Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Elamarna]

I just wanted to say that I was delighted by this podcast because I was one of those people who saw the documentary and thought it had finally been cracked. I mean, after all, he was seen hunched over the body, he suspiciously lied to Mizen, and he tried to keep Paul from talking. That all sounds very damning... I also got the distinct impression that all this information was lifted straight from the inquiry.

It was useful to learn that, at best, everything I took away from the documentary was debatable, and mostly it was just wrong.

Reading the debate here, I'm confused by the nature of some of the criticism. Whether the Sgt. was on a round, a beat, a walk, a route, a trajectory, a perambulation, a path, a way, a jog, a saunter, or a poke about, the fact remains that we don't know where he was at the time. That's the impression I got from the podcast, that's the impression I got now. Does it cast any light on what happened that night? Does a round make it more likely that Lechmere was the killer?

Hi Cat, no it makes it no more probable, the beat/route "debate" is not material to the murder

Jonathan was simply asking me if we have any idea where Kirby was. Apart from his being according to his own testimony in Bucks Row at close to 3.15, all I have found is that he was probably back at the station by the time Mizen arrived for the ambulance .
I have no idea about the rest of his movements.
Jonathan on one occasion, I believe, used the term beat, rather than route.
Apparently that was meant to mislead people, I have to say in an not sure how it would.

That is what the debate centres around.




Steve

[TheCuriousCat]

If you read the entire thread, you will have your answer. I'm done with the subject for now.

I'm not sure if you can tell, but I am bending over backwards to give you a fair opportunity to make your point. If you don't make use of opportunities like this, you really can't complain if you get dismissed in the future. I've read the entire thread twice now. I don't see any post by you explaining why it is important. Can you give me the post number?

[Abby Normal]

I was actually asking Abby, who left out the true reason...

well I thought my wording of my second possibility left open that he lied on purpose to quickly get passed Mizen (either because he was innocent and just wanted to get to work quickly or that he was guilty and wanted to not be questioned/searched!)

but yes, a guilty lech is an option for him lying to mizen

[Fisherman]

I'm not sure if you can tell, but I am bending over backwards to give you a fair opportunity to make your point.

I HAVE made my point, and I did so before you started bending.

If you don't make use of opportunities like this, you really can't complain if you get dismissed in the future.

Well, we can't have that, can we? The very thought of somebody dismissing me out here of course makes my blood run cold. it would be such a rare thing.

I've read the entire thread twice now. I don't see any post by you explaining why it is important. Can you give me the post number?

I told you to read the entire thread in order for you to take in all that had been said. I did not say that the Kirby matter was one where speaking of him having a beat proved either that Lechmere was guilty or innocent. The point I was making was that there were errors in the podcast, and speaking about the Section Sergeants "beat" was one of those errors since Section Sergeants never had any beats. I did not say that it was important as such - that is your invention - I said it was wrong.

The criticism led to extensive bad blood and now that we have sorted it, you want me to bring it up back again. That is why I said I would rather not do it.

[Fisherman]

well I thought my wording of my second possibility left open that he lied on purpose to quickly get passed Mizen (either because he was innocent and just wanted to get to work quickly or that he was guilty and wanted to not be questioned/searched!)

but yes, a guilty lech is an option for him lying to mizen

Relax, I was just pulling your leg. I know that the option was hidden in there. But I do think that it must be mentioned, since it is what the whole matter is about.

[TheCuriousCat]

I told you to read the entire thread in order for you to take in all that had been said. I did not say that the Kirby matter was one where speaking of him having a beat proved either that Lechmere was guilty or innocent. The point I was making was that there were errors in the podcast, and speaking about the Section Sergeants "beat" was one of those errors since Section Sergeants never had any beats. I did not say that it was important as such - that is your invention - I said it was wrong.

The criticism led to extensive bad blood and now that we have sorted it, you want me to bring it up back again. That is why I said I would rather not do it.

Wow. When I implied your comment was irrelevant you told me to read the thread only to finally confirm that... it was irrelevant. What a waste of time.

[Fisherman]

Wow. When I implied your comment was irrelevant you told me to read the thread only to finally confirm that... it was irrelevant. What a waste of time.

Nope. It was relevant to the criticism leveled at the podcast - there were errors in it. When somebody who extensively goes into trying to explain a development in which PC.s and a section sergeant are involved, it does not invoke faith if that somebody speaks about the sections sergeants beat.

Whether you consider that a waste of time is of no consequence to me.

[TheCuriousCat]

Nope. It was relevant to the criticism leveled at the podcast - there were errors in it. When somebody who extensively goes into trying to explain a development in which PC.s and a section sergeant are involved, it does not invoke faith if that somebody speaks about the sections sergeants beat.

Whether you consider that a waste of time is of no consequence to me.

Your criticisms of the podcast are so trivial as to be considered praise.

[jmenges]

I did it. I confess. The word “beat” left my lips. As Paul as my witness, Fish has caught me red-handed.
Amazing that such a thing occurs on an unscripted, unrehearsed, casual chat with an author.

A first in the 11 year history of the podcast I’m sure.

JM

[Fisherman]

Yes, we can trivialize errors occurring in a podcast.

And no, there is nothing strange about the odd mistake creeping in when there is no rehearsal or script.

True, where Kirby was is a much more important question than whether he was there as the result of walking a "round" or a "beat".

To me, the point of interest was that Steve Blomer met the critique coming from Edward Stow with a total diss, claiming that whatever point he made, he had simply misunderstood and/or misinterpreted everything. And that owed to the man delivering the critique being Edward Stow, meaning that it was to be expected that he got everything wrong. The podcast was immaculate and no criticism was going to change that, simple as.

I disliked that arrogance very much, and so I listened to the podcast and I thought it was lacking in a number of respects, which I worded out here. To facilitate things, I singled out the Kirby matter, because it was very clear that Jonathan Menges made the mistake he openly admits to have made.

Once I criticized the podcast, Steve Blomer emerged and stated that my criticism was an example of how Lechmereians favour semantics over facts.

Herein lies the real problem of the matter. It is not so much about the exact route Kirby took as it is about how criticism must be allowed for and met with a fair attitude, regardless if it comes from somebody you disagree over matters with. Putting your head in the sand and saying that criticism is not viable when it comes from some sources is just not going to work. Claiming that you have the upper hand because your views are somehow better than those of people who hold a different opinion is not the way to proceed. Hinting at moral superiority is a disaster for any striving author. I have spent a long professional life as a journalist, and I therefore know who fare well and who get themselves into trouble when choosing how to react to just criticism, so I need no tutoring in that department.

Now, Jonathan Menges has made the best of what went down - kudos for that! - and overall, I believe my point about allowing in a fair way for criticism has found its target, and so I have no wish to pursue the matter any further.

[drstrange169]

>>A prime example of why I dislike debating with you. Has it even dawned on you that you actually put "promise" within quotation marks? Talk about Freudian!<<

Sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what the above means.

[drstrange169]

>> All in all, it is exceedingly evident that Charles Lechmere attracts ill will to a larger degree than any other suspect. <<

Having been on this site since the 1990's, I can state with certainty that Lechmere is a sardine swimming in the wake of The Diary's Sperm Whale.

[drstrange169]

>>The thing to do when caught out with a mistake is to generously admit the mistake. One can either say "I was unaware of this, thank you for pointing it out" or one can say "That's correct, it did not come out right and needs to be amended"<<

So does Christer practice what he preaches?

Post #8 Christer claimed,

“It (the podcast) sets out with Jonathan Menges stating that both Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen”

In post #12 he doubles down on his claim,

“ Menges pushed the idea of both carmen being involved in a conversation with Mizen as a fact…”

Both assertions are incorrect. Jonathan DID NOT say Paul Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen.

He said,

“Together they alerted a police officer.”

Which accurately reflects both Swanson and Abberline’s police reports. Reports that Christer is on record as saying do NOT imply both men spoke to Mizen.
Can anyone point to where Christer has written, "I was unaware of this, thank you for pointing it out" or one can say "That's correct, it did not come out right and needs to be amended"?

[Fisherman]

>> All in all, it is exceedingly evident that Charles Lechmere attracts ill will to a larger degree than any other suspect. <<

Having been on this site since the 1990's, I can state with certainty that Lechmere is a sardine swimming in the wake of The Diary's Sperm Whale.

Posts on Maybrick since 2008: 14074. Posts on Lechmere since 2008: 17130.

Quite a sardine.

[drstrange169]

Post #8 again, Christer says of Steve,

“He points out that the docu has Lechmere crouching over the body of Nichols. What one needs to realize is that the documentary works from the idea that Lechmere actually killed Nichols, and in order to do so, he must have crouched over her body at some stage. Attacking that depiction is attacking the sheer idea that Lechmere could be the killer, and that is not a wise thing to do.”

What Steve actually said was,

“(The TV show) having Lechmere crouching over the body as Robert Paul approaches him”

Steve did NOT suggest there was anything wrong with having Lechmere crouching over the body per se, but having it done in front of Paul, giving the impression to viewers that Paul saw Lechmere crouching over the body. Something I'’ve seen viewers of the TV show claim and Station Cat in this very thread also believed.

Can anyone point to where Christer has written, "I was unaware of this, thank you for pointing it out" or one can say "That's correct, it did not come out right and needs to be amended"?

Post #8 again, Christer says,

“Steve says that it is said that there was a nine minute gap and that there is no further discussion about that gap.”(In the TV show)

What Steve actually said was,

“There is no discussion about the fact that his (Paul’s) 3:45 is contrary to the evidence of Thain, of Neil and of Mizen.”

Steve does NOT say there is no discussion about the gap, as Christer claimed. He says they was no discussion about the other evidence about timings, a major and crucial factor and a massively major distortion of the know evidence.

Can anyone point to where Christer has written, "I was unaware of this, thank you for pointing it out" or one can say "That's correct, it did not come out right and needs to be amended"?