Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[FISHY1118]

Easy one....no.

Then heres a man who discovered the first C5 victim, went on to give his evidence and statement at the inquest of said victim , then goes on to murder 4 other women, the whole time the police didnt give him a second thought ? Somehow i dont think Lechmere would have gotten a way with being jack the ripper.

[Busy Beaver]

Very enjoyable podcast, learnt stuff I never knew before. Cheers Steve and Johnathan.

[Fisherman]

The ability to critise, without readinģ the book is remarkable Christer.

I would want to comment on this rather odd post. I am here told - on a thread that very clearly is about the podcast interview with Steve - that I would somehow be unable to criticize what that podcast delivered because I have not read the book it discusses.

As far as I understand I am perfectly able to criticize any element of the podcast that I find lacking in any way for the simple reason that I have taken part of that podcast. After all, that IS what this thread is about.

Correct me if I am wrong. And of course, if Steve presents a diametrically different view in the book to the one he states in the podcast, then I may need to read the book and forget the podcast to get things correct. ..?

This rhymes well with the posts of Steve on the other site, where Edward Stow pointed out a number or errors committed; Sgt Kirby never had a beat as such, we do not know the beats of any division until later in time than 1888, Mizen would not have been able to perjur himself since he will have had handed in a written report, Mulshaw clearly stated that he was awake, the police did not get paid extra for knocking up etcetera.

This Steve addresses with the sentence "a complete misinterpretation of what was said from beginning to end, but one is far from surprised" although these errors are very clear in the interview. And then he goes on to answer Caz - who has claimed that Edward is "unstable" and that it is best not to answer his posts at all - that he will adjust to that take on things.

For a poster who has always made a meal of how important it is to be correct and fair, it is quite a baffling behavior.

I will not comment on this thread any more, and I will leave the comments of Dr Strange deservedly unanswered.

It is time to move on.

[drstrange169]

Just so we're clear, you are criticizing Steve for not answering somebody's post elsewhere and then you refuse to answer the posts here.

Do you want to be taken seriously?

Addressing the errors and double standards the three posts you've posted on this thread so far, would be a good start.

[drstrange169]

>> ...a number or errors committed; <<

You mean alleged errors, which is probably why Steve didn't waste time responding.



>>Sgt Kirby never had a beat as such,<<

In the broadcast cast Steve specifically said he had "no idea" re Kirby's movements outside of those recorded in the newspapers.

So this "error" needed no comment as the person making it did not listen to what Steve said correctly.



>> ...we do not know the beats of any division until later in time than 1888<<

Neil and Thain's beat was published in the Echo on the 20th. In his book and the broadcast, Steve notes that he does not know:

A: if the Echo's report was accurate
B: that he does not know the exact beats.

So, again, this "error" needed no comment as the person making it did not listen to what Steve said correctly.



>> Mizen would not have been able to perjur himself since he will have had handed in a written report <<

Have you seen how P.C.'s wrote their notes?

I'd recommend Ripperologist #79 and #80. In it Adam Wood and Keith Skinner publish extracts from PC 22H, Charles Roberts, reports.

In it, he uses terms such as, "being called to", no mention of who called him.


>> Mulshaw clearly stated that he was awake...<<

Depends which newspaper you read, in some he says he "thinks" he was awake, so to claim he "clearly states" is to not accurately reflect all the available evidence.

In the broadcast Steve makes it clear that is his personal opinion that Mulshaw might have been asleep.

Yet again, this "error" needed no comment as the person making it did not listen to what Steve said correctly.


>> ... the police did not get paid extra for knocking up etcetera.<<

There is no clear evidence about this, if you'd have read Steve's book you'd have known that he noted that.

Although it appears to be against police regulations, there is evidence that policemen did, in fact, receive gratuities for this service.

All in all the errors are with Steve's accuser, not with Steve.


Now about the "errors" in your posts here that you refuse to discuss ...

[drstrange169]

Just out of interest, I checked all the Mulshaw testimony reports and the bulk refer to him saying he only "thinks" he was awake. So Christer couldn't be more wrong in claiming he "clearly stated" he was awake, but nothing new in Christer being wrong;-)

For those who like actual the facts, most newspapers, including all the ones that said he was awake, paraphrase his testimony.

Two give direct quotes:

"Alfred Malshaw, a night watchman in Winthorpe-street, had also heard no cries or noise. He admitted that he sometimes dozed.
The Coroner: I suppose your watching is not up to much?
The Witness: I don't know. It is thirteen long hours for 3s and find your own coke. (Laughter.)"

Daily Telegraph


"Edward Muleham, night watchman at the Whitechapel District Board of Works, said -- On the night of the murder I was in Winthorpe-street during the whole of the night. I did not leave till about five minutes to six in the morning. I was in the open street, watching some drainage works.
The Coroner. -- Do you go to sleep? -- Witness: Sometimes I do.
The Coroner. -- Were you alseep between three and six o'clock? -- Witness: I don't think I was. "

Morning Advertiser

Once again we see the quality of arguments put up by some Lechmerites. This field of research is forever doomed to be dogged by distorted claims from people with agendas.

[drstrange169]

Re: Police being paid for "knocking up",

"... 'if it weren't for the knocking-up money a policeman in London couldn’t do it nohow." I inquired what he meant by 'knocking-up money' and was informed that it was the custom in London, and in all the large towns, for labouring men, who had to rise to their work at an early hour, to pay a small weekly sum to the policeman in whose 'beat' they resided, for knocking loudly at the door in the morning to awaken them. It is usual for policemen to add several shillings to their weekly wages by this practice ..."

Continental Monthly', in July 1862

[Fisherman]

It is a rot when a poster goes to the lengths that Dr Strange does in an effort to vilify and tarnish things.

I have said that I do not wish to answer him, and that stands - he is, as far as I can tell, not worthy of being answered by anybody with a genuine interest in discussing the case fairly. He has a record of making up strange things about the position of Lechmere in Bucks Row and entrances to the Broad Street depot, for example, that is severely unbecoming. I have taken him to task over this, and he has seemingly not benefited from the criticism but instead he has embarked on some sort of weird crusade against the Lechmere theory, seeking revenge for having had the shortcomings pointed out.

I will now make a final post out here, and it is quite likely to be my final post to Dr Strange as well.

I wrote about errors in the podcast, and Dr Strange took it upon himself to try and prove how the one in error was me, stating that I make "distorted claims". Well, let's look at it:

-About Sgt Kirbys "beat", this is something that is laid down by Jonathan Menges as an existing fact when he speaks of "the section sergeants beat". Steve had all the time in the world to point out to Menges that a section sergeant did not have any established beat, but instead he says that he has "no idea" what Kirbys movements looked like. This exchange between the two establishes that Kirby DID have a beat, and since Steve does not deny that this was so, he in practicality goes along with Menges´suggestion. If you know that somebody is presenting false information, then. why would you not point it out?

-About what knowledge there is about the police beats, Dr Strannge posts this:

"Neil and Thain's beat was published in the Echo on the 20th. In his book and the broadcast, Steve notes that he does not know:

A: if the Echo's report was accurate
B: that he does not know the exact beats."

Neil and Thain alike were J division officers. But the criticism offered here is that Steve says that "for H division, we have the beat books still left", without mentioning that these beat books are not from 1888, but from a later date meaning that we cannot tell whether those beats had changed or not.
THIS is what is criticized, and I'm afraid Steves mentioning that we do not have the exact beats for Neil and Thain has nothing to do with it.

-As for whether Mizen perjured himself or not, I have not read the Ripperologist articles referred to, so I cannot judge the viability of them in this context. I would, however, say that since we do not have the report, there must always be some wiggling room in either direction. Basically, though, since Mizen was not called by Neil but by two civilians, the logical thing to surmise is that this would have been mentioned. All in all, I'm nevertheless happy to concede that sponge doubt remains.

-As for Mulshaw and whether he slept or not, the Morning Advertiser is always useful, reporting ad verbatim as it is:

"The Coroner. -- Do you go to sleep? -- Witness: Sometimes I do.

The Coroner. -- Were you alseep between three and six o'clock? -- Witness: I don't think I was."

This is what Mulshaw tells us: He was not asleep between three and six, as far as he can tell. Steve is at liberty to assume that Mulshaw was not telling the truth, of course. He is at liberty to assume that Mulshaw had teleported himself to Preston for that matter. The crucial thing nevertheless remains that Mulshaw told the coroner that he believed that he was awake.
How that testimony can be used to vilify me as part of a claim that I "distort" is totally and absolutely indicative of Dr Stranges work.

-The question about whether the police were paid for knocking up is much the same. Whether there is pieces of evidence that PC:s were payed for the service or not in 1862, it nevertheless applies that it was against police regulations to do so in 1888. If Steve has evidence that the general practice was one where the PC:s WERE payed - and that is not the same as evidence that it happened on one or a few occasions - then I am fine with him claiming that this was the practice of the day. If he has not, I am less fine with it. And I am anything but fine with having a poster like Dr Strange saying that it is distorting the truth to point this out.

There, now I am done with this, and I will not return to the discussion or the thread in this context. And that is NOT because I am not willing to discuss the factualities, its because I am not willing to discuss them with somebody who has nothing to offer but a misguided and factually disastrous desire to inflict whatever damage he can to a theory he is apparently unfit to understand.

Now I am off to discuss things on threads destined for longer lives than this one, and with posters with more serious intentions.

[GUT]

Big difference between “I don’t think I was” and “I wasn’t”

[jmenges]

Ok then Kirby was doing his section sergeant “rounds”. How a “round” differs from a “beat”- and if there was a pattern to Kirby’s “rounds” or “beat” I had no idea. So I guess according to Fish there wasn’t any pattern whatsoever Kirby walked on his “rounds” that we can use to place him at a certain place at a certain time other than when he said he had earlier been down Bucks Row (which is all I was trying to establish) and Fish knows this as a fact. That’s why discussion threads for podcasts are created.
When I ask questions to a guest on the podcast I usually don’t already know the answer to them. If by asking this question in such a way I was inadvertently presenting “false information” then I apologize.

JM

[Elamarna]

No need to apologise Jonathan, it's nit picking of the highest order, you used the wrong word, semantics is the game some pro Lechmere people love to play.

To address a few points.

My comments about the beats were obviously about how in H Division we have some official records to go by, yes it may have changed, but it's official. With J division we have only the Echo.
That the report of Neil backs this up is nicely glossed over by Christer.

Mulshaw , clearly does not say he was awake, but he "thinks he was". If he had said I never dozed and was awake all night, I would not question it, but he doesn't

With regards to knocking up, I provide links in the book which go into great detail on the issue.

No need to write more given Dusty has said it all already.

Steve

[jmenges]

My question, as Steve figured out, was about where Kirby was before he walked down Bucks Row and where he went afterwards. Whether he was on a round, a beat, delivering pizza or playing hopscotch. The answer is ‘we don’t know’, and that is all I was wondering about.

JM

[Fisherman]

Ok then Kirby was doing his section sergeant “rounds”. How a “round” differs from a “beat”- and if there was a pattern to Kirby’s “rounds” or “beat” I had no idea. So I guess according to Fish there wasn’t any pattern whatsoever Kirby walked on his “rounds” that we can use to place him at a certain place at a certain time other than when he said he had earlier been down Bucks Row (which is all I was trying to establish) and Fish knows this as a fact. That’s why discussion threads for podcasts are created.
When I ask questions to a guest on the podcast I usually don’t already know the answer to them. If by asking this question in such a way I was inadvertently presenting “false information” then I apologize.

JM

There's no need to overdramatize. A beat is a fixed stretch, walked round and round. A section sergeant would not walk a beat, he would make rounds not determined in advance in order to check on the PC:s making beats. The difference is a major one.

I did not point to this out of malice, believe it or not. I pointed it out because it gave the wrongful impression about Kirbys duties. And now it is said by Steve that I am "using a game of semantics"...? The way people promoting Lechmere are prone to do...??

It would help a whole lot with a little less touchiness. If we cannot discuss as grownups, we´d better not discuss at all. It´s up to you.

[drstrange169]

>>I have said that I do not wish to answer him, and that stands…<<


And yet here you are answering me. So, status quo for hypocrisy in your posts.



>>I wrote about errors in the podcast, and Dr Strange took it upon himself to try and prove how the one in error was me, stating that I make "distorted claims". Well, let's look at it:<<


You’d have been better letting sleeping dogs lie, but it’s your apparent need for ego over evidence that lets you down every time.

So be it. Facts v fiction.



>>-About Sgt Kirbys "beat", this is something that is laid down by Jonathan Menges as an existing fact when he speaks of "the section sergeants beat". Steve had all the time in the world to point out to Menges that a section sergeant did not have any established beat, but instead he says that he has "no idea" what Kirbys movements looked like. <<

Let’s look at what Johnathon actually said rather than your interpretation of it.

When the subject of Sergeant Kirby comes up Jonathon says,

“… making his rounds as a section sergeant.”

He then makes a mistake, but corrects himself,

“Their beats .. then ..then.. Sgt Kirby’s .. um .. section sergeant rounds …”

Ergo, your claim that,

“beat, this is something that is laid down by Jonathan Menges as an existing fact…”

is incorrect and also contrary to your claim, Steve was under no obligation to correct anything.
It appears it was just to be a desperate attempt to find minor quibbles that fail when it's checked against the facts.



>>Neil and Thain alike were J division officers. But the criticism offered here is that Steve says that "for H division ... … THIS is what is criticized, and I'm afraid Steves mentioning that we do not have the exact beats for Neil and Thain has nothing to do with it.<<

Facts v fiction.

Here is exactly what you wrote in post #33,

"“…we do not know the beats of any division until later in time than 1888" …”

You'’ve dishonestly (how else should we describe it?) now changed your claim to H division only.

The mistake is yours, and yours alone. No amount of abusing other posters will change that.




>>-As for whether Mizen perjured himself or not, I have not read the Ripperologist articles referred to, so I cannot judge the viability of them in this context. I would, however, say that since we do not have the report, there must always be some wiggling room in either direction. <<

Fact v fiction.

You wrote in post # 33,

“Mizen would not have been able to perjur (sic) himself …”

Now that you've been challenged you've acknowledge their is "wriggle room".




>>This is what Mulshaw tells us: He was not asleep between three and six, as far as he can tell. <<

Exactly, as far as he could tell, in other words he cannot be sure, ergo your claim,

“Mulshaw clearly stated that he was awake” was misleading and deceptive.




>>Steve is at liberty to assume that Mulshaw was not telling the truth, of course.<<

But Steve never said Mulshaw was not telling the truth did he? Could you quote where Steve says he lied? No, I thought not.




>>-The question about whether the police were paid for knocking up is much the same. Whether there is pieces of evidence that PC:s were payed for the service or not in 1862, it nevertheless applies that it was against police regulations to do so in 1888.<<

It was against regulations in 1862. It had been against regulations since 1853, so as I noted in post #35, “there is no clear evidence about this”. If you believe there is definitive proof as you claimed in post #33 that it did not happen feel free to prove your claim.


So, the facts are that, your posts here are filled with errors. The simple thing to have done would have been to acknowledge them, but instead you've chosen to try, as you tend to do, bluff you way out of your mistakes, wasting everyones time.

[drstrange169]

>> A section sergeant would not walk a beat, he would make rounds not determined in advance in order to check on the PC:s making beats. The difference is a major one.<<

And, of course, Jonathon did say rounds. If only your posts were as clear as his broadcasts.