Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Fisherman]

I do not find it incredible, expected yes, my message is that Mr Stow said bias is a problem with all theorist, thus we are all in the same boat.

And indeed we are. So maybe it is time that you accept that it was never a case of me being biased and you not. it was never a case of you being singularly suited to decide about it. Once we have an idea about something, we all run the risk of allowing the idea to color our take on matters, that is a simple and universal truth. Once I believe Lechmere was the killer, I run the risk of letting that color my view, and once you believe Kosminski is the best suspect, you run the exact same risk. However, enlightened people are aware of this mechanism and they can strive to be as unbiased as possible, and that is exactly what I do - and I suspect you try to do also. Pondering that, it becomes an exercise in unworthy futility to automatically shout "bias" when somebody you disagree with makes a point.

Again simply misdirecting, the evidence, like it or not says Mulshaw openly admitted he was not sure if he slept during the period. That he did not see th eslaughter men pass argues at the very least he was not paying attention.

Mulshaw did NOT openly admit that he was not sure if he slept that period. An open admission would sound like this:
-Did you sleep during the hours we speak of?
-I may have done, yes.

Answering the question "I don't think I did, no" is NOT openly admitting that he was unsure whether he slept or not. It is stating that he believes he was awake, which is another thing altogether. The phrase "I don't think I did" is not necessarily an admission of the possibility of being wrong, by the way. You may be aware that my verdict on your suggestion is that I don't think that he admitted to possibly having slept. I am n ot saying that I am certain that he could not be wrong, I am saying that I doubt think your suggestion has anything going for it.

Does that mean that I allow for you being correct? Listen here Steve: I really don't think so.

There was no open admission. There was a phrasing that can sometimes be very strong, while on other occasions it is less strong. In no case does it amount to an open admission of possibly being wrong.


I have not said I am unbiased(of course pure objectively is impossible, we can only do our best), just that there is no bias demonstrated in the book.
You claimed there was "much speculation" in the podcast that showed a possible bias towards Kosminski.

I don´t have the book, as you know, so I can only comment on how there is very clearly a possible bias demonstrated by you in the podcast, just as there are very clear examples of what seems to be lacking knowledge in some instances. If, however, you say in the book that you favor a southern escape route on account of how you think Mulshaw was sleeping, then the game is up.
I prefer to say what you say yourself: one can only do ones best. And that is good enough. But NOT for you, apparently - when I do my best, you regularly shout "bias" anyway.

In reality this amounts to a southern escape route favouring Kosminski in your view.
If that routes had never been suggested before, or if it was only suggested by proponents of Kosminski you may have a point, but neither of those qualifiers is true.

Really, Steve: There is absolutely no need for you to follow somebody's lead to be biased. A bias comes from within, it is not purchased from others. Whether it has been proposed before that the southern escape routes favor Kosminski as a killer or not is neither here nor there - the fact of the matter is that it DOES favor Kosminski, and once we know that, you are at peril to be called biased for turning Mulshaws evidence on its head to promote the possibility. He does not "openly admit" that he may have been asleep at the relevant hours at all, he says that he sometimes do doze off at his job, but that he does not think he did so at the relevant hours. The obvious inference is that he I not willing to clim that he must have been awake that time, but to the best of his recollection, he thinks that he actually was.

How that transcribes into an open admission on his behalf that he may have slept during those very hours is something literate people find hard to see. Literate people accept that Mulshaw was a night watchman who sometimes fell asleep at work, people who accept that we don't know how often that happened, and people who accept that far from admitting to possibly have slept at the relevant hours, Mulshaw points out that although he sometimes could fall asleep on duty, his take on things is that this did not happen during those hours.

One more angle: The coroner wanted to know whether Mulshaw sometimes slept on his watch or not. The reason for asking is obvious: if he DID, then the killer could have passed him by unnoticed.
Mulshaw said he sometimes dozed off when on duty.
That opened up for the possibility of the killer having made his escape to the south, past Mulshaw. Therefore the coroner realized that he needed to qualify his question, and accordingly asked Mulshaw whether he had been asleep during the relevant hours when the killer would have escaped. And now Mulshaw - who very openly admitted that he COULD sleep at work - said that he did not think that he had done so at the relevant hours. So yes, he could sleep at times, but no, he did not do so at the relevant hours, to the best of his recollection.
And this is an "open admission" that he may have slept when the killer escaped...?

We can go on for eons turning this inside out, and these truths will not be affected anyway. So go ahead if you wish, but keep in mind that lost causes are normally best forgotten.

[Elamarna]

Looking at this again, it really tells the story:

"It is Mr Stow who has openly accused me of Bias, he says I am bias toward Kosminski, and thus all my work is tainted. The simple and logical reply must be that if such is true for me, it must be true for all who have a preferred suspect, that includes Christer and Mr Stow.
The logical extension is that no book by someone with a preferred suspect is credible."


The very apparent message in here is that you find it incredible that YOU were accused of a bias. To you, the mere suggestion that YOUR book could have a bias is silly. And you very much dislike what you find "the logical extension" of Edwards reasoning: "that no book by someone with a preferred suspect is credible". Because you really think that YOU are able to have a suspect and still produce totally unbiased work!

I do not find it incredible, expected, sadly yes. The message is that Mr Stow said bias is a problem with all theorist, thus we are all in the same boat. The logical extension is that no work on the case is credible if the author has a preferred suspect. That rules out just about every book or article, does it not?

This is why I wonder how it is that you think that you are so much better than Edward and I in that respect - how is it that YOU yourself can be perfectly unbiased whereas we can´t? How is it that what we suggest can and should always be met by the argument that we have a bias, whereas when you assert us that Mulshaw was sleeping and that his evidence should therefore be regarded as bolstering that take of yours, there is no bias at all involved?

Again simply misdirecting, the evidence, like it or not says Mulshaw openly admitted he was not sure if he slept during the period. That he did not see the slaughter men pass, argues at the very least he was not paying attention.

To put it differently: If YOU can tell when I have a bias, why would not I be able to tell when YOU have one?


Any ideas?

I have not said I am unbiased(of course pure objectively is impossible, we can only do our best), just that there is no bias demonstrated in the book.
You claimed there was "much speculation" in the podcast that showed a possible bias towards Kosminski.

In reality this amounts to a southern escape route favouring Kosminski in your view.
If that route had never been suggested before, or if it was only suggested by proponents of Kosminski you may have a point, but neither of those qualifiers is true.

[Elamarna]

Very briefly

Elamarna:

You just can't stop trying to spin everything, can you Christer.

Let me see; you called me Mr Holmgren, I politely asked you to use my to use my christian name since we have never been formal with each other before, you were pissed off and said that my polite request "said it all".

And I am the one twisting things? Apart from this chosen topic of yours being arguably the silliest disagreement in the history of mankind, you now also want ME to take the blame for it?

I see.

I have explained that because you referred to me simply as Blomer(which I consider rude in an exchange) twice, I referred to you as Mr Holmgren.
I was not "pissed off" at you asking me to call you Christer, either you have misread my post or you are being disingenuous.

When you are bias, I will say so.
When you are not, I will not say you are.
When you stop turning every thread you post on into a Lechmere thread, even when it's not , I will not call you bias.

Steve

You see, the problem with agreeing with you about how well suited you are to make these kinds of calls is that you are nowhere near suited at all. This may come as a surprise to you, but most of us who post out here do so with honest intentions, and really - we never needed you to judge for us whether we are to be deemed trustworthy or not.


When I say that I believe that the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same, for example, I do so on logical and factual grounds and I present those grounds in detail. To then have you saying that I only make that call because I am biased towards Lechmere is beyond ridiculous. The grounds are there, although you personally deny them. Others, posters who are quite knowledgable and well read up, agree with me that there is a very good case to be made.

Once we have a situation like that, it is not a sensible thing to do to discard what I am saying by simply playing the old bias card. Once that happens on a knee-jerk basis - and it does in your case - what we are looking at is not a factually based argument, but instead a cowardly attempt to nullify the value of important points. The discouraging insight that you can never win a factual discussion is once again soothed by your knowledge that you don't even have to discuss things - you just whine "Bias!", and that's it. it resembles a baby with a cherished pacifier.

You on occasion show a very clear bias, not a possible one, but a definitive one.
If you do so it is not wrong to point that out. Which is what I have said
It is you who have attempted to turn this thread away from factual content, not I.

I have tried my best to get you to leave that tactic for the longest time now, but you are not willing to do so. Fair enough! Just prepare to get your own medicine in return. It starts with you motivating your idea how an escape to the south in Bucks Row is the likeliest route, bolstering it by claiming that Mulshaws testimony tells us that he was probably sleeping (!).

Again you simply ignore the factual points that have been made on the issue. Continuing to say you interpret comments in a particular way, does not mean you are correct. Other arguments are presented for the view on Mulshaw, which you simply ignore.

It goes on to point out that the southern escape route is something you arguably favor because you prefer Kosminski as a suspect.

There are many posters here who favour a southern escape route, do they all favour Kosminski to reach that conclusion?
Or is the reason they reach that conclusion simply that it is the most logical and quickest means of escape. While preferring the southern route, routes of escape North, West or even East, are not ruled out. It is clear that you do not understand the approach in the book, of offering all possibilities, but then you havent read it.

I note that you ignore the factual issue that if Mulshaw is awake it does not bar an escape via Court st or Thomas St. And given Mulshaw does not apparently see Tomkins and another go past towards the murder site, one must ask if it would even bar someone escaping via Woods Building.

And it carries on to make the point that all your efforts to try and nullify Lechmere, unqualified and misdirected as they are, have come about only on account of a wish on your behalf to get rid of the best suspect there is, leaving Kosminski unscathed.

There is the crux of the matter, it is bias, in your view because you believe the work tries to nullify Lechmere, and such is simply not allowed. Maybe you should read the book, and see just what it does say, rather than continuing to comment from the ignorance of not reading it.

Let's see if that makes for a more productive debate.

Did I turn this into a Lechmere thread now, Steve? Hijack it, as it were?

Given it's about Bucks Row, how can it be hijacked to Lechmere, what a truly pointless comment.


steve

[Fisherman]

Looking at this again, it really tells the story:

"It is Mr Stow who has openly accused me of Bias, he says I am bias toward Kosminski, and thus all my work is tainted. The simple and logical reply must be that if such is true for me, it must be true for all who have a preferred suspect, that includes Christer and Mr Stow.
The logical extension is that no book by someone with a preferred suspect is credible."

The very apparent message in here is that you find it incredible that YOU were accused of a bias. To you, the mere suggestion that YOUR book could have a bias is silly. And you very much dislike what you find "the logical extension" of Edwards reasoning: "that no book by someone with a preferred suspect is credible". Because you really think that YOU are able to have a suspect and still produce totally unbiased work!

This is why I wonder how it is that you think that you are so much better than Edward and I in that respect - how is it that YOU yourself can be perfectly unbiased whereas we can´t? How is it that what we suggest can and should always be met by the argument that we have a bias, whereas when you assert us that Mulshaw was sleeping and that his evidence should therefore be regarded as bolstering that take of yours, there is no bias at all involved?

To put it differently: If YOU can tell when I have a bias, why would not I be able to tell when YOU have one?

Any ideas?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

You just can't stop trying to spin everything, can you Christer.

Let me see; you called me Mr Holmgren, I politely asked you to use my to use my christian name since we have never been formal with each other before, you were pissed off and said that my polite request "said it all".

And I am the one twisting things? Apart from this chosen topic of yours being arguably the silliest disagreement in the history of mankind, you now also want ME to take the blame for it?

I see.

When you are bias, I will say so.
When you are not, I will not say you are.
When you stop turning every thread you post on into a Lechmere thread, even when it's not , I will not call you bias.

Steve

You see, the problem with agreeing with you about how well suited you are to make these kinds of calls is that you are nowhere near suited at all. This may come as a surprise to you, but most of us who post out here do so with honest intentions, and really - we never needed you to judge for us whether we are to be deemed trustworthy or not.

When I say that I believe that the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same, for example, I do so on logical and factual grounds and I present those grounds in detail. To then have you saying that I only make that call because I am biased towards Lechmere is beyond ridiculous. The grounds are there, although you personally deny them. Others, posters who are quite knowledgable and well read up, agree with me that there is a very good case to be made.

Once we have a situation like that, it is not a sensible thing to do to discard what I am saying by simply playing the old bias card. Once that happens on a knee-jerk basis - and it does in your case - what we are looking at is not a factually based argument, but instead a cowardly attempt to nullify the value of important points. The discouraging insight that you can never win a factual discussion is once again soothed by your knowledge that you don't even have to discuss things - you just whine "Bias!", and that's it. it resembles a baby with a cherished pacifier.

I have tried my best to get you to leave that tactic for the longest time now, but you are not willing to do so. Fair enough! Just prepare to get your own medicine in return. It starts with you motivating your idea how an escape to the south in Bucks Row is the likeliest route, bolstering it by claiming that Mulshaws testimony tells us that he was probably sleeping (!). It goes on to point out that the southern escape route is something you arguably favor because you prefer Kosminski as a suspect. And it carries on to make the point that all your efforts to try and nullify Lechmere, unqualified and misdirected as they are, have come about only on account of a wish on your behalf to get rid of the best suspect there is, leaving Kosminski unscathed.

Let's see if that makes for a more productive debate.

Did I turn this into a Lechmere thread now, Steve? Hijack it, as it were?

[Elamarna]

So now it IS friendly? I thought you claimed that it "said everything" when I offered you to use my christian name...?
And now I am disrespectful for not calling you Mr Blomer?
Is that the most damning thing you can think up about me?

You just can't stop trying to spin everything, can you Christer.

Timeline:

You referred to me by surname only, twice in a post, while you referred to others by full names.
I interpreted that not as formal, but disrepectful.
I decided to then refer to you as Mr Holmgren.

You response to that was interpretated by me as being you objecting to Mr Holmgren.

Now I am perfectly prepared to accept it was not meant to be read the way i did, because you say it was not.

And what happened to the question I repeatedly ask you: Would you be so kind as to stop calling me biased whenever I make a point out here? Or would that be handing over what you perceive as a necessity in your repertoire?

When will we see an answer to that question from the unbiased and righteous Mr Blomer? I´ll keep asking until we do, you know.

When you are bias, I will say so.
When you are not, I will not say you are.
When you stop turning every thread you post on into a Lechmere thread, even when it's not , I will not call you bias.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not at all sure that Edward is looking for favors, Herlock.

Me, I'm looking for the favor of not being pointed out as an untrustworthy, biased poster by Steve every time I have something to say. But it seems he is not very interested in taking me up on that. He instead spends all his time telling us that there is no bias in claiming that the evidence points to Mulshaw being asleep, opening up an escape route that would suit a murderous Kosminski quite well.

Of course, we need to accept that Steve is always totally unbiased (he says so, so it will be true - that does not apply to Mulshaw, though) and will not lower himself to the levels Edward and I spend our miserable ripperological lives at.

Now, if you have any more problems with Edward, tell him about it. Don't tell me.

I have.

[Fisherman]

Ed Stow has done himself no favours at all by trying to make an issue of the beat/route issue on the podcast. It’s transparently obvious to all that this was nothing more than a slip-of-the-tongue by JM which Steve simply didn’t pick up on at the time. Yet ES rather pathetically tries to use it to imply a lack of knowledge on Steve’s part.

He’s in danger of injuring his back by stooping that low imo.

I am not at all sure that Edward is looking for favors, Herlock.

Me, I'm looking for the favor of not being pointed out as an untrustworthy, biased poster by Steve every time I have something to say. But it seems he is not very interested in taking me up on that. He instead spends all his time telling us that there is no bias in claiming that the evidence points to Mulshaw being asleep, opening up an escape route that would suit a murderous Kosminski quite well.

Of course, we need to accept that Steve is always totally unbiased (he says so, so it will be true - that does not apply to Mulshaw, though) and will not lower himself to the levels Edward and I spend our miserable ripperological lives at.

Now, if you have any more problems with Edward, tell him about it. Don't tell me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ed Stow has done himself no favours at all by trying to make an issue of the beat/route issue on the podcast. It’s transparently obvious to all that this was nothing more than a slip-of-the-tongue by JM which Steve simply didn’t pick up on at the time. Yet ES rather pathetically tries to use it to imply a lack of knowledge on Steve’s part.

He’s in danger of injuring his back by stooping that low imo.

[Fisherman]

We disagree on the interpretation.

You actually cannot interpret what Mulshaw said as a statement acknowledging that he was asleep. If you think so, you are deceiving yourself.

If he had not known whether he was asleep or not or if he had no idea about it, he could have said so: "I don't know". That would be a statement in the exact middle: either he slept or he did not.

But once he says "I don't think I did", and is furthermore able to point out a number of events that he was witness to during the hours discussed, we immediately have a greater likelihood of him being awake than of him being asleep. I will quote the ad verbatim Morning Advertiser:

"The Coroner. -- Were you alseep between three and six o'clock? -- Witness: I don't think I was. There was no one about whatever, and I heard no cries for assistance or other noise. The slaughterhouse is about fifty yards from where I was. About twenty minutes to five a man coming past said, "I say, old man, a woman has been murdered up yonder." On going to the spot I saw the deceased, and a doctor examining her."

As you can see, Mulshaw is telling us that there were no-one about during the hours in question, and he recounts how a man contacted him at 4.40. There is no hint at all at him being asleep, and he himself denies that it is a probable thing by saying that he does not think he was asleep.

How you manage to "interpret" that into it being more likely than not that he slept is something I believe most literate people find hard to understand. Unless, of course, I "misinterpret" that.

Again we disagree, i believe the evidence, suggests he was asleep.

If we read the evidence backwards, then yes; "Since the killer will have fled to the South, Mulshaw must have been asleep". Then again, once we do that, the one thing that has gone South is our credibility.

Yes indeed it is friendly, but you did not even give me the respect of Mr in your post, maybe you forgot, Twice!!

So now it IS friendly? I thought you claimed that it "said everything" when I offered you to use my christian name...? And now I am disrespectful for not calling you Mr Blomer?
Is that the most damning thing you can think up about me?
And what happened to the question I repeatedly ask you: Would you be so kind as to stop calling me biased whenever I make a point out here? Or would that be handing over what you perceive as a necessity in your repertoire?

When will we see an answer to that question from the unbiased and righteous Mr Blomer? I´ll keep asking until we do, you know.

[Elamarna]

To say "I don't think so" is to allow for uncertainty, yes.

But it still means that to the best of Mulshaws recollection, he did not sleep at the relevant hours.

Meaning that it is LIKELIER that he was awake than asleep.

We disagree on the interpretation

Ergo, making the conscious choice to opt for Mulshaw having been asleep is more likely to be false than true. You choose the option furthest away from what Mulshaw himself testified about.

It is really quite simple. He may have been asleep, there is nothing wrong with believing he was - but it is not what is suggested by the facts.

Again we disagree, i believe the evidence, suggests he was asleep.

Therefore, knowing that you are a Kosminski proponent, you open yourself up to suspicion of being biased and making choices not on account of the likely truth but instead on account of wanting a less likely thing to be true.

We can do it that way, throwing accusations of a bias whenever the other party opens his mouth (you have done so for quite some time now, so its not new to you), or we can extend each other the courtesy of accepting that we may both do our best to stay as unbiased as possible. I have asked for this a dozen times or so now, and I am still waiting for a response from your side.

If you think it is me being touchy when I offer you to call me by my christian name instead of being formal, then that's your prerogative. Most people regard it as a friendly gesture.

Yes indeed it is friendly, but you did not even give me the respect of Mr in your post, maybe you forgot, Twice!!

[Elamarna]

Exactly! Bravo! I agree one hundred per cent - if Edward says you are biased, you are at liberty to call him biased every bit you like to. The problem is that I want it THE OTHER WAY AROUND; I have - over and over and over again - been subjected to you claiming that I have a bias when I have made points out here, and I therefore think it may be a good thing to give you a taste of your own medicine. After having gulped that down and frowned, maybe the time has come for you to realize that it may not be all that good an idea to, knee-jerk style, claim that I have a bias whenever I make a point, thereby implying that my posts are less trustworthy that those of other posters. The fact is that we can make very good points that are very valuable to a discussion, points that moreover support our own suspects, which may nevertheless be good and useful contributions to the overall discussion. Therefore, if you could manage not to speak about a bias on my behalf whenever I write something on Casebook, much would be gained and the discussion climate would be a better one.

The point of course is that I have not said Mr Stow is bias in those posts, I have merely pointed out that if all theorists are bias, as he suggested, that includes him too.

Much of the speculation is "tailor-made" to promote Kosminski? Which speculation is that exactly?

I´ll exemplify from my own angle. What Edward meant is something that must stand for him, and he will in all probability expand on matter in the future.
In the podcast, you say that you believe that Mulshaw was sleeping. In the exchange with Edward, he points out that Mulshaw in fact said that he did not think he was sleeping, whereupon you say that not thinking you were sleeping is a long way from being sure you did not sleep.
That is correct.
But it is also correct that suggesting that saying that Mulshaw was probably sleeping is very much FURTHER from what he claimed in his witness statement. True, he said he sometimes dozed off, but he did NOT think he did so at the relevant hours we speak of here.

Not at all, if he is not sure he was awake, which is what he says, and he himself admits that he did sleep at times it is a legitimate suggestion to make.
Of interest of course is that he makes no comment about 2 of the slaughter men passing him to go to the murder site, if awake surely he had seen them, they must walk past him.

On JtR forums when Edward Stow gave examples to back up his view that Mulshaw was awake, he made mistakes, he claimed Mulshaw saw one police officer, possibly Thain.
In fact Mulshaw claimed to see two police officers during his night long spell, one he identified as Neil, the other could have been Thain, or it could have been the officer on duty before Neil, or even Kirby. He was not able to say at what time he saw the police and so that does not back up the view he was awake between 3-4.

Edward further claimed that Mulshaw so a man possibly Tomkins.
What Mulshaw actually said was a man passed and told him there had been a murder, the time he gives for this is about 4.40, who it was is unknown, but again it does not show he was awake between 3-4.


I will further add then when Edward pointed out a mistake made, on a quote, i accepted such immediately.
Despite Me providing quotes, he has not done the same.

So why would you do this? Perhaps because you favour Kosminski as a suspect, and because the escape to the south you believe in would be very well suited to take him home, regardless if we speak of Sion Square or Greenfield Street? Suddenly this becomes an issue where your chosen favorite suspect seems to have tainted your judgment and provided you with a bias. Given what Mulshaw said, the likelier thing is that he was awake, likely barring an escape to the south.

Maybe there was never any such intention on your behalf. Maybe it was a subconscious thing. But the fact remains that you seem to pave the way for Kosminski by disbelieving Mulshaw.

Mulshaw being awake would not bar any escape to the south, it may rule out Woods Buildings, but even that is debatable given he appears not to have noticed the two Slaughter house men . However, it cannot in any circumstance be used to rule out Court or Thomas Street, its just not a reasonable suggestion.

You previously said "Much of the Speculation", you have mentioned one item, not quite the same thing.

I do note and am sure others will too, that you have not addressed the issues commented on in the previous post, indeed you have simply ignored them on the issue of a southern escape route.

Of course, once we have a hunch, it is fair enough to stand by it. I know I favour solutions in relation to Lechmere that others may think less likely, but in the overall scheme of things, I believe there is overwhelming evidence pointing in his way, and so I will always explore beyond probabilities only - once there is a possibility, I will look at it and see if it is totally improbable or not. So far, no such thing has surfaced visavi the carman, of course.
Once we both understand that these matters can be looked upon as suspect-driven behavior, we will be just fine - until we start throwing manure at each other, calling our respective stances biased and untrustworthy, that is.

As I say, I am certain that Edward Stow will expand on why he says that there is a possible bias in your thinking and writing, so you may need to wait to get the complete picture. Subsequently, I will not go into what you say about the podcast and how other posters have defended you. That is regularly the case, fractions form and alliances are made, and so people will come to your aid in times of trouble.

Let's be clear he has not said possible he has said there is a bias.
What does he intend to do, post everything i have ever written about Kosminski and say because i have a suspect, my work must be bias?
If so the same will apply to ALL people with a suspect.


CLEARLY THE ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT ON THE LINES OF FACTUAL INACCURACY HAVE FAILED, SO WE TURN TO THIS .

[Fisherman]

To say I don't think so is to say you are unsure.
Which is what Mulshaw said.

Touchy, you called me Blomer twice, yet you object to Mr Holmgren, says everything.


Steve

To say "I don't think so" is to allow for uncertainty, yes.

But it still means that to the best of Mulshaws recollection, he did not sleep at the relevant hours.

Meaning that it is LIKELIER that he was awake than asleep.

Ergo, making the conscious choice to opt for Mulshaw having been asleep is more likely to be false than true. You choose the option furthest away from what Mulshaw himself testified about.

It is really quite simple. He may have been asleep, there is nothing wrong per se with having a hunch he was - but it is not what is suggested by the facts.

Therefore, knowing that you are a Kosminski proponent, you open yourself up to suspicion of being biased and making choices not on account of the likely truth but instead on account of wanting a less likely thing to be true.

We can do it that way, throwing accusations of a bias whenever the other party opens his mouth (you have done so for quite some time now, so its not new to you), or we can extend each other the courtesy of accepting that we may both do our best to stay as unbiased as possible. I have asked for this a dozen times or so now, and I am still waiting for a response from your side.

If you think it is me being touchy when I offer you to call me by my christian name instead of being formal, then that's your prerogative. Most people regard it as a friendly gesture.

[Elamarna]

I have! And call me Christer, please. But I hope that Jonathan Menges will extend the invitation to Edward since he is the real master of all things Lechmere, plus he is the one who is likely to publish a book on the carman and the case, making him best suited to take that place. I realize that the two gentlemen may not be the best of friends, but as I say, I am in no doubt that Edward would be able to overcome whatever animosity he may harbor against Jonathan and so I hope that could work both ways. If so, the Ripperological community would be in for a treat!

To say I don't think so is to say you are unsure.
Which is what Mulshaw said.

Touchy, you called me Blomer twice, yet you object to Mr Holmgren, says everything.


Steve

[Fisherman]

[B]"What a tangled web......"

This would be funny, if it was not so sadly transparent.

What is transparent, Steve? And would you rather have me beating about the bush...?

It is Mr Stow who has openly accused me of Bias, he says I am bias toward Kosminski, and thus all my work is tainted. The simple and logical reply must be that if such is true for me, it must be true for all who have a preferred suspect, that includes Christer and Mr Stow.
The logical extension is that no book by someone with a preferred suspect is credible

Exactly! Bravo! I agree one hundred per cent - if Edward says you are biased, you are at liberty to call him biased every bit you like to. The problem is that I want it THE OTHER WAY AROUND; I have - over and over and over again - been subjected to you claiming that I have a bias when I have made points out here, and I therefore think it may be a good thing to give you a taste of your own medicine. After having gulped that down and frowned, maybe the time has come for you to realize that it may not be all that good an idea to, knee-jerk style, claim that I have a bias whenever I make a point, thereby implying that my posts are less trustworthy that those of other posters. The fact is that we can make very good points that are very valuable to a discussion, points that moreover support our own suspects, which may nevertheless be good and useful contributions to the overall discussion. Therefore, if you could manage not to speak about a bias on my behalf whenever I write something on Casebook, much would be gained and the discussion climate would be a better one.

Much of the speculation is "tailor-made" to promote Kosminski? Which speculation is that exactly?

I´ll exemplify from my own angle. What Edward meant is something that must stand for him, and he will in all probability expand on matter in the future.
In the podcast, you say that you believe that Mulshaw was sleeping. In the exchange with Edward, he points out that Mulshaw in fact said that he did not think he was sleeping, whereupon you say that not thinking you were sleeping is a long way from being sure you did not sleep.
That is correct.
But it is also correct that suggesting that saying that Mulshaw was probably sleeping is very much FURTHER from what he claimed in his witness statement. True, he said he sometimes dozed off, but he did NOT think he did so at the relevant hours we speak of here.

So why would you do this? Perhaps because you favour Kosminski as a suspect, and because the escape to the south you believe in would be very well suited to take him home, regardless if we speak of Sion Square or Greenfield Street? Suddenly this becomes an issue where your chosen favorite suspect seems to have tainted your judgment and provided you with a bias. Given what Mulshaw said, the likelier thing is that he was awake, likely barring an escape to the south.

Maybe there was never any such intention on your behalf. Maybe it was a subconscious thing. But the fact remains that you seem to pave the way for Kosminski by disbelieving Mulshaw.

Of course, once we have a hunch, it is fair enough to stand by it. I know I favour solutions in relation to Lechmere that others may think less likely, but in the overall scheme of things, I believe there is overwhelming evidence pointing in his way, and so I will always explore beyond probabilities only - once there is a possibility, I will look at it and see if it is totally improbable or not. So far, no such thing has surfaced visavi the carman, of course.
Once we both understand that these matters can be looked upon as suspect-driven behavior, we will be just fine - until we start throwing manure at each other, calling our respective stances biased and untrustworthy, that is.

As I say, I am certain that Edward Stow will expand on why he says that there is a possible bias in your thinking and writing, so you may need to wait to get the complete picture. Subsequently, I will not go into what you say about the podcast and how other posters have defended you. That is regularly the case, fractions form and alliances are made, and so people will come to your aid in times of trouble.

All I can comment is that Mr Holmgren has been offered that opportunity on here, himself.

steve

I have! And call me Christer, please. But I hope that Jonathan Menges will extend the invitation to Edward since he is the real master of all things Lechmere, plus he is the one who is likely to publish a book on the carman and the case, making him best suited to take that place. I realize that the two gentlemen may not be the best of friends, but as I say, I am in no doubt that Edward would be able to overcome whatever animosity he may harbor against Jonathan and so I hope that could work both ways. If so, the Ripperological community would be in for a treat!