Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Robert St Devil]

Enough said I think.

If I had been improperly inebriated, I would never have posted; I've learned my lesson with that regards.

This is a momentous occasion - an actual response from Herlock after, what, two years. That it would come defending Stevie is (yawwwn) not surprising. I've always been curious - HERlock; is that a reference to you being a woman?

[TheCuriousCat]

If I had been improperly inebriated, I would never have posted; I've learned my lesson with that regards.

This is a momentous occasion - an actual response from Herlock after, what, two years. That it would come defending Stevie is (yawwwn) not surprising. I've always been curious - HERlock; is that a reference to you being a woman?

Out of curiosity, is it possible to block people on this site?

[Robert St Devil]

Out of curiosity, is it possible to block people on this site?

Block, evade, stalemate, ignore, avoid,... all viable possibilities

[New Ford Shunt]

I rarely post here, choosing instead to learn from far more knowledgeable people than myself. What I have seen, repeatedly, on this thread has really disappointed me. Steve has spent the last three years writing a complete account of all scenarios regarding the Bucks Row murder. His aim has been to provide the reader with all the facts so they may make their own minds up. I've actually read the book, and it's good, well researched and innovative. It is most importantly unbiased. All statements are linked to source material, it is therefore factual by default. You can't spin a primary source. Any criticism regarding Steve being selective in his sources is simply nonsense, all aspects of the case are addressed so I'm failing to understand the criticism. How can your take aim at an individual, out of context comment when you've not read the book? To claim 'ah but this thread is only to do with the podcast' insults the numerous independent readers of it. The podcast, as you well know and fully understand, is an interview by Jonathan regarding the book. To split hairs regarding this insults our intelligence. This, however, is nothing compared to the vicious personal comments regarding Steve. You are grown men, act like it. It's like being in a keyboard warrior kindergarten.

[Abby Normal]

I rarely post here, choosing instead to learn from far more knowledgeable people than myself. What I have seen, repeatedly, on this thread has really disappointed me. Steve has spent the last three years writing a complete account of all scenarios regarding the Bucks Row murder. His aim has been to provide the reader with all the facts so they may make their own minds up. I've actually read the book, and it's good, well researched and innovative. It is most importantly unbiased. All statements are linked to source material, it is therefore factual by default. You can't spin a primary source. Any criticism regarding Steve being selective in his sources is simply nonsense, all aspects of the case are addressed so I'm failing to understand the criticism. How can your take aim at an individual, out of context comment when you've not read the book? To claim 'ah but this thread is only to do with the podcast' insults the numerous independent readers of it. The podcast, as you well know and fully understand, is an interview by Jonathan regarding the book. To split hairs regarding this insults our intelligence. This, however, is nothing compared to the vicious personal comments regarding Steve. You are grown men, act like it. It's like being in a keyboard warrior kindergarten.

absolutely New Ford
But whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Fish has spent more than three years work researching lech and has also been personally attacked constantly by many more people. He gives as good as he takes, and IMHO I find it odd that so many have such reaction against lech as a suspect. hes exactly the type of candidate that needs more looking into. and considering all the nonsense on the boards lately re suspects (maybrick, royal conspiracy, phantom conspiracy) I really am at odds with the vitriol against lech as a suspect. I think it may have something to do with people not liking Fish and his debating style. but it takes two to tango, no?

I have the ultimate respect for El and his research ability and look forward to reading his book, but lets be frank-he and fish have a history and he has latched onto this suspect as something to refute almost obsessively. hes made statement on threads here in the past regarding lech, and the mizen scam that seem odd for someone who is supposed to be unbiased-mainly that Mizen intentionally lied about what lech told him to save his arse. when the most obvious explanation is that it was simple misunderstanding.

I wasn't going to comment on this thread until I read the book, but after your post id thought id chime in. but I agree with most of what you say especially the "keyboard warrior kindergarten" part.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I had been improperly inebriated, I would never have posted; I've learned my lesson with that regards.

This is a momentous occasion - an actual response from Herlock after, what, two years. That it would come defending Stevie is (yawwwn) not surprising. I've always been curious - HERlock; is that a reference to you being a woman?

Firstly Robert, if I’ve never exchanged a post with you before then there’s no particular reason for that fact. There will be numerous posters that I haven’t exchanged posts with. This doesn’t mean that I hold any detrimental opinion of them.

Second, I don’t really understand the comment about Steve? I just thought your post strangely bitter. I’ve always found Steve vary fair as a poster and I’d guess that the majority posters would agree with me on that.

Thirdly, my username comes from the fact that I’m interested in all things Doyle and Holmes and have a book parodies where the main character is Herlock Sholmes written by the creator of Billy Bunter.

And fourthly, Steve is the only poster that I’ve actually met in person (once in The Ten Bells and I can assure you that neither of us were dressed as Victorian Prostitutes) and he will confirm that I’m 6’2” tall, 20 stone, I have a beard and a shaved head and that my name is Michael. I won’t go into further detail but I can assure you that I’m not a woman.


Why would it matter if I was a man or a woman?

[Elamarna]

absolutely New Ford
But whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Fish has spent more than three years work researching lech and has also been personally attacked constantly by many more people. He gives as good as he takes, and IMHO I find it odd that so many have such reaction against lech as a suspect. hes exactly the type of candidate that needs more looking into. and considering all the nonsense on the boards lately re suspects (maybrick, royal conspiracy, phantom conspiracy) I really am at odds with the vitriol against lech as a suspect. I think it may have something to do with people not liking Fish and his debating style. but it takes two to tango, no?

I have the ultimate respect for El and his research ability and look forward to reading his book, but lets be frank-he and fish have a history and he has latched onto this suspect as something to refute almost obsessively. hes made statement on threads here in the past regarding lech, and the mizen scam that seem odd for someone who is supposed to be unbiased-mainly that Mizen intentionally lied about what lech told him to save his arse. when the most obvious explanation is that it was simple misunderstanding.

I wasn't going to comment on this thread until I read the book, but after your post id thought id chime in. but I agree with most of what you say especially the "keyboard warrior kindergarten" part.

Fair as normal Abby, (No pun intended).

My reasons for my view on Mizen are where the evidence as lead me. It would have been far easier to stick with the misunderstanding, and far less controversial.
However I do say in the book, it for you, the reader to decide which explanation you think is the most reasonable.

Steve

[The Baron]

And without Fisherman, and his great research into Lechmere, this book wouldn't have seen the light.



The Baron

[Abby Normal]

Fair as normal Abby, (No pun intended).

My reasons for my view on Mizen are where the evidence as lead me. It would have been far easier to stick with the misunderstanding, and far less controversial.
However I do say in the book, it for you, the reader to decide which explanation you think is the most reasonable.

Steve

thanks el
and the usual level headed and gentleman response and again congrats on your book and Ill refrain from any other comments re mizen scam until I am an aforementioned reader to decide. I probably should have kep my trap shut like I intended.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And without Fisherman, and his great research into Lechmere, this book wouldn't have seen the light.



The Baron

?????

[Herlock Sholmes]

I rarely post here, choosing instead to learn from far more knowledgeable people than myself. What I have seen, repeatedly, on this thread has really disappointed me. Steve has spent the last three years writing a complete account of all scenarios regarding the Bucks Row murder. His aim has been to provide the reader with all the facts so they may make their own minds up. I've actually read the book, and it's good, well researched and innovative. It is most importantly unbiased. All statements are linked to source material, it is therefore factual by default. You can't spin a primary source. Any criticism regarding Steve being selective in his sources is simply nonsense, all aspects of the case are addressed so I'm failing to understand the criticism. How can your take aim at an individual, out of context comment when you've not read the book? To claim 'ah but this thread is only to do with the podcast' insults the numerous independent readers of it. The podcast, as you well know and fully understand, is an interview by Jonathan regarding the book. To split hairs regarding this insults our intelligence. This, however, is nothing compared to the vicious personal comments regarding Steve. You are grown men, act like it. It's like being in a keyboard warrior kindergarten.

Good post NFS,

This subject tends to raise the hackles on occasion. Some of it I think is down to this form of debate. Some issues when discussed across a table might tend to be discussed more evenly, and I dare say in most cases, more amicably. Posts can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Tones that are intended reasonable can be inferred as hostile. Frustrations can definitely set in. Things escalate. Sharpe comments and sarcasm can follow. Once a thread or a dispute between posters starts along a certain path it’s difficult to repair the damage (and it does require effort.) When it comes to sharp comments and sarcasm I can certainly lay no claim to innocence.

At the end end of the day we are all interested in this case. None of us has anything like all of the answers and we probably never will. Perhaps we should all heed the words of a new poster like you and try taking a deep breath before posting and realise that it’s not all about proving each other wrong.

[Abby Normal]

Firstly Robert, if I’ve never exchanged a post with you before then there’s no particular reason for that fact. There will be numerous posters that I haven’t exchanged posts with. This doesn’t mean that I hold any detrimental opinion of them.

Second, I don’t really understand the comment about Steve? I just thought your post strangely bitter. I’ve always found Steve vary fair as a poster and I’d guess that the majority posters would agree with me on that.

Thirdly, my username comes from the fact that I’m interested in all things Doyle and Holmes and have a book parodies where the main character is Herlock Sholmes written by the creator of Billy Bunter.

And fourthly, Steve is the only poster that I’ve actually met in person (once in The Ten Bells and I can assure you that neither of us were dressed as Victorian Prostitutes) and he will confirm that I’m 6’2” tall, 20 stone, I have a beard and a shaved head and that my name is Michael. I won’t go into further detail but I can assure you that I’m not a woman.


Why would it matter if I was a man or a woman?

because of my user name im often mistaken as female. and while ive never met anyone on these boards to verify im in fact a dude, I have the hair on my back to prove it!

[Herlock Sholmes]

because of my user name im often mistaken as female. and while ive never met anyone on these boards to verify im in fact a dude, I have the hair on my back to prove it!

I recall that just after I’d joined, and for some inexplicable reason, I assumed Sam was a she until you informed me that she was called Gareth.

[Robert St Devil]

Firstly Robert, if I’ve never exchanged a post with you before then there’s no particular reason for that fact. There will be numerous posters that I haven’t exchanged posts with. This doesn’t mean that I hold any detrimental opinion of them.

Second, I don’t really understand the comment about Steve? I just thought your post strangely bitter. I’ve always found Steve vary fair as a poster and I’d guess that the majority posters would agree with me on that.

Thirdly, my username comes from the fact that I’m interested in all things Doyle and Holmes and have a book parodies where the main character is Herlock Sholmes written by the creator of Billy Bunter.

And fourthly, Steve is the only poster that I’ve actually met in person (once in The Ten Bells and I can assure you that neither of us were dressed as Victorian Prostitutes) and he will confirm that I’m 6’2” tall, 20 stone, I have a beard and a shaved head and that my name is Michael. I won’t go into further detail but I can assure you that I’m not a woman.


Why would it matter if I was a man or a woman?

It wouldn't matter in the slightest; just a curiosity since I have no clue who Billy bunter is, and I thought that you had formed your handle based on a particular wit.

as for majority of posters considering Steve to be a round-about guy, yes, I am sure that 7 out of the ten usual suspects found traipsing these forums on the daily consider him a real ace of a fellow, not exactly the numbers that used to participate but still good odds and, like I mentioned prior, he's adept at social networking. And it's admirable that you would vouch for him in spite of my bitterness. Still, there is that slim minority who know exactly why he focused in on Bucks Row, that the inspiration for his research was biased from the jump (this coming despite his affirmations that his scientific background qualifies him as a neutral party), that remember how malignantly he shifted his focus from Pierre's subject to holding Christer accountable for all-things Lechmere, that can pinpoint the moment when he formulated this grand endeavor (hint: it came during his earliest diatribes against Christer), and that his imagination for the case is severely limited. i'd agree if you claimed that he has maintained a civility on these forums better than most (myself included); but those would have to be some abstract terms to claim that he has been a "fair" poster. 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). Now, here we are, years later, and for all practical purposes, Steve's profitable work may be ground-breaking and earth-shattering. I'll never know because I have never once been able to derive anything from any of Steve's writings other than verbiose letching.

A 20 stone bearded Victorian prostitute... now that's actually funny

[harry]

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?