Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Fisherman]

It's even warm here in Glasgow.


Steve

People will develop rigor in no time at all.

[Elamarna]

Whoa, Frank! How did Paul being out of earshot enter the debate? I'm happy to say that if Paul did not take part in the conversation with Mizen (and Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him, and he was aware that Lechmere would testify after himself), then he may either have
A/ Stood waiting for the few seconds it took Lechmere too inform Mizen, the way we sometimes stand waiting while our viwes look in a a shop window, or
B/ walked down Bucks Row (The Echo: "the other man, who walked down Bucks Row"), whereupon Lechmere caught up with him.

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.

I donīt think that it would be odd if Neil took a look to the west as such. What I am saying is instead that for the green cross in your sketch to come into play, that predisposes that Neil stood there and looked as Mizen came into sight. It is not so much odd as coincidental. We should also weigh up the likelihood of Neil actually seeing Mizen if he took a random glance down Bucks Row. Mizen was on a beat, and if that beat was anything like Neals own beat, it could take half an hour before Mizen came into sight. And Neil would arguably have been aware of this, so I find it less likely that he actually crossed the street to start monitoring the Bakers Row junction. 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, finding out as much as he could and taking note of the immediate vicinity of the site.

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. 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.

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

It's even warm here in Glasgow.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Even if I wanted to, that couldn't have escaped my attention, Christer.

It shouldn't be regarded in such a rigid manner. 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, when we know it must have taken Thain about half a minute to arrive at the crime spot. The same goes for the period after signalling Mizen and Mizen arriving. Does that mean that Neil just stood there waiting? Or may he instead have been looking around for any marks, a knife, blood or whatever? And don't you do sort of the same with "Paul being out of earshot while Lechmere spoke to Mizen"?

Assuming you meant to write "that Neil stuck to...", why would that be so very odd or illogic? Would it be odd for him to look around? Would it be odd for him to look in a western direction right after having signalled Thain in the east? In your scenario he must have done the very same thing. After all, we know he did need somebody to go fetch the ambulance. So, I think there's nothing odd for Neil to be looking west or stick to the northern pavement. And, again, Neil seeing Mizen where I put him could have given him the impression that he saw him in Baker's Row. Which, to me, is a bit of a stretch in the scenario you suggest.

Yes, let's do that and enjoy the good weather.

Whoa, Frank! How did Paul being out of earshot enter the debate? I'm happy to say that if Paul did not take part in the conversation with Mizen (and Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him, and he was aware that Lechmere would testify after himself), then he may either have
A/ Stood waiting for the few seconds it took Lechmere too inform Mizen, the way we sometimes stand waiting while our viwes look in a a shop window, or
B/ walked down Bucks Row (The Echo: "the other man, who walked down Bucks Row"), whereupon Lechmere caught up with him.

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.

I donīt think that it would be odd if Neil took a look to the west as such. What I am saying is instead that for the green cross in your sketch to come into play, that predisposes that Neil stood there and looked as Mizen came into sight. It is not so much odd as coincidental. We should also weigh up the likelihood of Neil actually seeing Mizen if he took a random glance down Bucks Row. Mizen was on a beat, and if that beat was anything like Neals own beat, it could take half an hour before Mizen came into sight. And Neil would arguably have been aware of this, so I find it less likely that he actually crossed the street to start monitoring the Bakers Row junction. 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, finding out as much as he could and taking note of the immediate vicinity of the site.

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. 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.

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

[FrankO]

- it is a thinking that unnerves me, as you will have noted.

Even if I wanted to, that couldn't have escaped my attention, Christer.

The possibility you exemplify with is exactly that - a possibility. It would require that Neil was on the northernmost side of the street at a stage when he does not say that he was - but of course may have been.

It shouldn't be regarded in such a rigid manner. 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, when we know it must have taken Thain about half a minute to arrive at the crime spot. The same goes for the period after signalling Mizen and Mizen arriving. Does that mean that Neil just stood there waiting? Or may he instead have been looking around for any marks, a knife, blood or whatever? And don't you do sort of the same with "Paul being out of earshot while Lechmere spoke to Mizen"?

And it would require that Mizen stuck to the northern pavement. And that Neil looked west in the very second Mizen was there.

Assuming you meant to write "that Neil stuck to...", why would that be so very odd or illogic? Would it be odd for him to look around? Would it be odd for him to look in a western direction right after having signalled Thain in the east? In your scenario he must have done the very same thing. After all, we know he did need somebody to go fetch the ambulance. So, I think there's nothing odd for Neil to be looking west or stick to the northern pavement. And, again, Neil seeing Mizen where I put him could have given him the impression that he saw him in Baker's Row. Which, to me, is a bit of a stretch in the scenario you suggest.

What I always have said is that Neil will have picked up on Mizen as he was underway, looking for then woman and that PC, and both our suggestions are in line with that. I think Neil was at the crime scene when he saw both Thain and Mizen, and you think he was up at Essex Wharf, and neither man will be able to prove the other conclusively wrong, I guess. So let's live with that.

Yes, let's do that and enjoy the good weather.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not going to get involved in this one but the most important question should be.....is it possible that Steve could be correct and that Mizen might have seen Neill’s signal (with Neill being across the street, possibly so that he might see a passing Constable) in that 3 second window? It appears from the digital reconstruction that the answer is yes. On the question of likelihood...coincidences occur every minute of the day. Why do we get so stressed about them? I’m not saying that Steve is correct or that Fish and Ed Stow are correct but Steve’s suggestion appears to be physically possible and surely not exactly a roulette wheel spin level fluke. Might he not just have crossed the road knowing that he could see part of Bakers Row and that a Constable would be along at any second? I’m not saying that it happened but it doesn’t appear on the face of it to be any kind of freak coincidence.

[FrankO]

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.

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

[Fisherman]

Thank you for confirming that you are not a believer of the "Mizen never left Bakers Row" school - it is a thinking that unnerves me, as you will have noted.

The possibility you exemplify with is exactly that - a possibility. It would require that Neil was on the northernmost side of the street at a stage when he does not say that he was - but of course may have been. And it would require that Mizen stuck to the northern pavement. And that Neil looked west in the very second Mizen was there.

To me, it sounds like much of a stretch, but overall, whether Mizen was there or whether Neil only saw him after he passed Queen Anne Street (which I tend to think) is immaterial in many ways. To me, the important factor is that a perspective that pushes the point that Mizen was likely a liar who would have proceeded down Bakers Row if he had the chance, ignoring what he had been told by Lechmere must be looked upon with great skepticism.

What I always have said is that Neil will have picked up on Mizen as he was underway, looking for then woman and that PC, and both our suggestions are in line with that. I think Neil was at the crime scene when he saw both Thain and Mizen, and you think he was up at Essex Wharf, and neither man will be able to prove the other conclusively wrong, I guess. So let's live with that.

[FrankO]

Okay, so you do not agree with Steve that Neil would actually have seen Mizen up at Bakers Row? And you do agree that Mizen was on his way to the body when Neil DID see him?

I'd think that I've been clear enough on these points, so, just to oblige you: yes, on both counts, Christer.

I think that would be a stretch, to say the least.

Not impossible, but a stretch, yes.

I have not checked whether the material allows for Neil having gone over to the Essex Wharf side before signalling to Mizen, but I note that whereas you have Mizen at Thomas Street, Edwards sketch allows for him being at Queen Anne Street when Neil saw him, and the distance between these streets is not very long. The distance from Thomas Street to Bakers Row is much longer, as is the distance from Queen Anne Street to the murder site.

As a picture is worth a thousand words, here's my stance: Neil could have spotted Mizen when the latter was at the green cross.

[Fisherman]

Christer,

Firstly many of those "mistakes are not mistakes, but differences in interpretation.


Using the same OS map that Mr Stow used, the junction comes into view from around halfway across Bucks Row, from Browns yard towards Essex wharf . At the largest extent 9ft of the eastern side of the junction is visible to over 10 ft on the western side

Steve

There were serious conflations of the material, as you were shown, leading to a wrongful picture emerging. So it was not about "interpretation" at all but instead of misunderstandings, but speaking of interpretation, I find it odd that you seem hellbent on interpreting Mizen as a bad egg and a liar. But that may well be for another thread. And we all remember how you put Mulshaw to sleep as part of one of your interpretations, in spite of him saying that he did NOT think he was asleep. He was wrong, that was your interpretation in that case.

As for the junction, I am at a loss to understand why you speak of the eastern and the western sides of it, since the opening of the junction runs from south to north. Furthermore, when standing in the middle of Bucks Row, the houses between Thomas Street and Bakers Row, on the northern side of Bucks Row, will together with the schoolhouse corner disallow seeing the junction. Please post the map with your filed of sight marked, and we shall see.

[Elamarna]

Edward Stow did a little counting on it, based on the suggested speed of walking furnished by Frank O. If Mizen was passing along Bakers Row and had no intention of going down Bucks Row to seek out the woman he had been told about, then there would have been a time window of less than three seconds during which Mizen would have passed the stretch of the opening in Bakers Row that Neil was able to see from Essex wharf. It therefore predisposes that during these two or three seconds, Neil must have been outside Essex Wharf, peering through the darkness up towards the minuscule opening into Bakers Row that was visible from the wharf, while Mizen must have walked southwards past that minuscule opening at the exact same time, peering over his left should down towards Essex Wharf. And as it was very dark when Neil would have seen Mizen, something like a stiff two hundred yards away, that sounds like a very odd theory.

But it is nevertheless the scenario you favor, right, Steve - one that points Mizen out as a liar?

To those with an interest in the case, I recommend taking a look at the thread about the errand on the other site, where Edward Stow examines Steves podcast revelations and finds them, shall we say, lacking sorely factually. As do I.

None of which means it did not, or could not occur.
Neil says it did.

Steve

[Elamarna]

A little more "extensive checking" could perhaps have saved you from many of the other mistakes you offered on that podcast. But of course, in the book everything is revealed... Certainly, much less than one third of the junction is visible, going on the map Edward provided - and even seeing the minuscule part that is on offer would predispose that Neils eyes were glued onto the wall of Essex Wharf. If he was any little stretch away from the wall, the visible part of the junction would get even smaller and quickly disappear out of sight.

Of course, if he crossed the railway bridge, he would see slightly more of the junction, but he never says he does.

Maybe you found a better, more useful map, though?

Christer,

Firstly many of those "mistakes are not mistakes, but differences in interpretation.


Using the same OS map that Mr Stow used, the junction comes into view from around halfway across Bucks Row, from Browns yard towards Essex wharf . At the largest extent 9ft of the eastern side of the junction is visible to over 10 ft on the western side

Steve

[Fisherman]

Neil's testimony just cannot be dismissed.

Steve

True. It can only be pointed out as being unlikely in the extreme on the Bakerīs Row issue.

[Fisherman]

Christer and all

1/3 plus of the junction is visible, you think it's highly unlikely they could have seen each other, that the timing is too unlikely, however the maps and the geometry show such was very possible.
I understand that many reject such a claim out of hand, my initial response was to do the very same. Extensive checking changed my mind.
The point remains that is what Neil said in his testimony, and it happens after Thain has left him according to Neil. Mizen confirms there was no one else around.


Steve

A little more "extensive checking" could perhaps have saved you from many of the other mistakes you offered on that podcast. But of course, in the book everything is revealed... Certainly, much less than one third of the junction is visible, going on the map Edward provided - and even seeing the minuscule part that is on offer would predispose that Neils eyes were glued onto the wall of Essex Wharf. If he was any little stretch away from the wall, the visible part of the junction would get even smaller and quickly disappear out of sight.

Of course, if he crossed the railway bridge, he would see slightly more of the junction, but he never says he does.

Maybe you found a better, more useful map, though?

[Fisherman]

Sorry Simon
The maps and the geometry say he could. You may not like it, but physical science says very different to your view.

Hope you are well btw.


Steve

Edward Stow did a little counting on it, based on the suggested speed of walking furnished by Frank O. If Mizen was passing along Bakers Row and had no intention of going down Bucks Row to seek out the woman he had been told about, then there would have been a time window of less than three seconds during which Mizen would have passed the stretch of the opening in Bakers Row that Neil was able to see from Essex wharf. It therefore predisposes that during these two or three seconds, Neil must have been outside Essex Wharf, peering through the darkness up towards the minuscule opening into Bakers Row that was visible from the wharf, while Mizen must have walked southwards past that minuscule opening at the exact same time, peering over his left should down towards Essex Wharf. And as it was very dark when Neil would have seen Mizen, something like a stiff two hundred yards away, that sounds like a very odd theory.

But it is nevertheless the scenario you favor, right, Steve - one that points Mizen out as a liar?

To those with an interest in the case, I recommend taking a look at the thread about the errand on the other site, where Edward Stow examines Steves podcast revelations and finds them, shall we say, lacking sorely factually. As do I.

[Elamarna]

Okay, so you do not agree with Steve that Neil would actually have seen Mizen up at Bakers Row? And you do agree that Mizen was on his way to the body when Neil DID see him? Steves version of the truth seems to be that Mizen never intended to go to Bucks Row and only did so on account of Neil signalling to him. Apparently, Steve believes Mizen managed to see that signalling from opposite the murder site, and there would have been a minuscule window allowing for this, plus it would demand Neil having been at Essex Wharf and Mizen passing - and glancing to his left, noticing the lantern - up at the opening to Bakers Row at the exact same smallish fraction of time. I think that would be a stretch, to say the least.

I have not checked whether the material allows for Neil having gone over to the Essex Wharf side before signalling to Mizen, but I note that whereas you have Mizen at Thomas Street, Edwards sketch allows for him being at Queen Anne Street when Neil saw him, and the distance between these streets is not very long. The distance from Thomas Street to Bakers Row is much longer, as is the distance from Queen Anne Street to the murder site. And so I don't know if we can allow for Neil having thought that Mizen was in Bakers Row when he was at Thomas Street, but not that he made that mistake if Mizen had advanced to Queen Anne Street. But I note your remark, of course.

Christer et al

1/3 plus of the junction is visible from Neils possible position.
you think it's highly unlikely they could have seen each other, that the timing is too unlikely, however the maps and the geometry show such was very possible, and as for being unlikely Such things do happen. There is nothing to say it did not.

I understand that many reject such a claim out of hand, my initial response was to do the very same. Extensive checking changed my mind.
This included 3 D visualisations from both Bucks Row and from Bakers Row. The person who prepared these used the same base Map Mr Stow did, and they were not told initially what I was looking for, so they had no idea if I wanted to prove a line of sight or disprove.
It happens after Thain has left him according to Neil. Mizen confirms there was no one else around.

Again there is nothing above in any of the posts which shows Neil could not see Mizen in Bakers Row.
Neil's testimony just cannot be dismissed.

Steve