Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[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

[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...

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[Fisherman]

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

My view is that if you had presented a convincing ground for that take in the book, I would have heard about it by now. Plus, I believe you would have mentioned it in the podcast, having been asked about the scam by Jonathan Menges, supplying you with a stellar opportunity to hammer that nail in the Lechmere theory coffin.

But nay, nothing at all. Silence.

[Michael W Richards]

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

EVERY suspect driven book has been crap. Someone drawing a conclusion from the existing evidence would be a nice change.

The only problem of course is that when using only the evidence, no one person can be signaled out as "the" likely suspect, and no conclusions can be made.

[Elamarna]

My view is that if you had presented a convincing ground for that take in the book, I would have heard about it by now. Plus, I believe you would have mentioned it in the podcast, having been asked about the scam by Jonathan Menges, supplying you with a stellar opportunity to hammer that nail in the Lechmere theory coffin.

But nay, nothing at all.

It's for the reader to decide which version, if any, of the Scam they believe to be the most probably.
Or maybe they simply dismiss them all.
And say it was simply a misunderstanding, which seems to be a majority on the various forums.

It would have been far easier to follow that line, but to do so would be ignore what I believe is a far stronger case, based on my research, than proponents of Lechmere have presented.

But it's almost impossible to decide if one has not read the book.


Steve

[Fisherman]

It's for the reader to decide which version, if any, of the Scam they believe to be the most probably.
Or maybe they simply dismiss them all.
And say it was simply a misunderstanding, which seems to be a majority on the various forums.

It would have been far easier to follow that line, but to do so would be ignore what I believe is a far stronger case, based on my research, than proponents of Lechmere have presented.

But it's almost impossible to decide if one has not read the book.


Steve

Once again, if you had had a very strong case for Mizen being a liar, I would have known that by know. Regardless if I have the book or not. There are many posters who would cork up the champagne and start celebrating if it was the case.

Can you hear the sound of champagne corks, Steve? To me, it sounds more like that fizzing sound that comes from a soda bottle with a plastic cap that has already been removed and put back a dozen times. And so I conclude that you spoke a lot about it but failed to deliver on it. I'm that kind of guy, very result oriented.

[Elamarna]

Once again, if you had had a very strong case for Mizen being a liar, I would have known that by know. Regardless if I have the book or not. There are many posters who would cork up the champagne and start celebrating if it was the case.

Can you hear the sound of champagne corks, Steve? To me, it sounds more like that fizzing sound that comes from a soda bottle with a plastic cap that has already been removed and put back a dozen times. And so I conclude that you spoke a lot about it but failed to deliver on it. I'm that kind of guy, very result oriented.

Your opinion, which you are of course entitled to.

A pity you are not in a position to make an informed comment on my views on the Scam.

The major point is that the "scam" has no material issue on the murder of Mary Ann Nichols or her killer.

Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

Just stopping by to say I find it impossible not to paint PC Mizen as the liar in the Bucks Row equation.

Good luck.

Simon

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Just stopping by to say I find it impossible not to paint PC Mizen as the liar in the Bucks Row equation.

Good luck.

Simon

Probably for different reasons, but thank you Simon.


Steve

[harry]

Steve,
Why do I believe we should ignore the Mizen scam.Simply because it has had years? of discussion and debate,and cannot provide an answer as to whether Cross was a serial killer.Trevor Marriot's theory of innocence,that Cross was a simple workman who found a body on his way to work,is the only plausible way of looking at the part played by Cross.It;s his innocence not guilt,if he is to be discussed at all,that should be the focus.