extensively with someone, only to then pull the plug and claim that you do NOT debate with "that person", come to think of it.

"That person", by the way - isn't that a common line for spinsters in comedies?

Maybe you should make me "such a person" too? I consort with "that person", you know (shudder). It WOULD facilitate matters for you.

It is a personal issue, unconnected to Ripperology Christer.
Indeed my first response was so short that you criticised me for it.

If you had read the book, you would know, I actually do not paint Mizen as a villain at all, not even a rotten egg, just a man covering his back.

I see the point about Neil "thought he saw" which gives an impression to the reader when compared to Mizen is not mentioned, Fair enough it was not your post.

However, one could have just said Neil "said he saw", or both men "claimed". But such was not said.

Of course, you don't know how credible any of my suggestions are, because you have not read the book, and hence do not know what those suggestions really are, or the arguments for and against.

Followers? it's not about egos, or who believes who.
Actually there are plenty who like the work overall.

The publicity that you and Mr Stow have provided is fantastic, thank you.


Steve