Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Fisherman]

Simple Christer. because I have made it very clear I will not debate with that person. I have also made it clear on the thread I will not reply.

There is LITTLE new material which addresses the various issues relating to the positioning of Mizen. It's mainly the same arguments as used previously dressed up differently.
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.

Mizen again is presented as a shining light of accuracy and truth, while Neil guesses and is mistaken

The use of the Phrase " Neil thought he saw" is interesting when compared with the phrasing used directly afterwards for Mizen, where it reads Mizen "Said".

The former is automatically questioning Neil, while the later implies acceptance of Mizen.

Again none of it makes Neil's testimony go away.



Steve

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. It´s 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.

[Elamarna]

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.

Simple Christer. because I have made it very clear I will not debate with that person. I have also made it clear on the thread I will not reply.

There is LITTLE new material which addresses the various issues relating to the positioning of Mizen. It's mainly the same arguments as used previously dressed up differently.
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.

Mizen again is presented as a shining light of accuracy and truth, while Neil guesses and is mistaken

The use of the Phrase " Neil thought he saw" is interesting when compared with the phrasing used directly afterwards for Mizen, where it reads Mizen "Said".

The former is automatically questioning Neil, while the later implies acceptance of Mizen.

Again none of it makes Neil's testimony go away.



Steve

[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.

[FrankO]

Thanks again, Dusty!

[drstrange169]

>>Thanks for your reply and the link to the site, Dusty! If you can confirm that you read it & where you read it, that would be much appreciated.<<

Capturing Jack the Ripper, Neil R.A. Bell, page 76. As previously noted, various internet sites also confirm Neil's account. Hope that helps.

[Fisherman]

Either scenarios seem perfectly possible to me.

If I was forced to pick one, I'd go with Mizen in Baker's Row, but only because that's the actual eyewitness testimony.


>>I find it much more likely that Neil simply noticed Mizen as he was underway to the murder site...<<

Both versions rely on Neil looking down towards Baker's Row, which is why I don't mind either.

The basic problem I identify with the Bakers Row scenario is that it would predispose that Neil actively sought out Mizen and just happened to be in the right place to see him when he was passing along Bakers Row, something that would occur perhaps once every half hour and would last for a mere seconds only. Neil must have known this. Would he stake out Bakers Row with the faintest of hopes to have Mizen arriving any time soon? Mizen must also have peered to his left in order to see Neils lantern. Moreover, Mizen would at that stage, if he had decided to skip over going to Bucks Row, have worn his bullseye lamp dark, having covered the light outlet - so how in the world would Neil see him at all from 200 yards plus away in the first place?

To me, it is a simple case of Mizen having set out - just as he said - towards Bucks Row, and Neil noticing him as he drew nearer, regardless of where the two were at the time.

But of course, the Bakers Row scenario lends itself a lot better to producing a picture of a lying PC! So it all boils down to what we want, as always. It actually points Mizen out as a liar if we accept it, and I would advice against it for that reason.

[FrankO]

[B]But he does say what he did after Thain left and before the doctor arrived, examined the area, so we know he was moving around looking for cart tracks etc. For all we know, that could have taken him passed the board school. If that were so he would have seen the full width of the junction with Baker's Row.

Since he'd dispatched Thain and Sgt Kirby had already done his check, the only other policeman to look out for would have been in Baker's Row. It's logical that he's look that way.

I have no real problem with that, Dusty. If he wanted to see if, by any chance, he would be able to see Mizen and signal him down to get the ambulance, then the thing would be to either walk just a little beyond the board school or to the opposite side of the street. Remaining by the body would not be the thing to do. But I can understand Christer's view, too, because the evidence may read as if only seconds after having sent Thain for the doctor, Neil spotted Mizen and only after he'd sent Mizen for the ambulance, he rang the bell at Essex Wharf.

[FrankO]

>>Do you have a source or sources for that, Dusty? I'd be interested to know more.<<

I'm at work, so I can't conform it, but I probably first read about it in Neil's book, "Capturing jtr".

Since I fancied getting one at one stage, I've seen quite a few internet sites about the Bullseyes.

Here's a particularly good one,

https://heritagearmssa.com/2018/06/2...lice-lanterns/

Thanks for your reply and the link to the site, Dusty! If you can confirm that you read it & where you read it, that would be much appreciated.

[drstrange169]

Either scenarios seem perfectly possible to me.

If I was forced to pick one, I'd go with Mizen in Baker's Row, but only because that's the actual eyewitness testimony.


>>I find it much more likely that Neil simply noticed Mizen as he was underway to the murder site...<<

Both versions rely on Neil looking down towards Baker's Row, which is why I don't mind either.

[Fisherman]

>> Neil doesn't state explicitly when he went over to the northern side of the street, but there's much in the witness statements that isn't said. For instance, Neil didnt say what he was doing while waiting for Thain ...<<

But he does say what he did after Thain left and before the doctor arrived, examined the area, so we know he was moving around looking for cart tracks etc. For all we know, that could have taken him passed the board school. If that were so he would have seen the full width of the junction with Baker's Row.

Since he'd dispatched Thain and Sgt Kirby had already done his check, the only other policeman to look out for would have been in Baker's Row. It's logical that he's look that way.

It is logical, yes - but one must keep in mind that if Mizens beat was like Neils own beat, then he would arguably only come into vision down at the Bakers Row junction once every half hour, which is why I don't think it is very likely that Neil would take up a spot by Essex Wharf and start looking for Mizen. I find it much more likely that Neil simply noticed Mizen as he was underway to the murder site, and Mizen would come into sight sooner or later regardless if Neil was at the murder site or somewhere else in the street. Basically, we can be fairly certain that most of the time during the first few minutes on Neils behalf were spent alongside the body.

Those are the basic guidelines the way I see them.

[drstrange169]

>> Neil doesn't state explicitly when he went over to the northern side of the street, but there's much in the witness statements that isn't said. For instance, Neil didnt say what he was doing while waiting for Thain ...<<

But he does say what he did after Thain left and before the doctor arrived, examined the area, so we know he was moving around looking for cart tracks etc. For all we know, that could have taken him passed the board school. If that were so he would have seen the full width of the junction with Baker's Row.

Since he'd dispatched Thain and Sgt Kirby had already done his check, the only other policeman to look out for would have been in Baker's Row. It's logical that he's look that way.

[drstrange169]

>>Do you have a source or sources for that, Dusty? I'd be interested to know more.<<

I'm at work, so I can't conform it, but I probably first read about it in Neil's book, "Capturing jtr".

Since I fancied getting one at one stage, I've seen quite a few internet sites about the Bullseyes.

Here's a particularly good one,

https://heritagearmssa.com/2018/06/26/victorian-police-lanterns/

[FrankO]

I was under the impression that they were always lit when on night duty, but there was a shutter which could block some or all of the light emanating from them.
For example, Watkins' testimony, from (perhaps the clearest account) the Echo 4th Oct;

"I had my lantern fixed in my belt alight, and turned on."

So both alight and turned on, ie wick burning and shutters open.
Well, that's my understanding.

Thanks, Joshua!

[Joshua Rogan]

>> ...Mizen may also have put on his lamp in search of the woman.<<

As I understand it, policemen's Bullseye lanterns were always on.
They had a leather shield to prevent it burning them when it was hooked on their belt.
They also had the ability to make it brighter or darker, but it always stayed on.

I was under the impression that they were always lit when on night duty, but there was a shutter which could block some or all of the light emanating from them.
For example, Watkins' testimony, from (perhaps the clearest account) the Echo 4th Oct;

"I had my lantern fixed in my belt alight, and turned on."

So both alight and turned on, ie wick burning and shutters open.
Well, that's my understanding.

[FrankO]

Whoa, Frank! How did Paul being out of earshot enter the debate?

Just a random example, Christer!

Whichever way we look upon it, it remains that Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him, and there will be a reason for that.

The point is that no reason was given, which leaves room to fill it in for ourselves. And one of the 2 reasons you fill it with is that the existing evidence simply leaves room for Paul to have been out of earshot, precisely because nothing was stated about it.

We should also weigh up the likelihood of Neil actually seeing Mizen if he took a random glance down Bucks Row.

Agreed, as we should weigh up the likelihood of Neil’s attention being drawn by the light of Mizen’s lamp, combined with the notion that Neil would be on the alert.

It sounds more to me as if he simply noticed Mizen as he came walking down the street, and if so, Neil would be much more likely to have been close to the murder site than to Essex Wharf, ...

The statements sure read like that with Neil hearing & signalling Thain, sending him off to the doctor and Neil seeing & signalling Mizen and sending him for the ambulance all in 3 short sentences, one after the other. But, for now and for the reasons I posted before, I stick to my view.

Then again, just as you say, the longer the distance Mizen covered after Neil having noted him, the more likely that Neil would have thought he originally saw him in Bakers Row.

Thank you!

But I have my bet on the short distance anyway - in darkness, it is overall harder to gauge things, and I don't rule out that what he said could have been mistaken at the inquest. Maybe he said he saw the Bakers Row PC approaching or something such.

I can live with that.

Anyways, yes, the weather is (unnecessarily) nice. Me and my dog could both have done with a few degrees less...

As could we here in Holland... but it's good for the tomatoes!