Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Fisherman]

Yes there are serious issues with the Lloyds account, so either we try and work with them( accepting he is taking the lead role , his 15minutes of fame) or we discard ALL of his statement, the Whole of it. Including the 3.45.

I am happy to do either, I have enough without Paul to question the accuracy of Mizen's account.


Steve

That is not the way to approach sources in my world,Steve. I say that every little piece of information must be treated ON ITS OWN, and I work from the assumption that sources can hold both good and bad information - it is a historically proven matter, as you will understand.

The same requests surfaced when Hebbert was discussed earlier; I think he was quite competent to gauge the cutting work in the torsos - he was a prominent and skillful medico - but I do NOT recommend to trust him on matters where criminal anthropology plays a role. Hebbert wa into criminal anthropology, and we know today that it was all balderdash.

Similarly, we know for a fact that Robert Pauls paper interview is wrong when it makes out that he left Lechmere behind and sought out Mizen on his own. Therefore, we must take that into account when assessing his information.

But we do NOT know that he couldn't tell the time! That information is not shown to be wrong, and since he was late, it is reasonable to accept that he had checked the time - otherwise he would not know that he WAS late.

I fully realize that this lends itself to shallow accusations of cherrypicking, ut it remains that information that we KNOW is wrong must be looked upon with skepticism, whereas information we DONīT know to be wrong cannot be discarded lightly.

I have not read your book, but I assume that you took the chance in the podcast to throw your heaviest bombs on Mizen and his veracity. And frankly, I did not hear anything that put his information in doubt. Its a game of perspectives, and it can always be said "he probably lied", but that takes some serious proof before it can be given any true weight.

[Fisherman]

Christer, please understand, my comment with regards to Ed Stows post elsewhere was because I do not wish interact with him. However I did feel a comment was required, and although brief it was honest from my point of view.
It's is personal.

Steve

You can avoid interacting with Edward without tarnishing him, Steve. Furthermore, you can do so without leading on that having Lechmere as your prime suspect makes you a person given to half-truths, semantic dribbling and overall a low degree of trustworthiness. It is deeply, deeply unfair and it is not something any serious debater should resort to.

Whatever personal grudge there is between the two of you is something that must stay personal. Taking accusations to a public forum is a surefire way of doing the wrong thing. It would be a different matter if the forum had been filled with gunfire from both sides, but Edward does not even post out here.

If you can avoid making this a habit, much would be gained. I dabbled in boxing many years ago, and I would not want to have one of my arms tied on my back when boxing. I feel that is something that is the case when a poster starts out by saying "Ok, I will answer, but you should all know that the person I am asking holds views that make him morally inferior and likely to present incorrect and skewed information". Matters like that infuriate me, and it should not be hard to see why.

[Elamarna]

That is not the way to approach sources in my world,Steve. I say that every little piece of information must be treated ON ITS OWN, and I work from the assumption that sources can hold both good and bad information - it is a historically proven matter, as you will understand.

The same requests surfaced when Hebbert was discussed earlier; I think he was quite competent to gauge the cutting work in the torsos - he was a prominent and skillful medico - but I do NOT recommend to trust him on matters where criminal anthropology plays a role. Hebbert wa into criminal anthropology, and we know today that it was all balderdash.

Similarly, we know for a fact that Robert Pauls paper interview is wrong when it makes out that he left Lechmere behind and sought out Mizen on his own. Therefore, we must take that into account when assessing his information.

But we do NOT know that he couldn't tell the time! That information is not shown to be wrong, and since he was late, it is reasonable to accept that he had checked the time - otherwise he would not know that he WAS late.

I fully realize that this lends itself to shallow accusations of cherrypicking, ut it remains that information that we KNOW is wrong must be looked upon with skepticism, whereas information we DONīT know to be wrong cannot be discarded lightly.

I have not read your book, but I assume that you took the chance in the podcast to throw your heaviest bombs on Mizen and his veracity. And frankly, I did not hear anything that put his information in doubt. Its a game of perspectives, and it can always be said "he probably lied", but that takes some serious proof before it can be given any true weight.

We have very different views on using sources, if part is in question, because of the attitude of the source, rather than typos or missing words, in this case the apparent attitude of Paul, then either it is all questionable and we reject it all, or we try and work with it as best we can.
If we have a situation where new knowledge means the view in said source is now shown to be wrong, it is simply that, it does not make the source questionable.

Here we indeed know Paul is being economic with the truth, that is a reflection on HIM, his honesty and reliability, not his knowledge. We therefore question everything in his statement from that position.
I respectfully suggest that in such a case, it is either all or nothing.
We do however have points of his statement which can be corroborated by either Lechmere or Paul.
A study of such suggests that the basic story holds true, if not the details.


Your comments on Hebbert, are interesting, because they also relate to the other Medics involved.
However, what we have in these cases, is their professional, expert opinion, which needs to be judge against modern knowledge, it is not comparable to a man boosts his ego and taking the lead.

Again I see the question of 3.45 is oversimplified.
It's not, could Paul tell the time? But was that time correct?
Was it comparable to the 3 police officers 3.45,? Certainly not.
Was it comparable to the clock Lechmere used when he left home? In all probability, in the age of non synchronised time keeping, NO
If it is not comparable or syncronizied, it is meaningless.

And No, I only scratched the surface on Mizen, the idea of the podcast was to give an overview, I am not giving the all of the info away, I do want to sell the book after all..

We didn't even discuss the wounds or the bleeding, on the podcast, that's 3 chapters.

Steve

[Elamarna]

You can avoid interacting with Edward without tarnishing him, Steve. Furthermore, you can do so without leading on that having Lechmere as your prime suspect makes you a person given to half-truths, semantic dribbling and overall a low degree of trustworthiness. It is deeply, deeply unfair and it is not something any serious debater should resort to.

Whatever personal grudge there is between the two of you is something that must stay personal. Taking accusations to a public forum is a surefire way of doing the wrong thing. It would be a different matter if the forum had been filled with gunfire from both sides, but Edward does not even post out here.

If you can avoid making this a habit, much would be gained. I dabbled in boxing many years ago, and I would not want to have one of my arms tied on my back when boxing. I feel that is something that is the case when a poster starts out by saying "Ok, I will answer, but you should all know that the person I am asking holds views that make him morally inferior and likely to present incorrect and skewed information". Matters like that infuriate me, and it should not be hard to see why.

Accusations? I implied I considered his response to be bias because of his theory and association with Lechmere, on a forum on which he was present.
He has done the same with me on Kosminski on FB. it's part of how it works.

I have not trashed Edward, if I wanted to, given my background, I certainly could. However, such would indeed be unfair and unnecessary.
To not communicate is enough for me.

If I can avoid making what a habit?

If I had not replied I would be accused of hiding from critics and rightly so, instead I gave the briefest rely I could. I considered it to be a misinterpretation of the podcast, and I was not in the slightest suprised.

That you don't agree with that is of course your right.

The comment was on another forum, not here.
You raised it, and I told you the reasons for it.

Now you accuse me of trashing him. Totally untrue.

Let me be clear.
The reason for not talking to him is personal, nothing to do with his research. And I will not discuss it here.

Edward's research is outstanding, no question on that, it's his interpretation and analysis I question, just as you question mine, and as he has question mine in the past.


Steve

[Patrick S]

Yes, we can trivialize errors occurring in a podcast.

And no, there is nothing strange about the odd mistake creeping in when there is no rehearsal or script.

True, where Kirby was is a much more important question than whether he was there as the result of walking a "round" or a "beat".

To me, the point of interest was that Steve Blomer met the critique coming from Edward Stow with a total diss, claiming that whatever point he made, he had simply misunderstood and/or misinterpreted everything. And that owed to the man delivering the critique being Edward Stow, meaning that it was to be expected that he got everything wrong. The podcast was immaculate and no criticism was going to change that, simple as.

I disliked that arrogance very much, and so I listened to the podcast and I thought it was lacking in a number of respects, which I worded out here. To facilitate things, I singled out the Kirby matter, because it was very clear that Jonathan Menges made the mistake he openly admits to have made.

Once I criticized the podcast, Steve Blomer emerged and stated that my criticism was an example of how Lechmereians favour semantics over facts.

Herein lies the real problem of the matter. It is not so much about the exact route Kirby took as it is about how criticism must be allowed for and met with a fair attitude, regardless if it comes from somebody you disagree over matters with. Putting your head in the sand and saying that criticism is not viable when it comes from some sources is just not going to work.

Last I checked Steve hasn't announced (with a flourish) that he'll no longer respond to this poster or that poster. Doesn't that constitute "putting your head in the sand"? Your lack of self-awareness is comical.

Claiming that you have the upper hand because your views are somehow better than those of people who hold a different opinion is not the way to proceed. Hinting at moral superiority is a disaster for any striving author. I have spent a long professional life as a journalist, and I therefore know who fare well and who get themselves into trouble when choosing how to react to just criticism, so I need no tutoring in that department.

Now, Jonathan Menges has made the best of what went down - kudos for that! - and overall, I believe my point about allowing in a fair way for criticism has found its target, and so I have no wish to pursue the matter any further.

In reading this post, and most of the other posted on this thread by Christer, directed at the podcast, his allegations of errors, disrespect, etc.... one thing is plainly obvious: Christer is clearly aware of his theory's fragility in that he's obliged to defend it from any perceived slight, real and (mostly) imagined, to such an extent that even a new poster who'd been attracted to the theory by the "internationally sent documentary" commented here that Christer's petty attacks serve to highlight the podcast's quality. I think that was quite an astute observation... and right on the money.

[Patrick S]

Posts on Maybrick since 2008: 14074. Posts on Lechmere since 2008: 17130.

Quite a sardine.

You're nearing 20,000 posts. How many are yours?

[Patrick S]

Wow. When I implied your comment was irrelevant you told me to read the thread only to finally confirm that... it was irrelevant. What a waste of time.

We've witnessed a fine example of "Debating With Christer Holmgren 101". TheCuriousCat will earn his diploma when he's been banished to the "ignore list".

[barnflatwyngarde]

Christer,
I am curious as to why you have not yet read Steve's book.
If I was proposing a theory re a specific suspect, and a book was published which went into forensic detail about a very important aspect of the
case against this particular suspect, I would make reading the book a priority.

There may well be elements within the book which would strengthen the case against my suspect!

Just curious as to why you haven't prioritised reading it.

[Patrick S]

What happened to the very real possibility that Lechmere lied in order to fool the police after having killed Nichols...?

This is, of course, your "Mizen Scam" and it's something you simply made up... I think that can be said because it's not supported by available information. It's simply been suggested, massaged, embellished, and ultimately presented in a way that might lead one to believe that Cross was dishonest and misleading. ALL because Mizen said that he was told, “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman (is) lying.” You further maintain that this statement led PC Mizen to assume that the two men had been interrogated and released by a policeman - already at the scene in Buck’s Row - who had sent them to find him (Mizen). And, in light of this assumption, Mizen let the men go on their way. He did not take their names. He did not ask either man questions of any kind.

However, neither Paul nor Lechmere agree with Mizen. Lechmere testified after PC Mizen, on day two of the Nichols’ inquest. He was asked directly if he’d told Mizen that another policeman was awaiting him in Buck’s Row. The exchange was published in the Telegraph on Tuesday, September 4:

A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

Robert Paul’s statement in Lloyd’s Weekly makes no mention of a policeman waiting in Buck’s Row.

“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

Of course, at some point you invented an additional nuance: the secret conversation. You say that perhaps Cross spoke to Mizen in private, out of Paul's hearing, telling him his lie about a PC in Buck's Row. Of course, as with all things related to this "Mizen Scam", we've no evidence, no suggestion, nothing - from any source ANYWHERE - that this secret conversation took place. It's obvious to any rational person that such a conversation would have been remarkable. Yet, Paul says nothing about it. In fact, he alleges he did all the talking. Quite different from having done none of it and not having heard what was said. Perhaps more importantly, Mizen says nothing of Cross pulling him aside for a hushed chat while Paul stands some yards away.. apparently not finding it the least bit odd. There's a clear reason why no one mentioned a secret conversation between Cross and Mizen in Baker's Row: it didn't happen.

Of course, the alternative is equally untenable for your "Scam", isn't it? Here we must believe that Cross went with Paul, found Mizen, and then told him a bald-faced lie about a PC waiting in Buck's Row with Paul hearing it and knowing full well that this was a lie. Yet, Paul says nothing. He says nothing then and there in Buck's Row. He says nothing of it in his Lloyd's interview. He says nothing of it at the inquest. Obviously, there's a very likely reason for this: it didn't happen.

[John Wheat]

You're nearing 20,000 posts. How many are yours?

I'd say around 17,000 are from Fisherman.

[Robert St Devil]

I've never gained any traction on this forum, so I've reserved my posts to the occasional comment here and there. From an observers point of view over the past 4 years, it seemed that after Pierre got the boot, Steve turned his bias on debasing Christer's suspect since Pierre's lunacy was no longer available. Now I've never been one to name any particular suspect; still, most of Steve's compilation of the available resources was designed with a bias of discrediting Christer; thus, the focus of his work on the Polly Nicholls' murder. Now my two pence aren't worth two cents; still, I'll lay them on the bar with a grin and no qualms. Looking forward to the read, Stevie

[Fisherman]

For Steve:

I have nothing much to add to what I have already said, and your posts do not change any of it.

It was never going to be wise to employ the attitude "Either we buy everything a source says or we discard it altogether", because the world is a tad more complex than that.

You say that we know that Paul was economic with the truth, but we actually don't - it can be a case of the journalist misinterpreting him or, perhaps more likely, spicing up the account. In which case Paul goes free.

This his of course something that makes the source harder to assess in terms of value - there is an uncertainty about the degree to which it correctly reflects what was said.

It is a reason to be cautious about the Lloyds article but not a reason to discard it, knee-jerk style.

Yu and me alike will suffer accusations of cherrypicking the parts we like, but that's how it goes out here, and it does nothing at all to the facts I mentioned earlier: we KNOW for certain that the process of approaching Mizen is not correctly described in the interview, and so we must be particularly cautious about that section. Simultaneously, we DONīT know that the issue about the time given by Paul is in any way in error - but we DO know that he said he was late and we DO know that knowledge of being late comes from having checked the clock.

So there you are, that's how I believe the material must be regarded, and if you care to take a look at the history of science you will find it crammed with prominent scientists who accept some parts of a source and reject others, on the grounds of knowing that the latter must be wrong. It is common procedure.

As for how I ask you not to work from a preconceived notion that views held by Lechmere proponents must be biased to a degree that makes them less trustworthy than views presented by those who do not promote any suspect, it remains that I regard this as a totally unscientific and uncalled for approach that is shameful when applies knee-jerk style, as is often the case out here.

I suppose you would be non too happy to hear that I think that people should abstain from your buying your book since alll you write in it is designed to clear away any other suspect than Kosminski, and that this bias has driven you to produce a work that cannot be trusted on any level?

"I can think that Kosminski is the best suspect and do my work in an unbiased manner anyway!" is perhaps what you would say to that? If so, I would reply that this goes without saying - you CAN promote a suspect and nevertheless demand that people accept that you do as unbiased a work as can be requested.

In your case, you have picked up a problem along the way, and that is reflected by Robers St Devils post above: I am personally certain that many posters out here believe that your book on the Bucks Row case is to a large degree a dig on the Lechmere theory, and so they invest little faith in you being that unbiased character you speak of as a necessity in so many posts. Maybe that is unfair, I cannot say since I have not read the book. Maybe you have never had any other aim than to present what you believe is an unbiased view of the case. Maybe you are totally surprised by being told that I think there is a very real risk of many posters regarding you not as an unbiased writer but as a totally biased part of a very infected debate, I don't know. But that is my understanding anyway, and so making it a general point always to speak of me being biased whatever I say, and reoccuringly adding "You only say that because you promote Lechmere" may well have developed teeth, going for your own behind. If so, and forgive me for saying so, I think that is a development with a healthy measure of poetic justice in it.

I for one don't think that we will get much further. I know I won't anyway, and so I will leave the issues there for now and look forward to as sound a debate as possible in the future.

[Elamarna]

I've never gained any traction on this forum, so I've reserved my posts to the occasional comment here and there. From an observers point of view over the past 4 years, it seemed that after Pierre got the boot, Steve turned his bias on debasing Christer's suspect since Pierre's lunacy was no longer available. Now I've never been one to name any particular suspect; still, most of Steve's compilation of the available resources was designed with a bias of discrediting Christer; thus, the focus of his work on the Polly Nicholls' murder. Now my two pence aren't worth two cents; still, I'll lay them on the bar with a grin and no qualms. Looking forward to the read, Stevie

It doesn't actually dismiss Lechmere Robert, it just looks at some of the evidence, it's for the reader to decided what is the likeliest version of events.
And now I have already started both books 2 & 3 in the series.

Steve

[Elamarna]

What along way of admitting that your mind is closed.

Before looking at your comments, I see that you do not address the issue of my supposed "trashing" of Edward Stow, make the accusation, dont back them up, and dont apologize for false claims, oh well.

For Steve:

I have nothing much to add to what I have already said, and your posts do not change any of it.

It was never going to be wise to employ the attitude "Either we buy everything a source says or we discard it altogether", because the world is a tad more complex than that.

Sorry to inform you Christer but YOU do not set the rules of how we interpret sources, no matter how much you think you do

You say that we know that Paul was economic with the truth, but we actually don't - it can be a case of the journalist misinterpreting him or, perhaps more likely, spicing up the account. In which case Paul goes free.

Exactly as I argue and point out in the book, which you have not read, and in numerous posts here which you have.

This his of course something that makes the source harder to assess in terms of value - there is an uncertainty about the degree to which it correctly reflects what was said.

It is a reason to be cautious about the Lloyds article but not a reason to discard it, knee-jerk style.

Again something I argue in the book and in the many posts here.

Yu and me alike will suffer accusations of cherrypicking the parts we like, but that's how it goes out here, and it does nothing at all to the facts I mentioned earlier: we KNOW for certain that the process of approaching Mizen is not correctly described in the interview, and so we must be particularly cautious about that section. Simultaneously, we DONīT know that the issue about the time given by Paul is in any way in error - but we DO know that he said he was late and we DO know that knowledge of being late comes from having checked the clock.

We know that his time of 03.45 is contrary to that of 3 police officers, one of whom you appear to say has no reason to give false information.
Therefore, of course the time given by Paul is questionable, to post above that we do not know it was anyway in error is there total nonsense.
And of course you refuse to look at the issue of synchronization at all, that is NOT simply "Cherry picking" its disingenuous to those reading.

So there you are, that's how I believe the material must be regarded, and if you care to take a look at the history of science you will find it crammed with prominent scientists who accept some parts of a source and reject others, on the grounds of knowing that the latter must be wrong. It is common procedure.
As for how I ask you not to work from a preconceived notion that views held by Lechmere proponents must be biased to a degree that makes them less trustworthy than views presented by those who do not promote any suspect, it remains that I regard this as a totally unscientific and uncalled for approach that is shameful when applies knee-jerk style, as is often the case out here.

That is not what has been said, I have never said that being a proponent of Lechmere means your views are biased. What I have said is the views of some Proponents of Lechmere are biased, the same is true for any suspect.
If you had bothered to really read what has been written and listen to what has been said, rather than take a Knee-jerk reaction yourself, you would know I have not, and do not rule Lechmere out as a suspect, there are many I do.

I suppose you would be non too happy to hear that I think that people should abstain from your buying your book since all you write in it is designed to clear away any other suspect than Kosminski, and that this bias has driven you to produce a work that cannot be trusted on any level?

How can you make an unbiased recommendation, when you have not even read the book, that comment like this entire post is simply the equivalent of stick one's fingers in one's ears and saying I dont want to listen, go away. Such a response clearly suggests that your mind on the Whitechapel murders is closed.

it reminds me of the Knee-Jerk reaction of the Church to the film "Life of Brian", before it was even released.

And now you raise Kosminski, his name is mentioned Just once in the whole 543 pages, and then it's in an appendix on Lechmere:

"Mary Ann Street is no stronger a link than that of the Kosminski’s who probably lived closer to Berner Street, in Providence Street and at one stage may well have lived at 38 Berner Street, next door to the murder site."

I also raise the possibility of the Slaughterhouse men, in particular Henry Tomkins, to suggest I am clearing the way for Kosminski is hard to substantiate when I do not dismiss Lechmere or Tomkins.

You have completely misunderstood the purpose of the book, I give alternatives, it's for the reader to decide what they believe, Of course you have not and clearly will not read the book, so how would you know. Just as Poster Barnflatwyngarde said early, your REFUSAL to read it is somewhat perplexing. If its faulty it could be attacked just as Drew Gray's book has been.

"I can think that Kosminski is the best suspect and do my work in an unbiased manner anyway!" is perhaps what you would say to that? If so, I would reply that this goes without saying - you CAN promote a suspect and nevertheless demand that people accept that you do as unbiased a work as can be requested.

Which is what has been done, how one can suggest otherwise when one has NOT READ THE BOOK is symptomatic of a closed mind.

In your case, you have picked up a problem along the way, and that is reflected by Robers St Devils post above: I am personally certain that many posters out here believe that your book on the Bucks Row case is to a large degree a dig on the Lechmere theory, and so they invest little faith in you being that unbiased character you speak of as a necessity in so many posts. Maybe that is unfair, I cannot say since I have not read the book.

As you say you have not read the book,

Maybe you have never had any other aim than to present what you believe is an unbiased view of the case. Maybe you are totally surprised by being told that I think there is a very real risk of many posters regarding you not as an unbiased writer but as a totally biased part of a very infected debate, I don't know. But that is my understanding anyway, and so making it a general point always to speak of me being biased whatever I say, and reoccuringly adding "You only say that because you promote Lechmere" may well have developed teeth, going for your own behind. If so, and forgive me for saying so, I think that is a development with a healthy measure of poetic justice in it.

Maybe some do, people are allowed to form their own views, thats the point of the book. Many have read it and not formed that opinion.

Anyone who thinks I have made factual errors, is welcome to inform me, and if that is the case those faults will be corrected in the next update.

I for one don't think that we will get much further. I know I won't anyway, and so I will leave the issues there for now and look forward to as sound a debate as possible in the future.

Me too, I am already moving on to Books Two and Three, in the series.
You really do not get it do you, its not personal.

It's NOT an anti Lechmere book, its not a suspect book, it tries to look at the evidence we have on the Bucks Row Murder. It gives suggestions and alternatives and enough information(maybe too much) for the READER to reach their own conclusions

This entire post as I said before is simply a "I'm Not listening" cry.



Steve

[Fisherman]

What along way of admitting that your mind is closed.

... he said, making an even longer post.


Sorry to inform you Christer but YOU do not set the rules of how we interpret sources, no matter how much you think you do

Speaking about closed minds, this is interesting: You now want people to believe that I think that I set the rules for how sources should be interpreted! Wow! But my answer to you was on account of how YOU laid down the rule about how we either accept all or nothing in a source!
So who is the one trying to impose harsh rules and who is the one saying that we should not do that?
A prime example of how you oftentimes reason - and to boot, you say that I am the one resorting to semantics...!
I wonder how you look upon the Bible, Steve? As something that is completely useless as a source because it speaks of people walking on water? Or as proof that we CAN walk on water? Surely, its either or...?

After that opening of yours, I see no reason to answer the rest of your "points" - it would be to allow myself to get bogged down in more of that odd reasoning of yours. Instead I will meet your wish for shorter posts on my behalf and just say good luck with the project of convincing people that your book is not to a large extent a heavily biased attack on the Lechmere theory!

People CAN read, you know. Like Robert St Devil. That much I DO get. And anyone who reads a post like the one you just burped up will be able to effortlessly draw his or her conclusions about whether you are keeping a cool head and a neutral tone in these issues.

Bye for now.