Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Elamarna]

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.

Bye for now.

I am not sure why you laugh, for people of faith the Bilbe is true.

For historians and scientists who are not religious it is a collection of stories, which may have a factual background, the detail however is unproven and much the same as the Lloyds account.

An Attack on the Lechmere Theory you suggest.

That says so much, almost as if to question the theory or aspects of it is somehow wrong.

Is that not how research advances? By question theories, scrutinizing them, seeing they the stand up?

However it is not an attack on the theory.

If the book is bias give me examples?
If the book is factually inaccurate give me those mistakes and I will accept the mistakes and correct.

But of course it's not you won't respond, it's that without reading it you cannot respond.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Is that not how research advances? By question theories, scrutinizing them, seeing they the stand up?

Yes, precisely. However, permanently and falsely peddling the view that the originator of a theory is being too biased to reach anything but biased conclusions is NOT how research advances. It is instead how prejudice and unwarranted assumptions is allowed to replace real research. And the one thing that advances is bad blood. I thought I had made that clear?

Now I really have other things to do.

[Elamarna]

Yes, precisely. However, permanently and falsely peddling the view that the originator of a theory is being too biased to reach anything but biased conclusions is NOT how research advances. It is instead how prejudice and unwarranted assumptions is allowed to replace real research. And the one thing that advances is bad blood. I thought I had made that clear?

Now I really have other things to do.

So if scrutiny of particular aspects of a theory, suggest that theory is wrong, and those mistakes are down to let's say over enthusiastic interpretation, it should not be reported.

If one believes something is misleading it is ones duty to point that out is it not.

You certainly did that on this thread, and were given answers not just by myself, but by others rebutting much of your argument.


It causes "bad blood" ; you mean you get upset because the theory and how your reach your particular conclusions is questioned.
One can always rebutt critism if one has the evidence.

I again ask you to provide examples of Bias in my book and to point out where it is factually wrong?

We all have other and better things to do than this.
For me its Mitre Square and the GSG.

Bye for now.


Steve

[Fisherman]

We all have other and better things to do than this.
For me its Mitre Square and the GSG.

Steve

Out of curiosity; which theory will you try and nullify in that context, Steve?

As for "If one believes something is misleading it is ones duty to point that out is it not", you have had my answer many times but now. Anybody can speak about high moral goals or "duties" as you so solemnly put it. The problem only arises when you fail miserably to live up to those principles. Regularly stating "you only say that because you have a bias" is not an example of the saintly principles you claim to live after.

Your aim is an obvious one: to paint me out as a biased suspectologist that cannot be trusted, and to present yourself as an unbiased researcher, trustworthy in every detail and with the best of intentions. It is an unsavoury approach, unworthy of any serious researcher as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, it has never worked, and that owes totally to your own posting out here. At the end of the day, its always about reaping what you sow.

If you need me to reiterate this again, just say so. Otherwise, I'm happy to let you go on with your work on Eddowes and that theorist, whomever that may be.

[Elamarna]

Out of curiosity; which theory will you try and nullify in that context, Steve?

As for "If one believes something is misleading it is ones duty to point that out is it not", you have had my answer many times but now. Anybody can speak about high moral goals or "duties" as you so solemnly put it. The problem only arises when you fail miserably to live up to those principles. Regularly stating "you only say that because you have a bias" is not an example of the saintly principles you claim to live after.

Your aim is an obvious one: to paint me out as a biased suspectologist that cannot be trusted, and to present yourself as an unbiased researcher, trustworthy in every detail and with the best of intentions. It is an unsavoury approach, unworthy of any serious researcher as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, it has never worked, and that owes totally to your own posting out here. At the end of the day, its always about reaping what you sow.

If you need me to reiterate this again, just say so. Otherwise, I'm happy to let you go on with your work on Eddowes and that theorist, whomever that may be.

What a truly astonishing post, your opinion of your own importance is remarkable.

My work is not about you, nor is it solely about your theory. But of course you haven't read it so you don't know.
It's clear however that you think the world of Ripperology revolves around your theory.

It is also clear that you apparently feel that it's wrong to scrutinise any part of your theory, of course you actually have little idea, what I say in the book. So it's rather an odd approach, particularly if your theory is a strong as you say it is.

Theories stand or fall on the facts, not on the authors.

It appears that you are unable to give examples of Bias or factual errors in the book, yet you ask people not to read it because it's unfair.


It's really quite sad.

The next book is just the same as this one, not a suspect book, it will look at various events, and discuss them, again it will be 2/3 resources.


Bye for now

STEVE

[Robert St Devil]

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

First and foremost, congratulations on your attempts at continuations of your publication. Beyond the Ripper crimes, I truly believe that at the core of a Ripperologist beats the heart of a writer, and I have been amazed at the penmanship expressed in the writings of particular member's posts; enough that I have incorporated their metrics into my own professional philos. Any new perspective is entirely welcome since we are all working from the same stagnant material; still, I have been witness to those who have been able to slice slabs of meat from bones considered plucked dry. With that being said ...

I feel that I am properly inebriated to respond in post. What made me disregard you as a bag of farts, Steve, was a private message to me from you oh so many years ago which asked me not to be too critical of your foray into your initiall thread of the Polly Nicholls' murder. At the time, I was attempting a friendly criticism of your "it could be this, or maybe this; then again it could be that; but that's not to say that the possibility that it could also be something else entirely", uhm, attempt at quote-unquote research. This PM obviously was coming on the heels of your behind-the-scenes social networking of other CB members in an attempt to discredit Pierre as a rightful loon and well into your new focus of attention, "Christer's documentary" (can't fault you for aiming at the marquis). However, your private and personal hypersensitivity seemed ridiculous in part considering that you were throwing stones with 4-seamed fastball intentions. Now I begrudgingly acknowledged your appreciation of my translations of the Pigott suicide; still, I had you measured by then and disregarded you as a troll. As someone who went to lengths to work against the efforts put forth by other ologists. Whether my own posts paid the price for this public announcement against you is subject to my own paranoia.

I am fully aware that Christer is his own man; and in a three-round exhibition, I would easily place my two pence on him to dismantle you within two. That is, to say, he needs no champion beyond his own typewriting fists. Still, I felt an outside perspective was due in order to make those silent members aware that the current Casebook Forums extends beyond a popularity contest and a vote-count of "harumphs" in your favor, which you have been garnering ever since you joined this site.

Whether an ologist believes Lechmere, Chapman, Druitt, Bury or Mr Bean was the culprit, I still find that there is a nugget to be learned. However, in your case I choose not to hold my breath.

[Fisherman]

What a truly astonishing post, your opinion of your own importance is remarkable.

My work is not about you, nor is it solely about your theory. But of course you haven't read it so you don't know.
It's clear however that you think the world of Ripperology revolves around your theory.

The world of Ripperology is quite interested in the Lechmere theory (which is not "mine", by the way) - you yourself are a prime example of it, finding it necessary to take it up in your book on the Bucks Row murder. That is not the same as the world of Ripperology revolving around it, nor - of course - have I ever claimed that it does. That is just another example of you misrepresenting me, Steve.

To me, the theory represents an epicenter of the field of study, but that should not surprise you or anybody else. After all, I think Lechmere is our boy, and I have invested lots of time and effort to try and delve deeper into him. That, however, does not mean that I do not know that others have varying degrees of interest in the issue. Generally speaking, though, the Lechmere theory HAS been much discussed over the last few years. Sadly, many of those whose views I would have been much interested in have chosen to stay away from the debate, something I believe owes to the climate of the threads which is regularly a very hostile one. Some will say that is my fault entirely, but I feel that does not cover the true picture in any more extensive manner.

Trying to make me out as a deluded person with traits of delusions of grandeur is an age-old tactic out here. Once it is employed, I find it says a whole lot more about the employer than about me.

It is also clear that you apparently feel that it's wrong to scrutinise any part of your theory, of course you actually have little idea, what I say in the book. So it's rather an odd approach, particularly if your theory is a strong as you say it is.

I welcome anybody to scrutinize any part of the theory and I have always done so, saying that I believe that no damning evidence can be levelled against it. And indeed, that is what has turned out to be the truth (in spite of Trevor Marriott speaking about how the theory had been "blown out of the water" some years back. ). To me, this is something I overall welcome; if it had not been for the failed efforts to dismantle the theory, it would not be as evident as it is that it is a very strong one.
I am less happy about the efforts of some posters like Dr Strange, Patrick S etcetera, where I do not think that the principal target of the criticism is the theory but instead myself, as can be seen in the allegations of me being a liar, a distorter, a narcissist etcetera. I have chosen not to report matters like these to the administrators of the boards since I believe they further put a focus on how the criticism of the Lechmere theory looks and what it is truly about in some unfortunate cases. Of course, you can now say - again - "Dear Lord, it is not about YOU, Fisherman, don't overestimate yourself in that awful manner!", but you know, once people call me a narcissist and a distorting liar, I find that it actually IS about me to a significant degree.

Theories stand or fall on the facts, not on the authors.'

Yes, they do - and so far, the Lechmere theory stands firm. If you disagree, all you will be able to offer is that some people disagree with me. As a rule, though, saying "You are wrong, you narcissist liar!" does not amount to any real criticism. It only amounts to trolling. Other posters have offered intelligent criticism in a fair way, and it has been a joy to discuss with them. They are far too rarely present on the Lechmere threads, though, arguably for reasons given above.

It appears that you are unable to give examples of Bias or factual errors in the book, yet you ask people not to read it because it's unfair.

True - I AM unable to fault your book, but then again, as I have not read it that should not surprise anybody. I HAVE, however, listened to the podcast and found the information given therein lacking in quality on a number of matters. And your bias against people with suspects is not something I need to read any book at all to recognize.
As for asking people not to read the book, I do not think that I have done so. You are welcome to correct me on that score if you wish. If you ask me whether I expect the book to be good or bad, I´d say that after having heard the podcast, my money is not on it being a must-have for the keen Ripperologist. But as I say, that is an estimation based on the podcast only! For example, you lead on that there is a lot more information to find on Mizen and your assertions that he will have been the man lying, but since the book is out and since nobody has uttered a word about any amazing find to that effect (nor did you present any such revelation in the podcast), I tend to go with the notion that it was much ado about nothing. Time will certainly tell if I am wrong, let's agree on that.

It's really quite sad.

The next book is just the same as this one, not a suspect book, it will look at various events, and discuss them, again it will be 2/3 resources.

You forgot to answer my question whether there is going to be an effort to dismantle any specific theory about who killed Kate, Steve. Is it just me who gets that honor, or will it be a reocurring theme, I wonder?


Bye for now

STEVE

Yes, bye Steve.

[Elamarna]

First and foremost, congratulations on your attempts at continuations of your publication. Beyond the Ripper crimes, I truly believe that at the core of a Ripperologist beats the heart of a writer, and I have been amazed at the penmanship expressed in the writings of particular member's posts; enough that I have incorporated their metrics into my own professional philos. Any new perspective is entirely welcome since we are all working from the same stagnant material; still, I have been witness to those who have been able to slice slabs of meat from bones considered plucked dry. With that being said ...

I feel that I am properly inebriated to respond in post. What made me disregard you as a bag of farts, Steve, was a private message to me from you oh so many years ago which asked me not to be too critical of your foray into your initiall thread of the Polly Nicholls' murder. At the time, I was attempting a friendly criticism of your "it could be this, or maybe this; then again it could be that; but that's not to say that the possibility that it could also be something else entirely", uhm, attempt at quote-unquote research. This PM obviously was coming on the heels of your behind-the-scenes social networking of other CB members in an attempt to discredit Pierre as a rightful loon and well into your new focus of attention, "Christer's documentary" (can't fault you for aiming at the marquis). However, your private and personal hypersensitivity seemed ridiculous in part considering that you were throwing stones with 4-seamed fastball intentions. Now I begrudgingly acknowledged your appreciation of my translations of the Pigott suicide; still, I had you measured by then and disregarded you as a troll. As someone who went to lengths to work against the efforts put forth by other ologists. Whether my own posts paid the price for this public announcement against you is subject to my own paranoia.

I am fully aware that Christer is his own man; and in a three-round exhibition, I would easily place my two pence on him to dismantle you within two. That is, to say, he needs no champion beyond his own typewriting fists. Still, I felt an outside perspective was due in order to make those silent members aware that the current Casebook Forums extends beyond a popularity contest and a vote-count of "harumphs" in your favor, which you have been garnering ever since you joined this site.

Whether an ologist believes Lechmere, Chapman, Druitt, Bury or Mr Bean was the culprit, I still find that there is a nugget to be learned. However, in your case I choose not to hold my breath.

Each to their own Robert, calling me a troll? ok what ever ticks your box.


Judging without reading, or knowing what the work says is a pool appreciation of research.



Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

First and foremost, congratulations on your attempts at continuations of your publication. Beyond the Ripper crimes, I truly believe that at the core of a Ripperologist beats the heart of a writer, and I have been amazed at the penmanship expressed in the writings of particular member's posts; enough that I have incorporated their metrics into my own professional philos. Any new perspective is entirely welcome since we are all working from the same stagnant material; still, I have been witness to those who have been able to slice slabs of meat from bones considered plucked dry. With that being said ...

I feel that I am properly inebriated to respond in post. What made me disregard you as a bag of farts, Steve, was a private message to me from you oh so many years ago which asked me not to be too critical of your foray into your initiall thread of the Polly Nicholls' murder. At the time, I was attempting a friendly criticism of your "it could be this, or maybe this; then again it could be that; but that's not to say that the possibility that it could also be something else entirely", uhm, attempt at quote-unquote research. This PM obviously was coming on the heels of your behind-the-scenes social networking of other CB members in an attempt to discredit Pierre as a rightful loon and well into your new focus of attention, "Christer's documentary" (can't fault you for aiming at the marquis). However, your private and personal hypersensitivity seemed ridiculous in part considering that you were throwing stones with 4-seamed fastball intentions. Now I begrudgingly acknowledged your appreciation of my translations of the Pigott suicide; still, I had you measured by then and disregarded you as a troll. As someone who went to lengths to work against the efforts put forth by other ologists. Whether my own posts paid the price for this public announcement against you is subject to my own paranoia.

I am fully aware that Christer is his own man; and in a three-round exhibition, I would easily place my two pence on him to dismantle you within two. That is, to say, he needs no champion beyond his own typewriting fists. Still, I felt an outside perspective was due in order to make those silent members aware that the current Casebook Forums extends beyond a popularity contest and a vote-count of "harumphs" in your favor, which you have been garnering ever since you joined this site.

Whether an ologist believes Lechmere, Chapman, Druitt, Bury or Mr Bean was the culprit, I still find that there is a nugget to be learned. However, in your case I choose not to hold my breath.

Enough said I think.

[Elamarna]

The world of Ripperology is quite interested in the Lechmere theory (which is not "mine", by the way) - you yourself are a prime example of it, finding it necessary to take it up in your book on the Bucks Row murder. That is not the same as the world of Ripperology revolving around it, nor - of course - have I ever claimed that it does. That is just another example of you misrepresenting me, Steve.


To me, the theory represents an epicenter of the field of study, but that should not surprise you or anybody else. After all, I think Lechmere is our boy, and I have invested lots of time and effort to try and delve deeper into him. That, however, does not mean that I do not know that others have varying degrees of interest in the issue. Generally speaking, though, the Lechmere theory HAS been much discussed over the last few years. Sadly, many of those whose views I would have been much interested in have chosen to stay away from the debate, something I believe owes to the climate of the threads which is regularly a very hostile one. Some will say that is my fault entirely, but I feel that does not cover the true picture in any more extensive manner.

Trying to make me out as a deluded person with traits of delusions of grandeur is an age-old tactic out here. Once it is employed, I find it says a whole lot more about the employer than about me.

Really an interesting view into how you see things, still attempting to portray oneself as a victim.

I welcome anybody to scrutinize any part of the theory and I have always done so, saying that I believe that no damning evidence can be levelled against it. And indeed, that is what has turned out to be the truth (in spite of Trevor Marriott speaking about how the theory had been "blown out of the water" some years back. ). To me, this is something I overall welcome; if it had not been for the failed efforts to dismantle the theory, it would not be as evident as it is that it is a very strong one.
I am less happy about the efforts of some posters like Dr Strange, Patrick S etcetera, where I do not think that the principal target of the criticism is the theory but instead myself, as can be seen in the allegations of me being a liar, a distorter, a narcissist etcetera. I have chosen not to report matters like these to the administrators of the boards since I believe they further put a focus on how the criticism of the Lechmere theory looks and what it is truly about in some unfortunate cases. Of course, you can now say - again - "Dear Lord, it is not about YOU, Fisherman, don't overestimate yourself in that awful manner!", but you know, once people call me a narcissist and a distorting liar, I find that it actually IS about me to a significant degree.

That is just the issue, you dont welcome any scrutiny which suggests faults in the theory,

There is the confirmation, you believe "no damning evidence" can be made against the theory.
Yet you have not proved the Theory by a very long way. The vast majority do not accept it.

That degree of certainty is indeed interesting and says a lot. It says that you find it impossible to comprehend that the theory may be wrong.
Of course, you view the attempts at scrutiny as failed, you simply refuse to read and understand them.

You do not answer the major point to which you seem to be replying, that being that you are attacking, not very well, a book you have not read, and are attempting to do so by character attacks on the author.
.

Considering that you have said much the same about the individuals you accuse of attacking you, I find your attitude revealing.
You see attacks on the theory as attacks on you, you then get personal, just as in this thread, when your factual arguments are rebutted.

Is it any wonder people then get personal back. It does not make it right, but it is understandable.

Yes, they do - and so far, the Lechmere theory stands firm. If you disagree, all you will be able to offer is that some people disagree with me. As a rule, though, saying "You are wrong, you narcissist liar!" does not amount to any real criticism. It only amounts to trolling. Other posters have offered intelligent criticism in a fair way, and it has been a joy to discuss with them. They are far too rarely present on the Lechmere threads, though, arguably for reasons given above.

Of course if you refuse to read scrutiny which questions part, not all, of the theory, then you are bound to say it holds firm.
Burying one's head in the sand and or sticking one's fingers in one's ears will not make that scrutiny go away.

True - I AM unable to fault your book, but then again, as I have not read it that should not surprise anybody. I HAVE, however, listened to the podcast and found the information given therein lacking in quality on a number of matters. And your bias against people with suspects is not something I need to read any book at all to recognize.

Your comments on the "mistakes" have been fully rebutted, in most cases the issue are all covered in detail in the book. The issues seemed to be aimed more at Jonathan then myself, because he used the wrong word on one occasion.

I have no bias against those with suspects, none with people naming Druitt, Bury, Tumblety, Sickert, Kelly, Levy or Hutchinson.
I can make arguments against all of those suspect some better than others, but there is no bias against the people presenting those suspects, there are arguments aimed at the theories themselves.

Is to dispute a suspect now viewed as bias?

This returns to how you view your theory, its very personal to you.
I honestly do believe that you see attacks on it, as attacks on you.

As for asking people not to read the book, I do not think that I have done so. You are welcome to correct me on that score if you wish.

Why bother to say that when you only posted it yesterday, must have slipped your mind. Post #132

"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?"

Such when you have not read the book is poor to say the least.

If you ask me whether I expect the book to be good or bad, I´d say that after having heard the podcast, my money is not on it being a must-have for the keen Ripperologist. But as I say, that is an estimation based on the podcast only! For example, you lead on that there is a lot more information to find on Mizen and your assertions that he will have been the man lying, but since the book is out and since nobody has uttered a word about any amazing find to that effect (nor did you present any such revelation in the podcast), I tend to go with the notion that it was much ado about nothing. Time will certainly tell if I am wrong, let's agree on that.



Yes, bye Steve.

Time will certainly tell you are correct on that.

byeee

[Sam Flynn]

Enough said I think.

Indeed.

[harry]

Good morning all at once,just one question,and it's not often I defend Fisherman,but why,in the first post was it written,'Discussions about the Mizen scam can be found'?
Why especiall,the Mizen scam?

[TheCuriousCat]

Good morning all at once,just one question,and it's not often I defend Fisherman,but why,in the first post was it written,'Discussions about the Mizen scam can be found'?
Why especiall,the Mizen scam?

You are asking why they mentioned they had an in-depth discussion of the Mizen scam in a podcast which had an in-depth discussion of the Mizen scam? Are you suggesting they should not have mentioned what the podcast was about?

[Fisherman]

Really an interesting view into how you see things, still attempting to portray oneself as a victim.




That is just the issue, you dont welcome any scrutiny which suggests faults in the theory,

There is the confirmation, you believe "no damning evidence" can be made against the theory.
Yet you have not proved the Theory by a very long way. The vast majority do not accept it.

That degree of certainty is indeed interesting and says a lot. It says that you find it impossible to comprehend that the theory may be wrong.
Of course, you view the attempts at scrutiny as failed, you simply refuse to read and understand them.

You do not answer the major point to which you seem to be replying, that being that you are attacking, not very well, a book you have not read, and are attempting to do so by character attacks on the author.
.

Considering that you have said much the same about the individuals you accuse of attacking you, I find your attitude revealing.
You see attacks on the theory as attacks on you, you then get personal, just as in this thread, when your factual arguments are rebutted.

Is it any wonder people then get personal back. It does not make it right, but it is understandable.



Of course if you refuse to read scrutiny which questions part, not all, of the theory, then you are bound to say it holds firm.
Burying one's head in the sand and or sticking one's fingers in one's ears will not make that scrutiny go away.




Your comments on the "mistakes" have been fully rebutted, in most cases the issue are all covered in detail in the book. The issues seemed to be aimed more at Jonathan then myself, because he used the wrong word on one occasion.

I have no bias against those with suspects, none with people naming Druitt, Bury, Tumblety, Sickert, Kelly, Levy or Hutchinson.
I can make arguments against all of those suspect some better than others, but there is no bias against the people presenting those suspects, there are arguments aimed at the theories themselves.

Is to dispute a suspect now viewed as bias?

This returns to how you view your theory, its very personal to you.
I honestly do believe that you see attacks on it, as attacks on you.



Why bother to say that when you only posted it yesterday, must have slipped your mind. Post #132

"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?"

Such when you have not read the book is poor to say the least.




Time will certainly tell you are correct on that.

byeee

You really do not understand much of what I am saying do you? Or perhaps worse - you DO understand it, but choose not to listen. It´s a pity, since it gets you bogged further and further down in precisely the kind of odorous mud an aspiring author should avoid.

Once again, you say that I portray myself as a victim. The thing is, you actually DID tell me in your former post that I should not think that the world revolves around me and my theory. Then, when I point out that I really do not suffer from illusions of grandeur, you say that I paint myself out as a victim...?
What ingenious tactics, Steve! Its Catch 22 all over again.

Then you move on to saying that my - correct - statement that nothing damning has been leveled at the Lechmere theory somehow equals proof that I find it incomprehensible that the theory can be wrong. That's another intellectual car crash, of course. It is a simple and established fact that no damning evidence HAS been leveled at the theory, something you do not question yourself. How that fact can be stretched to the odd idea that I could not comprehend that the theory can be wrong nevertheless is the stuff of fairytales. Of course the theory CAN be wrong. I do not find it very likely that is IS, but it nevertheless CAN be, and I have said so many a time. End of.

You know, when I read bitter balderdash like that, it kind of makes me think that the real problem here is another one - that you very, very, VERY much want the theory to be wrong. Of course, that is and open invitation to you to once again start blabbering about how I should not think that everything revolves about me and the Lechmere theory, but what the hell - I am willing to take that risk since I think it is important to point your thinking out for what it is: premium crap.

The last thing I would like to take up on is how you post this quotation of mine: "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?", as an example of how I would have told people not to buy your book.
Of course, this sentence was offered to exemplify why I don't like it when you, knee-jerk style, always say that my thinking is not fully trustworthy since I have a bias. I accordingly asked you what you would think IF I was to answer those allegations with a little of your own medicine. And now you try and use it too substantiate the unsubstatiable. Dear me! If I were you, I would certainly use this to say that you are so touchy and absorbed by the idea that people do not understand your greatness that you fail to understand the simplest of matters.
Then again, I am NOT you!!!

There is no way I could recommend people to either buy the book or not buy the book since I have not read it, remember? And reading and understanding something is vital to being able to comment on it. The above example shows how poorly equipped you sometimes are in that department, Steve.

Now, Steve, where do you go from here? More allegations about me believing that everything revolves around the Lechmere theory? More claims that I am not to be trusted since I am blindfolded by my own belief that Lechmere was the killer? Some additions to the claim that I am unable to comprehend that the theory can be wrong? Or do we perchance choose a brand new angle? I am holding my breath here!

While you ponder which accusation/allegation/defamation would be best suited in that upcoming answer of yours, it would be entertaining if you could please answer my question about which theory you are aiming to dismantle in your upcoming Eddowes epos. Surely, I cannot be the only one to receive THAT honor...?

[harry]

I believed the podcast was about the book,which I believed was about the Bucks Row murder.There was no need to include the Mizen scam, which has been debated here over and over again.