Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Fisherman]

And would you say that you are immune to that Fish?

Frankly, that is not only for me to judge. Whenever somebody has a suspect, they will always run the risk of getting too enthusiastic or dismissive about something, and when they do, they generally cannot see it themselves. On the whole, I know quite well that I have a very good case, but there are always risks out in the margins of things.

So it is up to others to judge, and that is something that a number of posters do not mind, you included. What I do, is to take a look at how the criticism looks; is it fair , is it generalized, is somebody offering criticism for the sole reason of having a dig at me, are there inclusions of claiming that I am psychologically unhealthy, and yes - all of these things are represented out here.

Lastly, there are also those who try to divert criticism by trying to turn matters on the one delivering it. Like you right now; instead of looking at the criticism of Steve, you set out to try and turn it into something that could damage me.

The good thing about having been subjected to these kinds of things is that you get to be very adept at seeing through it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One more thing, Herlock: I am not saying that Steve is dishonest, I an saying that his bias has gotten the better of his judgment. The difference is huge.

And would you say that you are immune to that Fish?

[FrankO]

Much has been made of Steve’s suggestion that Neil was probably north of Buck’s Row when the murder was committed until shortly after Lechmere & Paul had left the body. According to Edward Stow and Christer this is a view that’s guided by the fact that Steve favours Kosminski as a suspect. I have no suspect but still have come to the same conclusion as Steve. It is simply very much supported by all the evidence there is regarding Neil’s beat.

What especially surprised me is that both Christer and Edward seem to think that the murderer, if he wasn’t on his way to work, MUST have chosen an escape route that talied with his home address. This doesn’t make sense to me. Getting home would not necessarily be the first priority of a killer wanting to leave a murder scene. His first priority would rather be to get away from the scene, whichever way that took him. Unless, of course, he KNEW that he had enough time to get away using a route directly home or that his escape route directly home was safe for him to take.

[Patrick S]

The problem at hand, Sherlock, is not - as Steve and a few more people will have it - that I cannot stand having any part of the Lechmere theory criticized. Criticize away, by all means - I welcome it.

Anyone who's read more than a few of your posts knows that you certainly do not welcome criticism. Of course, this is far from the silliest thing you've written on these boards... but that doesn't mean it's not very, very, VERY silly.

The problem is that the criticism is qualified by adding a detraction from my overall credibility by stating that since I have a suspect, I am not capable of understanding that it is my bias that leads me to all the wrong conclusions I keep drawing.

This is obviously and demonstrably (if one cares to read only a few dozen of your nearly 20,000 posts) UNTRUE. Many people have suspects, yet they're not regarded as you are. You clearly are NOT capable of understanding that it IS your bias that leads you to these wrong conclusions. One needs only consider that your "conclusions" rest ENTIRELY on things you've simply invented, based on nothing, out of whole cloth: your absurd "Mizen Scam", the honesty and purity of Jonas Mizen, the stupidity, dishonesty (except with it comes to knowing the time), big-upping, and police-hating of Robert Paul, the psychopathy of Cross.... it goes on and on and on and on. And there's not a shred of evidence for any of it. These are simply things you MUST have in order for ANY of it to work in the SLIGHTEST. But, in the end, none of it's believable. It doesn't work. And you rail. You insult... and otherwise make a fool of yourself while claiming it's, well, everyone ELSE who's foolish. One must admit that it's entertaining. But, it's sad, as well.

That, and that only, is where the criticism of the Lechmere theory goes totally off the tracks. If that could be avoided, so could most of the acrimony surfacing alongside the Lechmere debates.

You're incapable of understanding that it's you who's taken it off the tracks. I won't list the ways here. I think everyone knows them. And they're well represented on this thread.

A fine example of the attitude is offered by this sentence of yours:
"Id say that one of the main issues in Ripperology for me is the employment of an over-active imagination. An element of imagination is fine (thinking outside of the box) but it has to be tempered by logic and the known facts."

Obviously, this sentence makes perfect sense. Thus, it's unsurprising you take issue with it.

This is the EXACT method that is employed when many suspects are discussed (not Kosminski, Druitt et al, mind you), and nowhere is it more evident than on the Lechmere threads. I know that you did not specifically point me out, but I would nevertheless challenge you to tell me where/if you have identified an "overactive imagination" in my work on Lechmere as the possible culprit. If you cannot do so, I would ask you to take stock from that fact, and employ another attitude altogether when discussing the carman.

This is absurd beyond "imagination", isn't it? You invent scenarios that you've no reason to believe in... OTHER than the fact that you MUST believe in them in order to continue peddling this theory. EVERYONE has discredited this thing. And you pretend it's not happened, that it's not now happening, that anyone has made any points, ever, that may indicate your "suspect" may not be the best suspect, the ONLY suspect.

If you are up to it?

Everyone is up to it. It's takes no great skill... only simple common sense... perhaps the ability to read. Yet, you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and stamp your feet. Your throw childish tantrums, hurl insults... and cry foul when others return the favor.. or even if they dare question you or this "theory" of yours. Additional comments above bold.

[Fisherman]

Thank you the southern escape routes are on sound grounds, its not purely reliant on Mulshaw, but given you have not read the book, how could you know that.

I´m afraid that when you offer something on a podcast, then that will have to stand for itself. Otherwise, it is not much use to listen in the first place, is it? if there are other factors involved, then by all means, present them.

Let's put this to Bed, Mulshaw said "I dont think I was". You have accepted such can reasonably be described as uncertainty. post 220

It can potentially point to an uncertainty, and as I say, we must allow for that possibility. What we must not do, however, is to regard it as an established fact that there WAS uncertainty.

Therefore, it follows he admitted he was uncertain if he was asleep or not.

No, it does not follow at all, as I have taken great effort to tell you. It is not until he is asked a follow-up question that he can admit that he was possibly asleep. The wording about an "open admission" is way off any allowed lines when it comes to establishing what happened. As I have said before, there is what may have been an implicit admission - but it may also not have been any admission at all. It would all hinge on how he would have answered the question that was never put to him: "Is it possible that you fell asleep during the critical hours?"
Once again, the one answer Mulshaw has provided us with is that he don't think he did.

My initial comment on this today was:

"the evidence, like it or not says Mulshaw openly admitted he was not sure if he slept during the period."

Which seems completely consistent with that position of uncertainty.

It introduces a claim of an open admission that was never there, and it denies any possibility on Mulshaws behalf to qualify his statement with a denial to have slept. Is that how we should treat the facts, Steve?

Nothing is make up Christer, its simply how we interpret the testimony, you and Edward one way, me another.

Steve

The open admission IS made up. From it, it follows that Mulshaw must have been uncertain whether he slept or not during the critical hours. That too is made up. These are interpretations that introduce a fact that was never there. It is making up things, therefore.

[Fisherman]

One more thing, Herlock: I am not saying that Steve is dishonest, I an saying that his bias has gotten the better of his judgment. The difference is huge.

[Elamarna]

You are perfectly welcome to rule IN a southern escape route too on the exact same grounds, Steve. As long as it is done on sound grounds, there is nothing wrong with it. Once you start making up things to bolster your take, it becomes another matter.

Thank YOU!

Thank you the southern escape routes are on sound grounds, its not purely reliant on Mulshaw, but given you have not read the book, how could you know that.

Let's put this to Bed, Mulshaw said "I dont think I was". You have accepted such can reasonably be described as uncertainty. post 220

"To say "I don't think so" is to allow for uncertainty, yes."


Therefore, it follows he admitted he was uncertain if he was asleep or not.

My initial comment on this today was:

"the evidence, like it or not says Mulshaw openly admitted he was not sure if he slept during the period."

Which seems completely consistent with that position of uncertainty.


Nothing is make up Christer, its simply how we interpret the testimony, you and Edward one way, me another.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Just to add of course Steve mentioned several other possible escape routes.

I'm sure he did - but he favored the southern ones, and to facilitate for Kosminski - or anybody else - to make use of these routes (the most logical ones, I am told regardless where the killer lived, apparently...?), he opted for deciding that Mulshaw would have been asleep. And not only that, he claimed that Mulshaw at the inquest actually openly admitted that he may have ben asleep.
Have you seen that passage from the inquest, Herlock?
I know I haven´t.

Did he say that the route past Mulshaw was the likeliest?

No, he said the southern routes were the most logical routes and he added that he favored them. And since Mulshaw was a street south of Bucks Row, he would quite possibly or even likely have come into play - if he was awake. So Steve brings the Sandman on the stage, and voilá - problem solved. The killer gets his opportunity to escape towards the south.

And even if Kosminski was guilty could we be absolutely certain where he headed directly after killing Nichols?

Herlock, you know as well as I that the addresses given for Kosminski would both tally quite well with an escape to the south. And that is how we must regard the matter - we work from the suggestion that the killer made for home after the murder. It may be that he instead went for fish and chips up at Buckingham or that he felt a sudden urge to walk the streets of Bow. Typically, though, such suggestions need to be either likely or bolstered before we can use them as useful alternatives to him heading for home. Right or wrong, that is how these things work - we take a look to see whether the escape route after a murder tallies with our suspects´ base or living quarters.

Im sorry but saying that Steve was dishonestly keeping open an escape route for Lechmere because he favours him as a suspect is desperate stuff.

Would you say that Steves claiming that I only suggest that the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same because I promote Lechmere as the killer is also "desperate stuff"?
You see, that is the pertinent question here. Is it desperate when I make a suggestion that he makes calls that may be biased but completely legit when he claims that I am biased whenever I make a point? If so, can you explain how that works?

Add this to the issue that’s being made out of a very obvious slip of the tongue on JM’s part which Steve failed to pick up on at the time and we can hear the very obvious sound of the bottom of the barrel being scraped.

We will get to the bottom alright, Herlock. We are on our way.

[Fisherman]

"You are perfectly welcome to rule our a southern escape route - IF YOU DO SO ON SOUND GROUNDS"


So Christer, I am allowed to rule a southern escape route out, but to suggest one is bias.
That is perfectly clear.

Thank you.

You are perfectly welcome to rule IN a southern escape route too on the exact same grounds, Steve. As long as it is done on sound grounds, there is nothing wrong with it. Once you start making up things to bolster your take, it becomes another matter.

Thank YOU!

[Fisherman]

You appear to be getting this confused too Fish.

1. Mulshaw admitted that he did at times sleep at work.

Exactly. I seem to have understood that perfectly.

2. He didn’t think/believe that he’d slept at the relevant time.

Exactly. I seem to have understood that perfectly too.

If any of us sat through a long night occasionally nodding off would we really have been able to say ““well I slept from 1.30 until 2.15 and then from 3.20 until 4.15 and then from......””

I think that will differ from person to person. Much will depend on how closely we monitor a clock, of course. Most people will not know when they fall asleep, I´ll say that much for you - but when we look at things in retrospect and know that we have noticed matters that happened during a certain time, then we will also know that we have been awake at that time.

Which of course means that although he didn’t think that he’d slept at that time....he might have done. Might we not also add that he might not have wanted to own up to having missed escaping killer due to his being asleep on duty?

Herlock, it seems YOU have misunderstood this. Nobody is saying that he could not have been asleep. What I am saying is that since he said that he did n ot think he was, that must take precedence over suggestions made 131 years afterwards by a poster who chooses to disbelieve Mulshaw.
On the point of owning up, Mulshaw DID own up to sleeping at times. He had absolutely no problems admitting he did. So why would he not say that he thought he may well have fallen asleep during the relevant hours - if he actually thought this was the case? The man had already admitted that he DID sleep on duty occasionally, remember.

So you see, Herlock, no confusion at all exists. On my behalf, that is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to add of course Steve mentioned several other possible escape routes. Did he say that the route past Mulshaw was the likeliest? And even if Kosminski was guilty could we be absolutely certain where he headed directly after killing Nichols?

Im sorry but saying that Steve was dishonestly keeping open an escape route for Lechmere because he favours him as a suspect is desperate stuff. Add this to the issue that’s being made out of a very obvious slip of the tongue on JM’s part which Steve failed to pick up on at the time and we can hear the very obvious sound of the bottom of the barrel being scraped.

[Elamarna]

"You are perfectly welcome to rule our a southern escape route - IF YOU DO SO ON SOUND GROUNDS"


So Christer, I am allowed to rule a southern escape route out, but to suggest one is bias.
That is perfectly clear.

Thank you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And now Mulshaw - who very openly admitted that he COULD sleep at work - said that he did not think that he had done so at the relevant hours. So yes, he could sleep at times, but no, he did not do so at the relevant hours, to the best of his recollection.
And this is an "open admission" that he may have slept when the killer escaped...?

You appear to be getting this confused too Fish.

1. Mulshaw admitted that he did at times sleep at work.

2. He didn’t think/believe that he’d slept at the relevant time.

If any of us sat through a long night occasionally nodding off would we really have been able to say ““well I slept from 1.30 until 2.15 and then from 3.20 until 4.15 and then from......””

. but no, he did not do so at the relevant hours, to the best of his recollection

Which of course means that although he didn’t think that he’d slept at that time....he might have done. Might we not also add that he might not have wanted to own up to having missed escaping killer due to his being asleep on duty?

[Fisherman]

Final few comments.


You are very clear that suggesting turning south is in itself a bias suggestion, therefore to be unbiased in your view, given that I prefer Kosminski, one must not include the possibility of a southern escape, that one must actively argue against the logic and reason of the fastest escape route.

You are perfectly welcome to rule out a southern escape route - IF YOU DO SO ON SOUND GROUNDS. But you don't. You falsely say that Mulshaw openly admitted that he could have been asleep at the relevant hours.
For an open admission to be present, we would need a follow-up question from the coroner, could with an admittance from Mulshaw;

Mulshaw: "I don´t think I slept at the relevant hours"
Coroner: "But you may have done so?"
Mulshaw: "Yes."

THAT is what an open admission looks like. What we have is something that can be interpreted as an implicit admission - but before we know what Mulshaw would have answered, we can´t tell his exact stance;

Mulshaw: "I don´t think I slept at the relevant hours"
Coroner: "But you may have done so?"
Mulshaw: "Where did you get that from? I said I don't think I slept and I really don't think I did!"
alternatively
Mulshaw: "No, now that I think about it I am sure I didn't sleep."

Elevating what he said to claiming that he openly admitted that he may have slept is being untrue to the sources. End of.

As you have agreed the phrase used by Mulshaw is open to several interpretations, my view is different from yours.
If he really wanted to say he was awake, he would, in my view, say just that.

He said he thought he was, and as long as we don't know the reasoning behind that, we must accept his bid. We don't turn it on its head and claim that he will have been sleeping.

Its like the sport of cricket, not sure if you follow it at all.
The convention before TV replays, was that if catch was claimed, and it was not clear if the ball had been cleanly caught, the fielder would be asked, "did you catch it?" If he replied yes, the batsmen would walk and was out(sadly not all did).
If he said "i think so" it would be classed as not being sure, of not committing himself one way or the other, and NOT out.

This is not cricket, I'm afraid, and the phrase can be indicative of other things in other settings.

On top of this, is the issue as I have mentioned several times, of his apparently not seeing the slaughter house guys pass by.
Of course his recollection of the police presence gives us two alternatives does it not?
Either the police did not do the full beat often or he was dozing.

Correct: there are alternatives to what you prefer to think.

There is no evidence for the first option, but it remains a possibility.
For the 2nd option he admits he slept at times, one must also taking into account the possible repercussions for Mulshaw if he admitted that he routinely slept, while working.

So why did he admit that he did sleep at his work at all, if he harbored such a fear, Steve? Why not say "No, I never sleep at work"? Any ideas? If he admitted to sleeping for an unestablished amount of time, how would that get worse if he admitted to possibly have done so at around 4 AM?

If taken together, while not conclusive, these points are highly indicative that he slept more than he admitted.

No, they are not. It only amounts to evidence that you are not correctly describing what happened, instead opting for an idea that supports your take that the killer fled to the south. You tell

That's how I view Mulshaw. You dont agree. us that arguing against a southern escape route is to argue against the fastest and most logical route. Preconceived notions, anybody?

And I don´t argue against a southern escape route. I argue against promoting a southern escape route with inventions of our own that are not on historical record. As you know, I think the killer used the western route and that he never flew but instead calmly walked out of harm's way.

Lost Cause? I think not.

The "openly admitted" thing was what I mainly referred to with that phrase. And that IS a lost cause.

We can agree to disagree and leave the subject, its is entirely your choice.

steve[/B]

Thank you. Then I will carry on as long as you do not admit to the errors you make yourself guilty of.

[Elamarna]

Really, Steve: There is absolutely no need for you to follow somebody's lead to be biased. A bias comes from within, it is not purchased from others. Whether it has been proposed before that the southern escape routes favor Kosminski as a killer or not is neither here nor there - the fact of the matter is that it DOES favor Kosminski, and once we know that, you are at peril to be called biased for turning Mulshaws evidence on its head to promote the possibility. He does not "openly admit" that he may have been asleep at the relevant hours at all, he says that he sometimes do doze off at his job, but that he does not think he did so at the relevant hours. The obvious inference is that he I not willing to clim that he must have been awake that time, but to the best of his recollection, he thinks that he actually was.

How that transcribes into an open admission on his behalf that he may have slept during those very hours is something literate people find hard to see. Literate people accept that Mulshaw was a night watchman who sometimes fell asleep at work, people who accept that we don't know how often that happened, and people who accept that far from admitting to possibly have slept at the relevant hours, Mulshaw points out that although he sometimes could fall asleep on duty, his take on things is that this did not happen during those hours.

One more angle: The coroner wanted to know whether Mulshaw sometimes slept on his watch or not. The reason for asking is obvious: if he DID, then the killer could have passed him by unnoticed.
Mulshaw said he sometimes dozed off when on duty.
That opened up for the possibility of the killer having made his escape to the south, past Mulshaw. Therefore the coroner realized that he needed to qualify his question, and accordingly asked Mulshaw whether he had been asleep during the relevant hours when the killer would have escaped. And now Mulshaw - who very openly admitted that he COULD sleep at work - said that he did not think that he had done so at the relevant hours. So yes, he could sleep at times, but no, he did not do so at the relevant hours, to the best of his recollection.
And this is an "open admission" that he may have slept when the killer escaped...?

We can go on for eons turning this inside out, and these truths will not be affected anyway. So go ahead if you wish, but keep in mind that lost causes are normally best forgotten.

Final few comments.


You are very clear that suggesting turning south is in itself a bias suggestion, therefore to be unbiased in your view, given that I prefer Kosminski, one must not include the possibility of a southern escape, that one must actively argue against the logic and reason of the fastest escape route.

As you have agreed the phrase used by Mulshaw is open to several interpretations, my view is different from yours.
If he really wanted to say he was awake, he would, in my view, say just that.


Its like the sport of cricket, not sure if you follow it at all.
The convention before TV replays, was that if catch was claimed, and it was not clear if the ball had been cleanly caught, the fielder would be asked, "did you catch it?" If he replied yes, the batsmen would walk and was out(sadly not all did).
If he said "i think so" it would be classed as not being sure, of not committing himself one way or the other, and NOT out.


On top of this, is the issue as I have mentioned several times, of his apparently not seeing the slaughter house guys pass by.
Of course his recollection of the police presence gives us two alternatives does it not?
Either the police did not do the full beat often or he was dozing.

There is no evidence for the first option, but it remains a possibility.
For the 2nd option he admits he slept at times, one must also taking into account the possible repercussions for Mulshaw if he admitted that he routinely slept, while working. If taken together, while not conclusive, these points are highly indicative that he slept more than he admitted.

That's how I view Mulshaw. You dont agree.

Lost Cause? I think not.

We can agree to disagree and leave the subject, its is entirely your choice.

steve