Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[jmenges]

Hi Fish,
I was suggesting what may have, in part, motivated Eddy Butler’s rather weak but lengthy criticisms of the episode. A vehement hatred towards me and a desire to take a shot. Any shot.
I did not call you a white supremacist or say that all Lechmere supporters are by definition racists.
You again either fail to understand what I’ve said or are “purposely” misrepresenting it.

JM

[Elamarna]

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!!!

I attempted to move on in posts # 23,24 and 27 and discuss the issues
You have not.
That was over a week ago.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

whos eddy butler?

[Abby Normal]

Hi El
I haven't a chance to read your book yet but from previous discussions you had mentioned that the mizzen he said/he said issue probably came as a result of Mizen purposefully lying about lech saying he was wanted in bucks row by a police officer, in order for some arse saving on mizens part.

do you still come to that conclusion in your book? and if so-could you just briefly give the reasons why here?
id be very interested to hear.

and full disclosure-as you know my thoughts on it are that more than likely it was a simple misunderstanding along the lines of lech saying something like youre needed in bucks row, and when mizen got there, and a PC already being there, just misremembered.

second most likely, that lech lied, maybe to not wanting to be delayed any longer.

and third (least likely IMHO) that mizen lied to save his arse.

but would like to know your reasoning in a nutshell on this?

[Patrick S]

whos eddy butler?

That's a complicated question. Fisherman is probably best qualified to answer. He knows him best.

[jmenges]

Eddy Butler is “Ed Stow’s” real name. Former National Front member who has built a political career by terrorizing East End immigrants.

Google him. He’s a quite well-known fascist.

JM

[Elamarna]

Hi El
I haven't a chance to read your book yet but from previous discussions you had mentioned that the mizzen he said/he said issue probably came as a result of Mizen purposefully lying about lech saying he was wanted in bucks row by a police officer, in order for some arse saving on mizens part.

do you still come to that conclusion in your book? and if so-could you just briefly give the reasons why here?
id be very interested to hear.

and full disclosure-as you know my thoughts on it are that more than likely it was a simple misunderstanding along the lines of lech saying something like youre needed in bucks row, and when mizen got there, and a PC already being there, just misremembered.

second most likely, that lech lied, maybe to not wanting to be delayed any longer.

and third (least likely IMHO) that mizen lied to save his arse.

but would like to know your reasoning in a nutshell on this?

Abby,
Hard to do in a nutshell, it takes up a whole chapter and ties into several others.

I too subscribed to the simple misunderstand before I realised where Mizen was when first seen by Neil.
He is in Bakers Row, going south.
At first i doubted this was possible for Neil to see Mizen there, but work by others help convinced me it was possible.

Mizen did nothing wrong in his encounter with the carmen,but I argue was worried how he would be seen in the press, especially following the Lloyds account on the 2nd. ( I argue he was not going to Bucks Row until Neil signalled him)
So he told a story, which had no material effect on the murder, and which could be written off as a misunderstanding, which it seems it was.

There are about 7 lines of argument which support my view, that of course does mean I am correct, and give 5 different possible explanations.

It's far to complicated to give the full details in a post, go on Abby, buy the book.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Abby,
Hard to do in a nutshell, it takes up a whole chapter and ties into several others.

I too subscribed to the simple misunderstand before I realised where Mizen was when first seen by Neil.
He is in Bakers Row, going south.
At first i doubted this was possible for Neil to see Mizen there, but work by others help convinced me it was possible.

Mizen did nothing wrong in his encounter with the carmen,but I argue was worried how he would be seen in the press, especially following the Lloyds account on the 2nd. ( I argue he was not going to Bucks Row until Neil signalled him)
So he told a story, which had no material effect on the murder, and which could be written off as a misunderstanding, which it seems it was.

There are about 7 lines of argument which support my view, that of course does mean I am correct, and give 5 different possible explanations.

It's far to complicated to give the full details in a post, go on Abby, buy the book.


Steve

ok thanks EL!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,
I was suggesting what may have, in part, motivated Eddy Butler’s rather weak but lengthy criticisms of the episode. A vehement hatred towards me and a desire to take a shot. Any shot.
I did not call you a white supremacist or say that all Lechmere supporters are by definition racists.
You again either fail to understand what I’ve said or are “purposely” misrepresenting it.

JM

Yes, I understand that you are suggesting that Edwards motivation. for criticizing the podcast lies in what you cal hatred towards you. The problem is, as far as I understand, that such accusations must be underpinned by more than a hunch, otherwise they are likely to look like paranoia. And that was never gonna be a becoming thing for a podcast runner. I trust you can see that,

In private conversations with Edward - long before the political issue surfaced - I have been given to understand that the controversy between the two of you has another instigation. But I am not part of whatever quibble you enjoy on your spare time!

I am just as fully aware that you did not call me a white supremacist, and why would you? I clearly stated that I am not any right wing voter (nor have I ever been so) and that I am by and large not very politically interested. It IS however interesting that the question should surface at all - where is the link between political convictions and the support for Lechmere, I wonder? I find that a deeply rooted wish to couple Edwards political stance and/or background to his work on Lechmere is very close at hand, as demonstrated to a degree by you, by Caz (not proven, but we seem to agree on it) and Monty on the boards.

You are, I believe, an American? May I be so bold as to remind you that America put an effective end to the second world war by enlisting a nazi and former SS officer, Werner von Braun, who engineered the atom bomb the was dropped on Hiroshima. Now, what must be kept apart is the political stance of von Braun and the aim of the bomb - to put a stop to the war.

Once more: political convictions are NOT any obstacle to being a great researcher and ingenious theorist. I really wish that we can stop any movement to nullify that truth out here from rearing its ugly head out here! If you can take Edwards theory apart by means of factual knowledge and research, then do so, If you cannot, please respect the value of the research done.

So you see, I do not fail to understand anything at all, but for the possible intentions to deny Edward Stow the right to be judged as an equal in terms of research and knowledge. Nor do I purposefully misunderstand anything.

I hope that is very clear by now.

[Fisherman]

I attempted to move on in posts # 23,24 and 27 and discuss the issues
You have not.
That was over a week ago.


Steve

So let's move on now, beginning by me apologizing for having overseen your posts and asking whether you want a reaction to them now.

[Abby Normal]

Eddy Butler is “Ed Stow’s” real name. Former National Front member who has built a political career by terrorizing East End immigrants.

Google him. He’s a quite well-known fascist.

JM

got it thanks JM.

[Fisherman]

Eddy Butler is “Ed Stow’s” real name. Former National Front member who has built a political career by terrorizing East End immigrants.

Google him. He’s a quite well-known fascist.

JM

Maybe we should all state our political stances before we make a post out here? That would enable us to sift the unwanted ones away.

[Jon Guy]

Maybe we should all state our political stances before we make a post out here? That would enable us to sift the unwanted ones away.

Agreed. I was thinking that.
With today`s facebook herd hysteria mentality, it probably just means he voted to leave the EU

[jmenges]

No, but I feel it should be stated that if you cite a reviewer having critiqued the podcast it should be mentioned if said reviewer is already on record hating the podcasters guts.
Just providing a bit of background. Time to move along.

JM

[Fisherman]

No, but I feel it should be stated that if you cite a reviewer having critiqued the podcast it should be mentioned if said reviewer is already on record hating the podcasters guts.
Just providing a bit of background. Time to move along.

JM

I´m afraid the evidence is not there, and moving along must involve you acknowledging that. If you sense you are right, fine, but let's not confuse your hunch for established facts. It would disenable Edward - and possibly me, I don't know, maybe I face a future out here as the fascist´s apprentice? - to pass criticism about your podcasts in the future, right?

Now I am ready to move along. Good luck with your next podcast, and good luck to anybody investigating the case!