Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Elamarna]

"What a tangled web......"

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

I am noting now that there is a debate ongoing on this subject on the other site. I find there that Steve Blomer accuses Edward Stow of being biased, whereas he fervently denies being biased himself. Edward Stow makes the point that much of the speculation Blomer does seems tailormade to promote Blomers own favorite suspect, Kosminski. Curiously, Blomers defense is that he has not mentioned Kosminski in either the podcast or in this book - as if not mentioning a suspect would automatically mean that you cannot possibly work with a bias relating to that suspect...?

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

Much of the speculation is "tailor-made" to promote Kosminski? Which speculation is that exactly?
Given neither who are complaining have read the book, it must be that included in the podcasts.
This is a very interesting claim since the podcasts only really speculates about:

1. The police beats.
I am interested in knowing how looking at the various alternatives for the beat of Neil, which are all based on the Echo article of 20th is tailor-made for Kosminski? How does it promote him?

2. The Scam.
This one is fascinating, how does my preferred take on the scam, or indeed my second choice or a simply misunderstand, promote Kosminski, the logic to reach such a conclusion simply denies reason.

3. The escape routes.
Yes I prefer a southern route, because such is the quickest, and the direction with the most cover. However, I consider not only southern escape routes and have a great many possibilities in the book.

It seems clear from posts in many threads on both sites that south is considered by many posters to be the likely escape route, I assume that makes them all bias towards Kosminski.

4. That the area may have been known for prostitution.
How does this promote an argument for Kosminski over any other suspect? Again the logic and reasoning need explaining

5. The Slaughter men.
Here I speculate big time, even wondering if they, in particular Tomkins, could be involved in the murder, really not sure how that is tailor -made for Kosminski, given it suggests someone else.

As I have pointed out numerous times, on many occasions when I have made a point out here, regardless if Lechmere has been mentioned or not, Steve Blomer has made it his business to say that I only made my point because I have a bias (in fact, since I have that almighty bias, ALL my points can be expected to be less trustworthy, it would seem).

But suddenly, the suspect you have must now have been named before a bias can be suggested...? Or perhaps the Lechmere bias is per se admissible without mentioning the suspects name whereas the Kosminski bias cannot be spoken of unless the name has been uttered by the potentially biased part? Help me out here, please!

To begin the arguments put on this thread were that there were many mistakes in the podcasts, of these one was a verbal slip by Jonathan, which he acknowledged and the other pointed out to me by Mr Stow was that I had ascribed a comment from Paul to the Inquest when it was in fact in the Lloyds Weekly account. A simple mistake, which was immediately and happily accepted.
The other claims of mistakes have all be rebutted, by more than one poster.

Now however, having failed on the "mistakes" line, it's the "you are bias in favour of Kosminski" line.
Yes he is my preferred suspect, but I also consider, others who could fit Anderson's suspect. I also am very interested in Jacob Levy, Tumblety and Cuttbush.


I return again to the "Tailor-made" claim above, it is clear none of my speculation in the podcasts is tailor-made for any suspect, yet alone Kosminski, those who have read the book, can confirm such is true for the book too, could the real objection to the work be that it simply does not promote a particular suspect over any other.

I also note that the ever wise Gary Barnett has taken me up on my idea to bring Edward Stow on the podcast too. It would certainly allow for a fuller picture in many ways if Messr:s Stow and Menges can see their way through to such a thing.

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


steve

[Fisherman]

I am noting now that there is a debate ongoing on this subject on the other site. I find there that Steve Blomer accuses Edward Stow of being biased, whereas he fervently denies being biased himself. Edward Stow makes the point that much of the speculation Blomer does seems tailormade to promote Blomers own favorite suspect, Kosminski. Curiously, Blomers defense is that he has not mentioned Kosminski in either the podcast or in this book - as if not mentioning a suspect would automatically mean that you cannot possibly work with a bias relating to that suspect...?

As I have pointed out numerous times, on many occasions when I have made a point out here, regardless if Lechmere has been mentioned or not, Steve Blomer has made it his business to say that I only made my point because I have a bias (in fact, since I have that almighty bias, ALL my points can be expected to be less trustworthy, it would seem).

But suddenly, the suspect you have must now have been named before a bias can be suggested...? Or perhaps the Lechmere bias is per se admissible without mentioning the suspects name whereas the Kosminski bias cannot be spoken of unless the name has been uttered by the potentially biased part? Help me out here, please!

I also note that the ever wise Gary Barnett has taken me up on my idea to bring Edward Stow on the podcast too. It would certainly allow for a fuller picture in many ways if Messr:s Stow and Menges can see their way through to such a thing.

[Elamarna]

What I do not fail to realise steve,is that Aberline was present at the inquest.He heard the evidence,he was able to observe both Cross and Mizen.He must have deemed it unworty of investigation and ignored it.So it's not poor history for me to ignore it.That is my reasoning,so do not be at a loss any longer. steve.

We will disagree, if it should be in an account of the Murder, i think you will find the majority would say it needs to be mentioned.

It seems we agree on what was thought of the incident in 1888.


Steve

[harry]

What I do not fail to realise steve,is that Aberline was present at the inquest.He heard the evidence,he was able to observe both Cross and Mizen.He must have deemed it unworty of investigation and ignored it.So it's not poor history for me to ignore it.That is my reasoning,so do not be at a loss any longer. steve.

[Elamarna]

Steve,
Why do I believe we should ignore the Mizen scam.Simply because it has had years? of discussion and debate,and cannot provide an answer as to whether Cross was a serial killer.Trevor Marriot's theory of innocence,that Cross was a simple workman who found a body on his way to work,is the only plausible way of looking at the part played by Cross.It;s his innocence not guilt,if he is to be discussed at all,that should be the focus.

Sorry Harry, to ignore something because we dont like it, or agree with it is poor history.
The event does not in my view, materially have any effect on the murder.
This is the first book to concentrate on the Bucks Row Murder, it is meant to be a complete account.

The disagreement between Mizen and Lechmere is raised at the inquest. therefore it cannot be simply ignored and swept under the carpet, it MUST be addressed.


That you fail to recognize this is your choice, and i am completely at a loss to understand your reasoning. Let us just agree to disagree.

steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

It's fairly obvious to even a blind beggar and his arthritic dog that PC Neil was not in Bucks Row standing by the body of Polly Nichols at 3.45 am. Had he been, Cross and Paul could not have failed to register his presence, and would have given him their evidence.

Inquest evidence—

"Replying to the coroner, witness [Cross] denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left."

Inquest evidence—

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

PC Mizen's BS story, cobbled together after the fact, placed PC Neil exactly where he should have been at 3.45 am.

Regards,

Simon

Neil not being in Bucks Row at 3.45, while Lechmere and Paul are is where we disagree Simon. Too me its clear that Paul is wrong about his time, just as its apparently clear to you he is not.

Cobbled together after the fact, we agree on that, such is suggested by the evidence.

We can't agree on it all, part is better than none. Hope you are well.


steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

It's fairly obvious to even a blind beggar and his arthritic dog that PC Neil was not in Bucks Row standing by the body of Polly Nichols at 3.45 am. Had he been, Cross and Paul could not have failed to register his presence, and would have given him their evidence.

Inquest evidence—

"Replying to the coroner, witness [Cross] denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left."

Inquest evidence—

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

PC Mizen's BS story, cobbled together after the fact, placed PC Neil exactly where he should have been at 3.45 am.

Regards,

Simon

[harry]

Steve,
Why do I believe we should ignore the Mizen scam.Simply because it has had years? of discussion and debate,and cannot provide an answer as to whether Cross was a serial killer.Trevor Marriot's theory of innocence,that Cross was a simple workman who found a body on his way to work,is the only plausible way of looking at the part played by Cross.It;s his innocence not guilt,if he is to be discussed at all,that should be the focus.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Just stopping by to say I find it impossible not to paint PC Mizen as the liar in the Bucks Row equation.

Good luck.

Simon

Probably for different reasons, but thank you Simon.


Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

Just stopping by to say I find it impossible not to paint PC Mizen as the liar in the Bucks Row equation.

Good luck.

Simon

[Elamarna]

Once again, if you had had a very strong case for Mizen being a liar, I would have known that by know. Regardless if I have the book or not. There are many posters who would cork up the champagne and start celebrating if it was the case.

Can you hear the sound of champagne corks, Steve? To me, it sounds more like that fizzing sound that comes from a soda bottle with a plastic cap that has already been removed and put back a dozen times. And so I conclude that you spoke a lot about it but failed to deliver on it. I'm that kind of guy, very result oriented.

Your opinion, which you are of course entitled to.

A pity you are not in a position to make an informed comment on my views on the Scam.

The major point is that the "scam" has no material issue on the murder of Mary Ann Nichols or her killer.

Steve

[Fisherman]

It's for the reader to decide which version, if any, of the Scam they believe to be the most probably.
Or maybe they simply dismiss them all.
And say it was simply a misunderstanding, which seems to be a majority on the various forums.

It would have been far easier to follow that line, but to do so would be ignore what I believe is a far stronger case, based on my research, than proponents of Lechmere have presented.

But it's almost impossible to decide if one has not read the book.


Steve

Once again, if you had had a very strong case for Mizen being a liar, I would have known that by know. Regardless if I have the book or not. There are many posters who would cork up the champagne and start celebrating if it was the case.

Can you hear the sound of champagne corks, Steve? To me, it sounds more like that fizzing sound that comes from a soda bottle with a plastic cap that has already been removed and put back a dozen times. And so I conclude that you spoke a lot about it but failed to deliver on it. I'm that kind of guy, very result oriented.

[Elamarna]

My view is that if you had presented a convincing ground for that take in the book, I would have heard about it by now. Plus, I believe you would have mentioned it in the podcast, having been asked about the scam by Jonathan Menges, supplying you with a stellar opportunity to hammer that nail in the Lechmere theory coffin.

But nay, nothing at all.

It's for the reader to decide which version, if any, of the Scam they believe to be the most probably.
Or maybe they simply dismiss them all.
And say it was simply a misunderstanding, which seems to be a majority on the various forums.

It would have been far easier to follow that line, but to do so would be ignore what I believe is a far stronger case, based on my research, than proponents of Lechmere have presented.

But it's almost impossible to decide if one has not read the book.


Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Why do you think a crap theory deserves books to be written against it ?

Can you point me to a better theory please? I am not Lechmerian, but I still don't see any theory that can compete with it.



The Baron

EVERY suspect driven book has been crap. Someone drawing a conclusion from the existing evidence would be a nice change.

The only problem of course is that when using only the evidence, no one person can be signaled out as "the" likely suspect, and no conclusions can be made.

[Fisherman]

My view is that what ever the Scam was, it had no material outcome on the crime.

My view is that if you had presented a convincing ground for that take in the book, I would have heard about it by now. Plus, I believe you would have mentioned it in the podcast, having been asked about the scam by Jonathan Menges, supplying you with a stellar opportunity to hammer that nail in the Lechmere theory coffin.

But nay, nothing at all. Silence.