Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Elamarna]

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...?

Once again, more self justification, it's amazing how one can write so much, based on so little.

It's amazing that you consider advising people not to buy, is not making a recommendation.
You claim in the above the quote is a "what if"

But there is no "what if" in the quote or implied by it. It is clear.

" I suppose you would not be happy to hear that i think people should abstain from buying your book"


I am aware of no theories I about to "dismantle", have not done the research yet.


Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

Harry, not sure how you think one can cover the murder without giving an account of the carmens actions after discovering the body, and what is said in the press and at the inquest.

If it was not included I would be accused of ducking the issue.

However the reason it's mentioned is two fold, firstly Jonathan wanted to talk about it.
And secondly I present a different take on it to that which has been discussed here I think.




Steve

[Elamarna]

Christer,
I have reached a decision.

If you wish to debate, discuss, dismantle even, the work I have produced, then I am happy to debate with you.

However I will respond to no more attacks on me, rather than the book.

And again thank you for the publicity.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Once again, more self justification, it's amazing how one can write so much, based on so little.

It's amazing that you consider advising people not to buy, is not making a recommendation.
You claim in the above the quote is a "what if"

But there is no "what if" in the quote or implied by it. It is clear.

" I suppose you would not be happy to hear that i think people should abstain from buying your book"


I am aware of no theories I about to "dismantle", have not done the research yet.


Steve

So "self-justification" is the chosen theme this time. I see.

As for the theoretical perspective of me doing the same to you that you do to me, you know full well that it was never anything but exactly that.

Thanks for the information about not having decided to try and shoot down any theory about Eddowes so far. My humble guess is that this is how it will stay.

[Fisherman]

Christer,
I have reached a decision.

If you wish to debate, discuss, dismantle even, the work I have produced, then I am happy to debate with you.

However I will respond to no more attacks on me, rather than the book.

And again thank you for the publicity.


Steve

So that is one point where we differ; I WILL respond to attacks on me and point out where they are wrong. I fully understand your reluctance to expand any further on the kind of criticism you have so far levelled at me on this thread. In fact, it is by far the wisest thing you can do. It is - of course - way too late, but better late than never, Steve.

[Elamarna]

So that is one point where we differ; I WILL respond to attacks on me and point out where they are wrong. I fully understand your reluctance to expand any further on the kind of criticism you have so far levelled at me on this thread. In fact, it is by far the wisest thing you can do. It is - of course - way too late, but better late than never, Steve.

Way too late?
Not adversely affected sales in the slightest.

Steve

[Elamarna]

So "self-justification" is the chosen theme this time. I see.

As for the theoretical perspective of me doing the same to you that you do to me, you know full well that it was never anything but exactly that.

Thanks for the information about not having decided to try and shoot down any theory about Eddowes so far. My humble guess is that this is how it will stay.

I did not say I have decided on anything, indeed I said I had not decided what the book will say, having note completed the research.

Again it's misleading

Steve

[Fisherman]

I did not say I have decided on anything, indeed I said I had not decided what the book will say, having note completed the research.

Again it's misleading

Steve

Try and read what I wrote again, a bit more slowly this time: "Thanks for the information about NOT having decided..."

Sorry for the gross misleading. I´ll shape up, promise!

You?

[Fisherman]

Way too late?
Not adversely affected sales in the slightest.

Steve

I was not speaking about the book, Steve, I was speaking about your overall credibility. "Mein Kampf" also sold quite well, by the way, as did "Maos Little Red", all other comparisons aside. Selling well is not necessarily an indication of a good book, I'm afraid.

[Elamarna]

Try and read what I wrote again, a bit more slowly this time: "Thanks for the information about NOT having decided..."

Sorry for the gross misleading. I´ll shape up, promise!

You?

The point being that I have not "Not decided" which is an action, I haven't even thought about it.
I assume we have a simply misunderstanding.


Steve

[jmenges]

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?

Those ending bits about what apps the podcast can be found on is a little running joke I’ve used on many episodes. Nothing more.

and wherever in-depth podcast discussions about the Mizen Scam can be found.

and wherever else 90 minute audio chats about Sir Robert Anderson can be found.

wherever else in-depth presentations about Dr. Thomas Bond's profile on the Whitechapel Murderer can be found.

and anywhere Ripperological Tape Preservation Projects can be found.

Also in iTunes, Podcast Addict, PodBean, MixCloud and any other podcast app where in-depth discussions about Aaron Kosminski, the Crawford letter, and Robert Anderson's 'Polish Jew Theory' can be found.


JM

[jmenges]

There was no need to include the Mizen scam, which has been debated here over and over again.

The readers and posters of Casebook are only a small fraction of the podcast’s total listenership. If the show avoided all topics concerning this case that have been discussed and debated on the boards then there would be no show. There would be nothing left to talk about.

JM

[Fisherman]

The point being that I have not "Not decided" which is an action, I haven't even thought about it.
I assume we have a simply misunderstanding.


Steve

So when I say that you apparently have not made any decision to point to a theory, that is in effect me saying that you HAVE made a decision...? You have decided that you have not decided, sort of? The decision is one of not having made a decision?

So I misrepresented you when I said that no decision had been reached on your behalf to point to a theory, since you had not thought about whether you should make a decision or not...? Or? Has it been deflated to me "misunderstanding" you?

Let me get this straight: Are you still claiming that I am the one making curious semantic summersaults out here?

[Fisherman]

The readers and posters of Casebook are only a small fraction of the podcast’s total listenership. If the show avoided all topics concerning this case that have been discussed and debated on the boards then there would be no show. There would be nothing left to talk about.

JM

I must admit that I was a tad flummoxed by Harrys query too - of course the topic was relevant to the podcast. All in all, though, I think it is a simple case of allergy on Harrys behalf when it comes to any material that can be related back to me. I can't imagine why, but there you are.

[Robert St Devil]

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

The narrative that I have followed extends back to your tit-for-tats with Pierre (not to continually invoke that loon's handle), these long-winded diatribes that consumed extensive server space as the solitary conversations between the two of you ran the course of pages and resulted in nothing more the by-product of pompous asswork ie. a bag of farts. From my recollection, Christer or Mizen or Lechmere or Bucks Row was not even a speck on your radar. What I do distinctly recollect from that time is how you and another member were privately collecting other member's nominees for Pierre's culprit; it came complete with a psuedo-scientific chart where you assigned percentiles for each nominee based on the clues that Pierre had dropped along the way. Then, for some reason beyond my general concern, Pierre was expelled from class; and instantaneously and overnight, you decided on the need to turn your hate towards ripping apart another member's working hypothesis because, Lord knows, you have never been one to base your work off of an original idea ever since your Join Date. Originality and Stevie are not two words that go hand-in-hand or belong in the same sentence. And so, you began to pot-shot at Christer because he was between fishing trips and posting at the time, and he was defending his Lechmere theory, and he had participated in that documentary. On its own, that is ethical since there is a place for spite and envy within the historical community; but somewhere in the mix of your verbiose doldrums, you got the dim idea that you would attempt your own research (akin to your Pierre's Culprit chart) that ran counter to his Lechmere hypothesis. And after bally-hooing it in the months prior, you presented your work as this scientific rendering type thing, which, in the end, was only a compilation of readily-available material that could be found here on Casebook. Worse yet, you never derived anything historical from your research; your initial thread came off as the work of a lab assistant who records all the measurements and metrics for a senior scientist, but doesn't have the brilliance to interpret any greater meaning out of the work. It was ripe with so many apologies and possibilities that noone could hold you accountable - "i claim A; but that doesn't mean that B isn't also possible; then again, my apologies, there is a chance that C could have happened. And if it isn't C, again my apologies, we mustn't forget D. Which brings me back to A." By then, with all the your forum cronies that you had garnered by grandstanding against Pierre, you had plenty of pats on the back; however, when I made a friendly yet critical remark prior to dismissing your work as boring, you messaged me NOT to be critical because gosh-darnit you had worked so super-duper hard on it. After that, I dismissed you as a flake. I've read your posts - better said, I've skimmed your posts - if your book is anything along the same type of writing, I'll pass on the offer to read it while safely claiming that Im not the worse off for it when it comes to the mystery or the history.