Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[jmenges]

Hi Harry,
I did address the reasons behind the content of the podcast in my previous post. We’ve not discussed the murder of Polly Nichols as a stand alone show since the August 2008 episode titled ‘Still Warm’. New knowledge in part is that Cross is now considered by some a viable suspect in the murder. Steve and I also brought up the new knowledge via Tom Wescott’s book suggesting that her wounds were more severe than prior writers have described. Tom also writes on the Lechmere suspect theory and he and I discussed that and her wounds in a previous episode.
From my position the interview with Steve was about his book. We covered topics like the Mizen scam, the J Division police ineptitude and the slaughter men. I consciously avoided other topics in Steve’s book, like the history of Bucks Row itself, which is extensively covered, as I knew that would be the subject of his talk and Q&A at the Whitechapel Society.

JM

[Elamarna]

Steve and Jonathon,
It would be useful if you responded to the only comment I did make,and that was to the so called Lechmere scam.I am not at odds in anyone using the latest technology,and my comments were directed at the contents ,not the means of delivery or the persons involved.
I do not accept that the murder of Nichols cannot be undertaken without reference to the so called scam.It was discussed and written about for over one hundred years before the term was invented,and before Cross was written of as the Whitechapel murderer.
So the inclusion,to my way of thinking,was mererly an opportunity for Steve to lodge his long held beliefs that Fisherman is wrong.Nothing wrong with that,only that I believe new methods should concentrate on new knowledge,and I find the podcast lacks that.

Harry, you are in effect suggesting ignoring the Scam.
Why do you think that should be?

You say it was told for over 100 years without such.
And yes it did, but the telling was incomplete.
Are you suggesting that we doctor the evidence to ignore issues we don't agree with?


The fact remains that the witnesses disagreed over what was said. Such was part of the inquest, and modern day theories, we should ignore it?

My view is that what ever the Scam was, it had no material outcome on the crime.

Both Jonathan and I have said why we think it should be included, so indeed as Christer.
We do not agree that an account of the murder without the Scam can be given.


New Knowledge?

This work is above all a research tool, all the witness statements in one place( ok not all, but a vast number) access to over 70+ maps of the period.

Looks at the police beats, which for Thain have not been done to the best of my Knowledge before.
For Neil, the ideas on his beat have until a few months ago not been looked at in any real depth. Neils beat as great significance to the events of tge morning.

On the Scam, I believe my take, has not been mentioned before, in the context which I put it. With the evidence I supply.

I am at loss to understand why you think the Scam should not have been included.


Steve

[harry]

Steve and Jonathon,
It would be useful if you responded to the only comment I did make,and that was to the so called Lechmere scam.I am not at odds in anyone using the latest technology,and my comments were directed at the contents ,not the means of delivery or the persons involved.
I do not accept that the murder of Nichols cannot be undertaken without reference to the so called scam.It was discussed and written about for over one hundred years before the term was invented,and before Cross was written of as the Whitechapel murderer.
So the inclusion,to my way of thinking,was mererly an opportunity for Steve to lodge his long held beliefs that Fisherman is wrong.Nothing wrong with that,only that I believe new methods should concentrate on new knowledge,and I find the podcast lacks that.

[Fisherman]

Yes, I saw that, Steve.

What would be good to hear is an overview of the whole theory. What part Lech’s upbringing and antecedents may have played in his development as a serial killer. How his job as a cart driver (possibly delivering horse flesh to HB’s various establishments) may have provided him with the opportunity to carry out the torso killings etc.

That’s the kind of stuff I’d like to hear more about.

All the more reason to hope that Jonathan takes me up on my bid and approaches Edward - nobody has deeper knowledge of the Lechmere family story than he does, and I am certain he would not be opposed to sharing it on the podcast.

[MrBarnett]

Jonathan made the offer to Christer on this thread I believe Gary, I too would listen to it with interest.



Steve

Yes, I saw that, Steve.

What would be good to hear is an overview of the whole theory. What part Lech’s upbringing and antecedents may have played in his development as a serial killer. How his job as a cart driver (possibly delivering horse flesh to HB’s various establishments) may have provided him with the opportunity to carry out the torso killings etc.

That’s the kind of stuff I’d like to hear more about.

[Fisherman]

How about, ‘Yes, I’d love to appear on the show?’

I for one would eagerly tune into that episode.

I actually recommended Jonathan to pass the offer on to Edward Stow. That way, I could also do some eager tuning in...

[Elamarna]

How about, ‘Yes, I’d love to appear on the show?’

I for one would eagerly tune into that episode.

Jonathan made the offer to Christer on this thread I believe Gary, I too would listen to it with interest.



Steve

[MrBarnett]

Perhaps some little more could be added to this.

But I for one cannot see what that would be.

How about, ‘Yes, I’d love to appear on the show?’

I for one would eagerly tune into that episode.

[Fisherman]

If I'm following your argument correctly, you seem to be suggesting that some theories and suspects are beneath us and not worthy of discussing and that by us discussing them we're giving those theories or suspects credibility that they do not deserve.
I can't speak for Steve's book, but I can speak for the podcast.
We have a long history of talking about subjects that have bubbled to the surface enough to break through to a general audience that some Ripperologists might find a waste of time. We covered the Ripper Museum in Cable Street. We talked at length to Wynne Weston Davies. I've asked guests about the suspect candidacy of the Elephant Man. I've interviewed R. Michael Gordon who believes that George Champan murdered half the world's population. We devoted nearly 3 hours to Hallie Rubenhold's book 'The Five'. We've brought on Prof. Turi King and Kozminski experts to discuss the shawl.
The fact is, as I alluded to during this interview, our listeners routinely contact me to ask me questions about a particular suspect or issue that has bubbled to the surface (in this case Lechmere via The Missing Evidence documentary) and they anxiously await an episode on it to hear someone's take. I consciously made the decision to cover the Lechmere/Cross suspect theory and the Mizen Scam to in part satisfy listener demand as Steve's book discusses it. I have also on this thread extended an invitation to Christer to come on an further discuss this suspect.
If the podcast were to avoid topics in Ripperology that have gained main stream traction in spite of being ridiculed and dismissed by prolific Casebook posters, I feel our show would be viewed as puzzling, slanted, mysteriously avoiding subjects our listeners have been exposed to on social media, newspapers and television, and we'd look elitist and completely out of touch.

JM

Perhaps some little more could be added to this.

But I for one cannot see what that would be.

[Sam Flynn]

r. Michael gordon who believes that george champan murdered half the world's population.

Nice one

[jmenges]

All events could have been covered Steve,without mention of the so called scam.Fisherman might be perplexed as to why I raised the matter,he shouldn't be,he is once again using a post to promote his own theory.Now you Steve may not have written with a suspect in mind,how could you,there wasn't one,but the opening post on this thread created one.Of course I could be wrong,you may all just be good friends having a friendly chat about a book.One question,can we m ention the Mizzen scam,without referring to Cross/Lechmere theory?

If I'm following your argument correctly, you seem to be suggesting that some theories and suspects are beneath us and not worthy of discussing and that by us discussing them we're giving those theories or suspects credibility that they do not deserve.
I can't speak for Steve's book, but I can speak for the podcast.
We have a long history of talking about subjects that have bubbled to the surface enough to break through to a general audience that some Ripperologists might find a waste of time. We covered the Ripper Museum in Cable Street. We talked at length to Wynne Weston Davies. I've asked guests about the suspect candidacy of the Elephant Man. I've interviewed R. Michael Gordon who believes that George Champan murdered half the world's population. We devoted nearly 3 hours to Hallie Rubenhold's book 'The Five'. We've brought on Prof. Turi King and Kozminski experts to discuss the shawl.
The fact is, as I alluded to during this interview, our listeners routinely contact me to ask me questions about a particular suspect or issue that has bubbled to the surface (in this case Lechmere via The Missing Evidence documentary) and they anxiously await an episode on it to hear someone's take. I consciously made the decision to cover the Lechmere/Cross suspect theory and the Mizen Scam to in part satisfy listener demand as Steve's book discusses it. I have also on this thread extended an invitation to Christer to come on an further discuss this suspect.
If the podcast were to avoid topics in Ripperology that have gained main stream traction in spite of being ridiculed and dismissed by prolific Casebook posters, I feel our show would be viewed as puzzling, slanted, mysteriously avoiding subjects our listeners have been exposed to on social media, newspapers and television, and we'd look elitist and completely out of touch.

JM

[Fisherman]

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

If you are up to it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. like I mentioned prior, he's adept at social networking.

You mean he’s polite?

Still, there is that slim minority who know exactly why he focused in on Bucks Row,

Because it’s widely considered Jack the Ripper’s first murder?

t's admirable that you would vouch for him in spite of my bitterness

I take people as I find them.

the inspiration for his research was biased from the jump

Again, this was probably the scene of the first murder. Lechmere played an important role as a witness. He has now become a suspect. It’s therefore natural that Steve would include him.

(this coming despite his affirmations that his scientific background qualifies him as a neutral party)

I don’t think I’ve ever heard Steve say that his medical background is a guarantee of impartiality?

that remember how malignantly he shifted his focus from Pierre's subject to holding Christer accountable for all-things Lechmere

Do you think that a poster should stick to one topic at all times? We all move from topic to topic. As for holding Christer accountable? Surely this is simply because Christer is the main proponent of the Lechmere Theory on here (plus he was in the documentary) Ed Stow hasn’t posted on here since before I joined (I don’t know exactly when he last posted.)

. that can pinpoint the moment when he formulated this grand endeavor (hint: it came during his earliest diatribes against Christer),

So you seriously believe that Steve spent all that time and effort purely in an attempt to refute the Lechmere Theory? If that was the case then Steve is about to show remarkable commitment to his mission by moving onto the other murder sites. Another few years of research (where Lechmere will not be mentioned) purely to hide the fact that his sole purpose for his first book was to attack Christer.

abstract terms to claim that he has been a "fair" poster.

I’ve certainly called people biased and have been called biased myself. We all exhibit some form of bias at one time or another. I would have no issue with characterising Steve asa fair poster.

and that his imagination for the case is severely limited

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.

i'd agree if you claimed that he has maintained a civility on these forums better than most (myself included)

And myself.

I was subject to that fairness when I was requested not to criticize his compilation of newspaper clippings that he qualified as research because he had worked so hard at it (this coming from that helluva guy who has no qualms dog-snapping at the heels of other published CB members).

I can’t really comment on private messages between you and Steve that I haven’t seen but I’d be surprised if Steve expected his work to be above criticism. No writer/researcher should be protected from having his work challenged. As long as it’s not simply vicious or personal of course.

Steve's profitable work may be ground-breaking and earth-shattering.

I somehow doubt that Steve will be leaving Glasgow for St Tropez on the proceeds?

. I'll never know because I have never once been able to derive anything from any of Steve's writings other than verbiose letching.

Letching? > The act of vewing a female with strong sexual desires.

This hardly has the appearance of being unbiased Robert. For whatever reason you obviously have a lot of bitterness against Steve. I don’t think that Steve has any vendetta against Christer. Neither do I. Debates on the subject of Lechmere have often descended into acrimony. I’ve been involved in some of those debates. Perhaps we all share responsibility for the current situation. I just don’t understand your anger which appears only to be directed at one side exonerating the other of all fault?

[Elamarna]

All events could have been covered Steve,without mention of the so called scam.Fisherman might be perplexed as to why I raised the matter,he shouldn't be,he is once again using a post to promote his own theory.Now you Steve may not have written with a suspect in mind,how could you,there wasn't one,but the opening post on this thread created one.Of course I could be wrong,you may all just be good friends having a friendly chat about a book.One question,can we m ention the Mizzen scam,without referring to Cross/Lechmere theory?

Harry, if you don't mention the disagreement between witnesses, it's not a complete coverage of the murder.
Jonathan pointed out yesterday that the podcast is not solely for CB members, I believe his listens total up to about 20,000.
The book is the same it's not written just for Casebook.

In answer to your question about not mentioning Lechmere, no you can't. But why is that a problem.
I also look at Robert Mann, a suspect with a book and a video, I do actually dismiss him.

I also look at the slaughtermen, and while I do not think they were involved in the murder, I leave the option open, just as I do for Lechmere.

So why all the fuss about mentioning the name Lechmere.


Steve

[The Baron]

The theory to compete with it, is that Lechmere was not the killer of Nichols or any other victim, and that Nichols and others were killed by an unknown killer or killers, and why you or others cannot see the major flaws in what has been put forward to suggest he was the killer I fail to comprehend.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, I don't think Lechmere was the killer, simply because I cannot imagine him after Killing Nichols, keeping his knife upon himself and searching a policeman. If he could have the chance to hide the weapon somewhere, I will be happily a Lechmerian at once!

The alternative that you suggested , that Nichols and others were killed by an unknown killer or killers, is not a theory, it is reality.



The Baron