Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[jmenges]

Thread for discussion of...




One-on-one interview with Steve Blomer.

Available now to stream or download now at the following link:

http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=233

Also in Apple & Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Castbox, Tunein Radio...
and wherever in-depth podcast discussions about the Mizen Scam can be found.

Thank you to Steve Blomer for being on the show.

And thank you for listening!



JM

[Sam Flynn]

Superb podcast, both. Lucid, fascinating and informative in equal measure.

[jmenges]

Thanks Gareth.
Your compliments are appreciated.


JM

[Elamarna]

Superb podcast, both. Lucid, fascinating and informative in equal measure.

Thank you , it's taken almost 3 years.

Steve

[MrBarnett]

Very enjoyable, gents, especially the stuff about the knackers.

[Cogidubnus]

Cracking good podcast on a truly useful book...It's great to see so much stuff on this killing all in the one place...and now the teething issues are done with it's a really good addition to the JtR library...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excellent book Steve. Congratulations again.

Ditto the podcast. I’m listening to it as I type.

[Fisherman]

So I just listened to the podcast about Steves book. I cannot say that I found it very good. It sets out with Jonathan Menges stating that both Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen and this is something that we cannot conclude - although there are those who claim we can. Regardless, it makes for a one-eyed presentation of the facts, and that was never a good thing. If both carmen spoke to Mizen and heard all of what was said, we get a very different case, and as long as we don't know what applies, I would recommend a less tilted version. In the light of how I am often accused of tilting the story myself, one would think that such things would not pass on a podcast.

It has been promised that we would get to know why Mizen was the liar and not Lechmere, but once the revelation is made, Jon Menges actually disagrees with Steve about the matter. Steve wants to take the policemen assertion that they had not seen anybody to leave the spot so as to attract attention as evidence that Mizen withheld his knowledge about the carmen. Menges disagrees, and so do I. Menges points out that the carmen could not leave the spot so as to attract Mizens attention as they were not AT the spot at that stage, which is perfectly true. I would also say that since Mizen had arrived at the murder spot and found Neil there, then if Mizen was told by Lechmere that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row, he would expect Neil to be the one to report any odd behavior on behalf of the carmen at the murder site. To me, it is perfectly logical that Mizen answers the question, put as it were, with a "no".

Steve then gets the opportunity to attack the documentary and chooses a few matters to do so:

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. Colored figures are used to depict the persons and it should be perfectly obvious that they are suggesting a scenario that is entirely necessary for the concept of the documentary to work.
I have often said myself that if Lechmere killed Nichols and bluffed it out, he would not begin by leaning in over her body as Paul arrived, he would instead take some steps away from the body so that he could say "Oh look, isn't that a woman lying there? Let's go check her out, shall we?"

Steve also says that the police beats are represented as if there were policeman swarming over the place all the time. He correctly points out that the beats took half an hour to do. What he forgets to say is that the narrator actually ALSO points this out. He says that the PC:s passed every half hour. My take on things is that the filmmakers did not want to make the graphical representation one where the dots representing the beats took half an hour to appear on the screen. They probably gathered that such a thing would bore and deter the spectators.

A meal is made of how Paul, in the guise of Andy Griffiths, crosses the street in a manner that is not consistent with the facts. Nothing, however, is said about how the road construction work did not allow for doing it factually correct, and even less is said about how that particular detail is in all probability of no consequence at all.

Steve says that it is said that there was a nine minute gap and that there is no further discussion about that gap. Which there is. It is shown how the maths were done, and it is laid out that IF these maths are correct, THEN there is a nine minute gap.

Steve then goes on to add all of these wisdoms up by saying that the docu is "cheating" people. And yes, SOMEBODY is being cheated, but that somebody seems to be Mr Blomer cheating himself.

Jon Menges then grasps the opportunity to deliver what he seemingly thinks is the decisive blow against the Lechmere theory - Paul was not asked about the Mizen scam, and so the police must have cleared that up before Pauls appearance at the inquest.
What I think is important to keep in mind here is that we have 125 years of people not recognizing the potential of the conversation between Mizen and Lechmere. Nobody has ever pointed it out as potentially being part of the solution to the Ripper crimes before I did so. It has been looked upon as some uncontroversial misunderstanding of minuscule importance. What's to say that the police did not think the same? We have no evidence at all that the press reacted to it, and they would have had time to point it out before it was supposedly discussed and cleared up by the police. But no such luck!
Also, any such interest in the disagreement, based on the conception that Lechmere could perhaps have had something to hide, should undoubtedly have resulted in him being raked over the flames.
Where is the evidence that this ever happened? What police bigwig recognizes this in his memoirs, telling us about the carman they believed was a liar until it was all cleared up? And if they delved into the life of the carman - why is it that they call him Cross when we know that the police would likely give BOTH names, Cross AND Lechmere - if they knew about them?

One of the indicators Menges uses to ensure himself of Lechmeres innocence is that Paul was never asked about when he first saw "Cross". Really? He says that he met no-one until he met Cross and he says that as he arrived outside Brown´s, he noticed his fellow carman. "He had not met any one before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away." (Times, Sept 18 1888).

No, it was not a good podcast. Not if you are interested in the actual facts. But if you dislike the Lechmere theory, then I can understand why some take a fancy to it.

Of course, if somebody wants to present the case in a way that tilts the facts in a "Lechmere must have been innocent" fashion, then they are free to do so.

Luckily, I am equally free to point pout when and where it goes awry.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

What road construction work?

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Construction work. Part of the road was fenced of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Regardless, it makes for a one-eyed presentation of the facts, and that was never a good thing.

Unless it’s the one-eyed presentation of the facts to Scobie then it’s perfectly reasonable of course.

[Fisherman]

Unless it’s the one-eyed presentation of the facts to Scobie then it’s perfectly reasonable of course.

Herlock, before you can speak of something as being one-eyed, you must know per se that it IS one-eyed. Guessing won't do, and is quite simply rude and uninformed in this case.

Menges pushed the idea of both carmen being involved in a conversation with Mizen as a fact and that IS one eyed, and leaves out the very clear alternative presented by Mizen.

There is a difference, whether you can see it or not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, before you can speak of something as being one-eyed, you must know per se that it IS one-eyed. Guessing won't do, and is quite simply rude and uninformed in this case.

Menges pushed the idea of both carmen being involved in a conversation with Mizen as a fact and that IS one eyed, and leaves out the very clear alternative presented by Mizen.

There is a difference, whether you can see it or not.

There’s nothing to show that Lechmere managed or even tried to speak to Mizen alone Fish and the fact that they left Buck’s Row together with a common purpose just adds weight to the suggestion that they spoke to Mizen together.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

It's the first I've heard of road construction in Bucks Row.

There was construction work going on in neighbouring Winthrop Street.

Regards,

Simon

[jmenges]

It sets out with Jonathan Menges stating that both Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen and this is something that we cannot conclude - although there are those who claim we can.

Semantics...maybe, but my exact words used in the introduction were "together they alerted a policeman". Meaning they were together, walking as a unit.
I didn't say which of them spoke to Mizen.
Also, at no time did I dismiss out of hand the theory that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper and neither did Steve. So it was probably less tilted than it could have been if both the host and guest had been different.

Regardless of our apparent disagreements I appreciate Fish taking the time to listen and comment.

JM