Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Fisherman]

I´ll make quick work of this.

Stating "I have said that I do not wish to answer him, and that stands…" is not the same as promising never to do so. It explicitly says that I have no WISH to debate with you, and I really, really don't.

But when you misrepresent things it may be that I make the call that there is reason to step in and correct you.

Which is what I just did. You claim that it is "hypocrisy" on my behalf to first say that I do not wish to answer you and then do so.

The fact of the matter is that I dislike your debating techniques so very much that I find it utterly unpleasant to have anything at all to do with you. meaning that I will once again say that I do not wish to answer you after this post of mine. I however reserve myself the right to show the community out here what you amount to, should I feel so inclined.

In fact, even if I had said that I would never answer you, I would still reserve myself the right to do so, since that is MY prerogative, not yours.

So much for your first post - it goes awry from the outset, as always when somebody uninterested in the facts allows himself to get consumed by his own lacking judgment.

In your next post, you say that Jonathan Menges says that Kirby made rounds. Perhaps you missed out on my quotation? If so, here it is again: Jonathan Menges spoke of "the sections sergeants beat".

It could easily be said that a PC is making his rounds when on his beat. It cannot, however, be said that a section sergeant making his rounds is out on a beat.

This is the long and the short of it. The facts, as it were.

The moment I feel you need more tutoring in that field, I will make my own decisions about whether I want to take the trouble and abuse it will earn me to do so.

[Trevor Marriott]

>> 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.

Just for clarity Sgts would arrange to meet beat constables at fixed points on their beat on the hour or on the half hour. This would be pre determined before they left the police station. This was to ensure they were on their beats, and to relay any information to them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[drstrange169]

If you want to urge others do the right thing. Stop running away from your posts and you do the right thing.

I was right about "H division" comments. Jonathon was right about "alerted not spoke"' I was right about "crouching"' I was right about "space available on the other side of the road", I was right about "perjury" comments, I was right about "Mulshaw", I was right about "knocking up" and I was right that Jonathon talked about "rounds". Because he stumbled a bit, you seem to think it's some kind of point score, it isn't, since he clearly (I'm using the word correctly, you should note) knew enough to tell the listeners about "rounds", some thing you claimed he didn't do.

Your last post is notable, not for what you wrote, but rather for what you avoided answering. Are you here just to troll?



>> Stating "I have said that I do not wish to answer him, and that stands…" is not the same as promising never to do so.<<


"I will not comment on this thread any more, and I will leave the comments of Dr Strange deservedly unanswered." Your post #33.

Reads like a "promise" to me.

Even by your standards, your posts on this thread have been a disaster. Life is so much easier if you stick to facts, be less abrasive, and be a bit more honest in your replies.

Anyway, I'm now off to see Nick Cave and Warren Ellis in what promises to be the gig of the year, so you'll have to be bitter and twisted on your own for awhile.

[Elamarna]

I will make a comment or two here.

It is rather unusual for the actual podcast to be attacked in the way this one has been, both here and in another place.
True the theories are often rediculed and mistakes pointed out, but there are rarely attacks on the interviewer.

The podcast is about a book, and I note neither of those who have been critical have made any attempt to purchase the actual book and read it.

Let me be very clear here, if anyone can prove factual mistakes in the book, I will correct in the 1st major update, which All purchasers will receive.

However the points raised have been more on interpretation than actual facts:

Mulshaw being possibly asleep is interpretation,

If money's were taken sometimes by officers for knocking up, is debateable, and to not mention the possibility would be dishonest.

The issue of the H Division beat maps is a pure red herring, the point is that they are official records which give an official version of the beats, no matter what the year. The comparison was there are No such records for J division.

The beat v round comments by Jonathan are a true indication of the levels of this debate, at one point in the podcast, he used the wrong term, I knew what he meant, which was simply is there a record of Kirbys location that night, the answer is no, "I have no idea".


It has also been claimed that on another forum Ed Stow was called "unstable".

What Caz actually posted was:

"I humbly suggest that you do not respond in future to this poster , whose views are far from balanced"

That says his views on Lechmere are bias, not that he is "unstable", such a blatant untruth is unacceptable.

What we are witnessing is fear of the theory being damaged, which in itself suggests a pre-knowledge of its obvious flaws.

Of course on reading the book, it is clear that I do not dismiss Lechmere, merely question some of the arguments made in favour of him, but of course one needs to read the book.

Steve

[Fisherman]

I will make a comment or two here.

It is rather unusual for the actual podcast to be attacked in the way this one has been, both here and in another place.
True the theories are often rediculed and mistakes pointed out, but there are rarely attacks on the interviewer.

The podcast is about a book, and I note neither of those who have been critical have made any attempt to purchase the actual book and read it.

Let me be very clear here, if anyone can prove factual mistakes in the book, I will correct in the 1st major update, which All purchasers will receive.

However the points raised have been more on interpretation than actual facts:

Mulshaw being possibly asleep is interpretation,

If money's were taken sometimes by officers for knocking up, is debateable, and to not mention the possibility would be dishonest.

The issue of the H Division beat maps is a pure red herring, the point is that they are official records which give an official version of the beats, no matter what the year. The comparison was there are No such records for J division.

The beat v round comments by Jonathan are a true indication of the levels of this debate, at one point in the podcast, he used the wrong term, I knew what he meant, which was simply is there a record of Kirbys location that night, the answer is no, "I have no idea".


It has also been claimed that on another forum Ed Stow was called "unstable".

What Caz actually posted was:

"I humbly suggest that you do not respond in future to this poster , whose views are far from balanced"

That says his views on Lechmere are bias, not that he is "unstable", such a blatant untruth is unacceptable.

What we are witnessing is fear of the theory being damaged, which in itself suggests a pre-knowledge of its obvious flaws.

Of course on reading the book, it is clear that I do not dismiss Lechmere, merely question some of the arguments made in favour of him, but of course one needs to read the book.

Steve

I am happy to respond.

When a book is published, or when a podcast is aired, the ones behind these things have a responsibility for what is put out on the market.

When the book or podcast is criticized for whatever reason, one expects this criticism to be met with a cool head and balanced answers.

When Edward Stow criticized the podcast and questioned the level of understanding of the different parameters of the Nichols case in a lengthy post on JTR Forums, no such balanced answers were offered. Instead, the reply was a very short one:

"A complete misintreptation of what was said from begining to end, but one is far from surprised."

On this site, the author of this sentence - and of the book discussed in the podcast - made the following reply to the factually based observation that it is wrongly spoken in the podcast of a beat on behalf go Sgt Kirby:

" ...it's nit picking of the highest order, you used the wrong word, semantics is the game some pro Lechmere people love to play."

So we can see that there is a wish to present those who believe in Lechmere as the killer - in this case Edward and me - as generally speaking unreliable and playing semantic games.

To this, Jonathan Menges adds a little mockery about his mistake:

"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 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" in which case one points to having had the knowledge all along.

That is how one gains trust and makes the best of a mistake. It is how the book or podcast on offer is also best served, if one wants to retain as much credibility as possible.

The thing NOT to do in a situation like this is to mock the ones who present fair criticism about the material. And to single a group out as unfit to criticize material is disastrous, not least if everybody knows that there is a disagreement between author and criticizer over the topic criticized. Such behavior is tantamount to credibility harakiri.

From what I gather, there are parts of the book Steve has written that are useful as some sort of reference material. It is sad if that part of the effort is dragged down by an attitude that was never going to work when defending a written or aired piece.

As for the encouragement to avoid debating with Edward Stow on account of him being "unbalanced", I am happy to accept that I may have gotten it wrong myself. But I can assure you that he is anything but unbalanced in his views, plus he has a knowledge of the case - and not least of the Lechmere family - that is unsurpassed. Unbalance is not expressed in choosing a suspect, if that choice is well built under - and it is. Unbalance is instead something that is richly exemplified by the attitude taken against the criticism offered about the podcast about Steves book, and personally, I find it sad. It inevitably affects the reliability of those who present it, and of course also the reliability of their work.

[Fisherman]

If you want to urge others do the right thing. Stop running away from your posts and you do the right thing.

I was right about "H division" comments. Jonathon was right about "alerted not spoke"' I was right about "crouching"' I was right about "space available on the other side of the road", I was right about "perjury" comments, I was right about "Mulshaw", I was right about "knocking up" and I was right that Jonathon talked about "rounds". Because he stumbled a bit, you seem to think it's some kind of point score, it isn't, since he clearly (I'm using the word correctly, you should note) knew enough to tell the listeners about "rounds", some thing you claimed he didn't do.

Your last post is notable, not for what you wrote, but rather for what you avoided answering. Are you here just to troll?



>> Stating "I have said that I do not wish to answer him, and that stands…" is not the same as promising never to do so.<<


"I will not comment on this thread any more, and I will leave the comments of Dr Strange deservedly unanswered." Your post #33.

Reads like a "promise" to me.

Even by your standards, your posts on this thread have been a disaster. Life is so much easier if you stick to facts, be less abrasive, and be a bit more honest in your replies.

Anyway, I'm now off to see Nick Cave and Warren Ellis in what promises to be the gig of the year, so you'll have to be bitter and twisted on your own for awhile.

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!

[Elamarna]

Oh, fun

I am happy to respond.

When a book is published, or when a podcast is aired, the ones behind these things have a responsibility for what is put out on the market.

When the book or podcast is criticized for whatever reason, one expects this criticism to be met with a cool head and balanced answers.

Which i did to your post #8, in post 22, 23, 24 and in depth in post 27, which you have not responded to, such of course is your choice.

When Edward Stow criticized the podcast and questioned the level of understanding of the different parameters of the Nichols case in a lengthy post on JTR Forums, no such balanced answers were offered. Instead, the reply was a very short one:

"A complete misintreptation of what was said from begining to end, but one is far from surprised."

I am not communicating with that person, I saw no need for anything other than that comment, to ignore completely would have been wrong..

On this site, the author of this sentence - and of the book discussed in the podcast - made the following reply to the factually based observation that it is wrongly spoken in the podcast of a beat on behalf go Sgt Kirby:

" ...it's nit picking of the highest order, you used the wrong word, semantics is the game some pro Lechmere people love to play."

So we can see that there is a wish to present those who believe in Lechmere as the killer - in this case Edward and me - as generally speaking unreliable and playing semantic games.

You present that case very well without any help from anyone else.

To this, Jonathan Menges adds a little mockery about his mistake:

"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 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" in which case one points to having had the knowledge all along.

That is how one gains trust and makes the best of a mistake. It is how the book or podcast on offer is also best served, if one wants to retain as much credibility as possible.

I think you will find that Jonathan has happily accepted "Beat" may have been the incorrect word.

The thing NOT to do in a situation like this is to mock the ones who present fair criticism about the material. And to single a group out as unfit to criticize material is disastrous, not least if everybody knows that there is a disagreement between author and criticizer over the topic criticized. Such behavior is tantamount to credibility harakiri.

No one has said you are unfit to criticize the podcast, only that the criticisms are somewhat minor, and most so far mentioned are matters of interpretation or debate, rest assured all alternatives are mentioned in the book, which obviously cannot be covered in a 1 hour podcast. However, if those or any other comments suggest something is factually incorrect, changes will be made to the next update of the book, due in September.

From what I gather, there are parts of the book Steve has written that are useful as some sort of reference material. It is sad if that part of the effort is dragged down by an attitude that was never going to work when defending a written or aired piece.

As for the encouragement to avoid debating with Edward Stow on account of him being "unbalanced", I am happy to accept that I may have gotten it wrong myself. But I can assure you that he is anything but unbalanced in his views, plus he has a knowledge of the case - and not least of the Lechmere family - that is unsurpassed.

It is fully accepted that he has knowledge, that does not however mean he is not bias in his views. You believe he is not, to be expected given that you have the same suspect, others have a different view. Obviously we will disagree on that.

,Unbalance is not expressed in choosing a suspect, if that choice is well built under - and it is.

We disagree on that very point, I see it built on half-truths, great exaggeration and very selective use of sources, as do many others. You and Ed obviously do not.

I will say that the book does not dismiss Lechmere as a suspect, and neither did the podcast, it merely attempts to look at the sources as objectively as possible.

Unbalance is instead something that is richly exemplified by the attitude taken against the criticism offered about the podcast about Steves book, and personally, I find it sad. It inevitably affects the reliability of those who present it, and of course also the reliability of their work.

Given that I responded to your initial criticisms, you have decided not to respond to those comments in any meaningful way.

I have in the last few days, answered again the points you have raised, and you have at the time of writing not replied to those.


Can I thank you for the free publicity your continuing posts ensure.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Oh, fun




Which i did to your post #8, in post 22, 23, 24 and in depth in post 27, which you have not responded to, such of course is your choice.




I am not communicating with that person, I saw no need for anything other than that comment, to ignore completely would have been wrong..





You present that case very well without any help from anyone else.



I think you will find that Jonathan has happily accepted "Beat" may have been the incorrect word.



No one has said you are unfit to criticize the podcast, only that the criticisms are somewhat minor, and most so far mentioned are matters of interpretation or debate, rest assured all alternatives are mentioned in the book, which obviously cannot be covered in a 1 hour podcast. However, if those or any other comments suggest something is factually incorrect, changes will be made to the next update of the book, due in September.





It is fully accepted that he has knowledge, that does not however mean he is not bias in his views. You believe he is not, to be expected given that you have the same suspect, others have a different view. Obviously we will disagree on that.




We disagree on that very point, I see it built on half-truths, great exaggeration and very selective use of sources, as do many others. You and Ed obviously do not.

I will say that the book does not dismiss Lechmere as a suspect, and neither did the podcast, it merely attempts to look at the sources as objectively as possible.




Given that I responded to your initial criticisms, you have decided not to respond to those comments in any meaningful way.

I have in the last few days, answered again the points you have raised, and you have at the time of writing not replied to those.


Can I thank you for the free publicity your continuing posts ensure.


Steve

One point will say it all:

"No one has said you are unfit to criticize the podcast"

That is rather a sly way of avoiding to take responsibility for the reoccurring digs on your behalf at those who support Lechmere. If you had been somewhat more upright, you would have admitted that saying that it was to be expected that Edward got things wrong and that stating that "some Lechmereians" (you seemingly did not have the guts to point me out) deal in semantics rather than facts is more or less the same as saying that those who endorse Lechmere ARE unfit to criticize the podcast, but no. It´s all about wriggling and avoiding to take responsibility for your slander.

Once you realize that, your words about semantics become quite the joke, don't they?

If that insight helps to sell your book, so be it. I'm always glad to help out.

[jmenges]

Let’s not kid ourselves.
Eddy Butler has a personal vendetta against me since I was the first to report on his far right-wing racist political activism, and I suspect that is what Caz was referring to when calling his views “very far from balanced”.
This might indicate why he criticized the podcast on so many minor points. He just had to get in a dig.
But as I’ve said before, at least twice now on this thread, I welcome corrections and discussion about the show. However it would be more helpful to our listeners if those criticisms were honest. As Dr. Strange has outlined, some of what’s being characterized as purposefully misleading statements made on the show were nothing of the sort.

JM

[Elamarna]

One point will say it all:

"No one has said you are unfit to criticize the podcast"

That is rather a sly way of avoiding to take responsibility for the reoccurring digs on your behalf at those who support Lechmere. If you had been somewhat more upright, you would have admitted that saying that it was to be expected that Edward got things wrong and that stating that "some Lechmereians" (you seemingly did not have the guts to point me out) deal in semantics rather than facts is more or less the same as saying that those who endorse Lechmere ARE unfit to criticize the podcast, but no. It´s all about wriggling and avoiding to take responsibility for your slander.

Once you realize that, your words about semantics become quite the joke, don't they?

If that insight helps to sell your book, so be it. I'm always glad to help out.

It's not the same at all, if I wanted to say you were unfit to criticise I would, but you are perfectly capable of making critism if you wish. We really are playing victim.

The issue of course is that the critism is on the whole about interpretation and not about fact.
My considered response to those you posed, have not addressed


What slander have I perpetrated? That is a very serious allegation.
Please withdraw.

Steve

[Patrick S]

I´ll make quick work of this.

Stating "I have said that I do not wish to answer him, and that stands…" is not the same as promising never to do so. It explicitly says that I have no WISH to debate with you, and I really, really don't.

But when you misrepresent things it may be that I make the call that there is reason to step in and correct you.

Which is what I just did. You claim that it is "hypocrisy" on my behalf to first say that I do not wish to answer you and then do so.

The fact of the matter is that I dislike your debating techniques so very much that I find it utterly unpleasant to have anything at all to do with you. meaning that I will once again say that I do not wish to answer you after this post of mine. I however reserve myself the right to show the community out here what you amount to, should I feel so inclined.

In fact, even if I had said that I would never answer you, I would still reserve myself the right to do so, since that is MY prerogative, not yours.

So much for your first post - it goes awry from the outset, as always when somebody uninterested in the facts allows himself to get consumed by his own lacking judgment.

In your next post, you say that Jonathan Menges says that Kirby made rounds. Perhaps you missed out on my quotation? If so, here it is again: Jonathan Menges spoke of "the sections sergeants beat".

It could easily be said that a PC is making his rounds when on his beat. It cannot, however, be said that a section sergeant making his rounds is out on a beat.

This is the long and the short of it. The facts, as it were.

The moment I feel you need more tutoring in that field, I will make my own decisions about whether I want to take the trouble and abuse it will earn me to do so.

You'll never understand that disagreeing with you isn't the same thing as "misrepresenting". You seem incapable of rational response when challenged. Frankly, as the challenges to your theory have become more numerous this has become your standard response. You react indignantly, accusing others of all manner of verbal barbarism, looking for any way to distract and end any debate. It's alternately amusing and pathetic.

Of course you're a hypocrite. And of course there are things you simply do not wish to answer. Let me rephrase that. There are things that you simply CANNOT answer HONESTLY, lest your theory, already in tatters, falls apart with aid from your own hand. Amusing, also, is your assertion that you dislike ANYONE'S "debating technique". Anyone who pays attention knows you "dislike" any debater to doesn't simply take your far-flung, convoluted inventions as gospel truth... or at the very least... as the most "likely explanation" (i.e. that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, et al).

It's ironic you'd accuse anyone of being unpleasant. Frankly (and not to put it too lightly), you're the most unpleasant character on these boards. Each post contains some insult, some veiled, most intentional and apparent. Yet, you expect to be treated with kid gloves. Dusty isn't the first you've decided to ignore. I don't think I was, either. And....we've seen more than a few of your disappearing acts, preceded by a post informing us all of our sins, how disrespectful we've been, how obtuse we are, the utter depths to which we've sunken because we so revile YOU, we target YOU, we loath YOU... it's all about YOU. And our punishment is you're absence. Poor us.

But, it isn't about your at all. It's only your narcissism and arrogance that tells you it is... and your blinkered inability to see any flaws with this theory you've been peddling. And of course the anger comes because scarcely anyone within this community is buying... with all apologies to those legions of Youtubers you so often cite.

Frankly, I suggest we should all ignore you.. and your silly little theory. After all, we've read all your absurd refutations again and again... all taken with liberal doses of your insults and derision. We've seen your endless Christ on the Cross routine. It should be apparent to everyone that, for you, this isn't about your theory any longer. It's about you. It has been for some time. You seek validation. You seek acceptance. You're desperate for the respect your soul crushing arrogance tells you that you so richly deserve. That's why, in the end, you're a pitiable figure... at least in my view. And this thrashing about your so routinely do is particularly sad... and embarrassing.

You've decided everyone is enemy. Everyone is out to get you. Everyone is against you. And everyone is unworthy. Of you. Of your wisdom. Of your time. Of your attention. Honestly, I hope you figure it out before it's too late. You've made 10,000+ post out here. And I don't think you've enjoyed a minute of it.

[Fisherman]

Let’s not kid ourselves.
Eddy Butler has a personal vendetta against me since I was the first to report on his far right-wing racist political activism, and I suspect that is what Caz was referring to when calling his views “very far from balanced”.

And so do I - but Steve does not, of course. He kids himself in all probability.

This might indicate why he criticized the podcast on so many minor points. He just had to get in a dig.

That will take some proving. I am anything but right-wing and I am by and large politically uninterested, but I found the podcast wanting in a number of matters nevertheless. Does that mean that I have converted to nationalism?
Regardless of a persons political beliefs and/or political history, that person is perfectly welcome to engage in Ripperology if he or she wants to. And if he or she produces solid research and represents a level of knowledge that is formidable - and it IS in Edwards case - I don't think it is wise to read criticism from that person as being less viable than any criticism coming from people of differing political views. If you feel paranoid about him, you need to prove your point about him having a dig at you before it becomes wise to go public with it. At least that is how I look upon things - accuse away, but use dry power, not horse manure.

All in all, I am wondering what a persons political ideas and background has to do with all of this? It seems to me that it is used as an excuse for very poor behavior and scholarship out here. And that is just sad.
Political beliefs have nothing at all to do with the ability to conduct useful research. If it can be proven that Edward is pushing some sort of racist political agenda by researching Lechmere, then I would be the first to call him unwanted, not only here but anywhere else too. But to be frank, I know the man well and I have never encountered anything within him but seriousness, straightforwardness, engagement, generosity and deep knowledge.
Shouldn't he have picked a non-englishman, by the way, as a suspect...?

The all-important point to make here is that the theory about Lechmere a the killer is not in any shape or form enhanced or diminished by all of this absolute and sad rot. Somehow, I get the feeling that many disagree with this, and for the very worst of reasons.

But as I’ve said before, at least twice now on this thread, I welcome corrections and discussion about the show. However it would be more helpful to our listeners if those criticisms were honest. As Dr. Strange has outlined, some of what’s being characterized as purposefully misleading statements made on the show were nothing of the sort.

JM

I don´t know where you got "purposefully" from. Sgt Kirby did NOT have a beat, and it is wrong to say that he did. The "purpose" behind pointing this out on my behalf is that I like to be served correct information and I want to clear away misconceptions for the benefit of anybody taking part of the material on offer. I salute your welcoming such strivings, but I find that mockingly speaking about pizza delivery and hopscotch is perhaps not the best way to show off your fair mind.
Whatever conflict you identify between Edward and yourself should not be allowed to cloud your judgment when providing me with an answer, as far as I can tell.

All in all, it is exceedingly evident that Charles Lechmere attracts ill will to a larger degree than any other suspect. If that could be altered and if it could be recognized that the theory is perfectly legitimate instead of - as Steve claims - a concoction of half-truths garnished with semantic distorsions, it would be good.

[Fisherman]

It's not the same at all, if I wanted to say you were unfit to criticise I would, but you are perfectly capable of making critism if you wish. We really are playing victim.

The issue of course is that the critism is on the whole about interpretation and not about fact.
My considered response to those you posed, have not addressed


What slander have I perpetrated? That is a very serious allegation.
Please withdraw.

Steve

Don´t be a primadonna, please. Let' s try and move forward in a productive manner instead of getting bogged down in this kind of horseshite! I find it slander to claim that Lechmereians (and let's be frank, I am the one you were talking about) resort to semantics instead of accepting the facts as they are.

If you want to attack slander, you may have noticed that I was just called a narcissist out here, by a poster I have long since decided is not worthy of any answer. That is my reality.

But I am quite prepared to say that you have NOT produced slander IF WE CAN ONLY MOVE ON TO A SERIOUS DISCUSSION INSTEAD!!!

[Patrick S]

When the book or podcast is criticized for whatever reason, one expects this criticism to be met with a cool head and balanced answers.

JUST as you've met all criticism... with "cool and balanced answers". Please stand by while we all have a good, hearty laugh.

When Edward Stow criticized the podcast and questioned the level of understanding of the different parameters of the Nichols case in a lengthy post on JTR Forums, no such balanced answers were offered. Instead, the reply was a very short one:

"A complete misintreptation of what was said from begining to end, but one is far from surprised."

On this site, the author of this sentence - and of the book discussed in the podcast - made the following reply to the factually based observation that it is wrongly spoken in the podcast of a beat on behalf go Sgt Kirby:

" ...it's nit picking of the highest order, you used the wrong word, semantics is the game some pro Lechmere people love to play."

So we can see that there is a wish to present those who believe in Lechmere as the killer - in this case Edward and me - as generally speaking unreliable and playing semantic games.

Of course this is demonstrably true. One needs only to read a few of your, what, nearly twenty thousand posts (?), to understand this is simply a fact. Yet, this is FAR from saying anyone is "unbalanced". I'll go further. I agree that you and Ed whatever-his-name-is are unreliable and you certainly play games with semantics in order to keep your little pipe dream afloat, but I'll also say that - in my view - you're dishonest, as well. Especially you, frankly. You exaggerate what others say so you can make a show of taking offense. You twist words in ways you (I hope) must know the writer didn't intend in order to discredit, insult, and deride. It's all here for anyone to read. A monument that does you no credit.

To this, Jonathan Menges adds a little mockery about his mistake:

"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 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" in which case one points to having had the knowledge all along.

From the MASTER of admitting mistakes, no less. Again... let's pause for a good laugh. Let's just say that your attacking of Menges is a new low, even for you. And I expect it signals the beginning of the end for this Lechmere foolishness.

That is how one gains trust and makes the best of a mistake. It is how the book or podcast on offer is also best served, if one wants to retain as much credibility as possible.

The thing NOT to do in a situation like this is to mock the ones who present fair criticism about the material. And to single a group out as unfit to criticize material is disastrous, not least if everybody knows that there is a disagreement between author and criticizer over the topic criticized. Such behavior is tantamount to credibility harakiri.

Oh. The horror. Drama is something you strive to create. This is more of that. "Credibility harakiri". Sounds just awful! You're hope, clearly, is that as this theory of yours is in it's death throes, this drama will keep it afloat among those who don't depend upon Youtube to tell them what to believe.

From what I gather, there are parts of the book Steve has written that are useful as some sort of reference material. It is sad if that part of the effort is dragged down by an attitude that was never going to work when defending a written or aired piece.

It's too bad Steve didn't follow you're example. You've to eloquently defended your "aired piece", haven't you?

As for the encouragement to avoid debating with Edward Stow on account of him being "unbalanced", I am happy to accept that I may have gotten it wrong myself.

You did. Nice of you to admit being wrong. Rare as it is.

But I can assure you that he is anything but unbalanced in his views, plus he has a knowledge of the case - and not least of the Lechmere family - that is unsurpassed. Unbalance is not expressed in choosing a suspect, if that choice is well built under - and it is.

Of course he's unbalanced in his view. As are you. You're not alone. And it's generally not a problem. The problems come when you behave as you do. It's quite a show though. One that has to be seen/read to be believed.

Unbalance is instead something that is richly exemplified by the attitude taken against the criticism offered about the podcast about Steves book, and personally, I find it sad. It inevitably affects the reliability of those who present it, and of course also the reliability of their work.

Readability. Indeed. Have you read it? Better yet, why don't you publish your own book and show Steve by example how one should defend it from criticism and "attack".

[Patrick S]

Don´t be a primadonna, please. Let' s try and move forward in a productive manner instead of getting bogged down in this kind of horseshite! I find it slander to claim that Lechmereians (and let's be frank, I am the one you were talking about) resort to semantics instead of accepting the facts as they are.

If you want to attack slander, you may have noticed that I was just called a narcissist out here, by a poster I have long since decided is not worthy of any answer. That is my reality.

But I am quite prepared to say that you have NOT produced slander IF WE CAN ONLY MOVE ON TO A SERIOUS DISCUSSION INSTEAD!!!

You take the discussion into the gutter. Insult Steve and Menges and Dusty... and now you want "SERIOUS DISCUSSION" (all caps!). I did call you a narcissist (and you seem to think writing about YOUR reality doesn't reinforce the idea?). I've been called much worse by you. As have myriad others.

Why not write your own book as refutation against Steve's? Or... at the very least... read his.