Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Fisherman]

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.

The thing is, this thread carries the title "Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer". And so, it actually IS a thread about the podcast. Accordingly, the criticism I brought concerned itself with the podcast and what was said therein, much of which I found incorrect or lacking in quality. At that stage, Steve stated that I really needed to read the book before I criticized anything.

The podcast was a one-hour long show where a lot of time was reserved for discussing matters linked to Charles Lechmere and the Lechmere theory, and so I have no problems saying that once that took place, and was aware a thread out here, I see no reason why anybody should be in any way disallowed to discuss the matter - if so, without having read the book. It is just as legal as it is to criticize a theory on a public podcast.

That criticism did not go down very well, as you may be aware - it was vehemently denied that there was anything at all amiss in the podcast, and so I pointed to the perhaps most obvious matter, that of sergeant Kirby being described as having a beat. There are other points that I could have used that I thought - and still think - were lacking in different ways, but to be honest, I am not sure that the bandwidth out here would stand for the barrage of denials I foresee if I did such a thing.

I cannot say that there is a problem with the book since I have not read it. But I CAN say that there is a problem when fair and just criticism is leveled at a podcast and met with the kind of response that has been the case on many hands here. Jonathan Menges has been the only person to intelligibly and wisely approach the criticism. I have commended him on it and am happy to do so again.

To me, the perhaps greatest problem involved in Steves project has been how he has chosen to make himself a megaphone for a type of criticism of the Lechmere theory that can never be regarded as unbiased in a million years. Certainly, he has throughout stated that he does not rule out that Lechmere could have been the killer, but in the end, that has never obscured the fact that he has not been able to keep a cool head in the debates, instead opting for a stance involving himself endlessly repeating that I (or anybody else with a suspect) am less trustworthy than posters who have no suspects. Once you take that stance, I'm afraid you simultaneously set yourself up for never being acknowledged as a truly unbiased person, something Steve claims (and I dare say actually believes, which is quite alarming) he is. Regardless if you have a suspect or not, it must be accepted that any student of the case can potentially do his work in as unbiased a manner as can be asked for (which is not the same as saying that everybody does, it goes without saying that having a suspect comes with a risk of skewing perspectives - but NOT with a certainty that this happens). It is a very important principle, but one that Steve has decided not to honor.

[Fisherman]

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.

Oh, dear - I am so, so sorry, Harry. I was not aware that I am not supposed to promote "my" theory.

Listen up everybody! Don't read what I am saying about Lechmere - its all designed to lead you all astray; an elaborate scheme to push a suspect Harry does not believe in one little bit. Beware, beware!

[John Wheat]

I don't know what are the personal attacks against Steve are about but they suck. As for the Lechmere theory it's still a crap theory.

[The Baron]

As for the Lechmere theory it's still a crap theory.

Why do you think a crap theory deserves books to be written against it ?

Can you point me to a better theory please? I am not Lechmerian, but I still don't see any theory that can compete with it.



The Baron

[harry]

Fisherman,
I thought it was Ed Stow's theory.Promote it all you want,but you are correct,I do not believe in it one little bit.So listen up everyone,do not heed me,do not call it crop,it must be true .Fisherman has put his mark on it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do you think a crap theory deserves books to be written against it ?

Can you point me to a better theory please? I am not Lechmerian, but I still don't see any theory that can compete with it.



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

[Harry D]

im in fact a dude, I have the hair on my back to prove it!

That doesn't prove anything. Believe me

[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

[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

[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?

[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?

[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

[Sam Flynn]

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

Nice one

[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.

[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.