Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Fisherman]

What a truly astonishing post, your opinion of your own importance is remarkable.

My work is not about you, nor is it solely about your theory. But of course you haven't read it so you don't know.
It's clear however that you think the world of Ripperology revolves around your theory.

The world of Ripperology is quite interested in the Lechmere theory (which is not "mine", by the way) - you yourself are a prime example of it, finding it necessary to take it up in your book on the Bucks Row murder. That is not the same as the world of Ripperology revolving around it, nor - of course - have I ever claimed that it does. That is just another example of you misrepresenting me, Steve.

To me, the theory represents an epicenter of the field of study, but that should not surprise you or anybody else. After all, I think Lechmere is our boy, and I have invested lots of time and effort to try and delve deeper into him. That, however, does not mean that I do not know that others have varying degrees of interest in the issue. Generally speaking, though, the Lechmere theory HAS been much discussed over the last few years. Sadly, many of those whose views I would have been much interested in have chosen to stay away from the debate, something I believe owes to the climate of the threads which is regularly a very hostile one. Some will say that is my fault entirely, but I feel that does not cover the true picture in any more extensive manner.

Trying to make me out as a deluded person with traits of delusions of grandeur is an age-old tactic out here. Once it is employed, I find it says a whole lot more about the employer than about me.

It is also clear that you apparently feel that it's wrong to scrutinise any part of your theory, of course you actually have little idea, what I say in the book. So it's rather an odd approach, particularly if your theory is a strong as you say it is.

I welcome anybody to scrutinize any part of the theory and I have always done so, saying that I believe that no damning evidence can be levelled against it. And indeed, that is what has turned out to be the truth (in spite of Trevor Marriott speaking about how the theory had been "blown out of the water" some years back. ). To me, this is something I overall welcome; if it had not been for the failed efforts to dismantle the theory, it would not be as evident as it is that it is a very strong one.
I am less happy about the efforts of some posters like Dr Strange, Patrick S etcetera, where I do not think that the principal target of the criticism is the theory but instead myself, as can be seen in the allegations of me being a liar, a distorter, a narcissist etcetera. I have chosen not to report matters like these to the administrators of the boards since I believe they further put a focus on how the criticism of the Lechmere theory looks and what it is truly about in some unfortunate cases. Of course, you can now say - again - "Dear Lord, it is not about YOU, Fisherman, don't overestimate yourself in that awful manner!", but you know, once people call me a narcissist and a distorting liar, I find that it actually IS about me to a significant degree.

Theories stand or fall on the facts, not on the authors.'

Yes, they do - and so far, the Lechmere theory stands firm. If you disagree, all you will be able to offer is that some people disagree with me. As a rule, though, saying "You are wrong, you narcissist liar!" does not amount to any real criticism. It only amounts to trolling. Other posters have offered intelligent criticism in a fair way, and it has been a joy to discuss with them. They are far too rarely present on the Lechmere threads, though, arguably for reasons given above.

It appears that you are unable to give examples of Bias or factual errors in the book, yet you ask people not to read it because it's unfair.

True - I AM unable to fault your book, but then again, as I have not read it that should not surprise anybody. I HAVE, however, listened to the podcast and found the information given therein lacking in quality on a number of matters. And your bias against people with suspects is not something I need to read any book at all to recognize.
As for asking people not to read the book, I do not think that I have done so. You are welcome to correct me on that score if you wish. If you ask me whether I expect the book to be good or bad, I´d say that after having heard the podcast, my money is not on it being a must-have for the keen Ripperologist. But as I say, that is an estimation based on the podcast only! For example, you lead on that there is a lot more information to find on Mizen and your assertions that he will have been the man lying, but since the book is out and since nobody has uttered a word about any amazing find to that effect (nor did you present any such revelation in the podcast), I tend to go with the notion that it was much ado about nothing. Time will certainly tell if I am wrong, let's agree on that.

It's really quite sad.

The next book is just the same as this one, not a suspect book, it will look at various events, and discuss them, again it will be 2/3 resources.

You forgot to answer my question whether there is going to be an effort to dismantle any specific theory about who killed Kate, Steve. Is it just me who gets that honor, or will it be a reocurring theme, I wonder?


Bye for now

STEVE

Yes, bye Steve.

[Robert St Devil]

It doesn't actually dismiss Lechmere Robert, it just looks at some of the evidence, it's for the reader to decided what is the likeliest version of events.
And now I have already started both books 2 & 3 in the series.

Steve

First and foremost, congratulations on your attempts at continuations of your publication. Beyond the Ripper crimes, I truly believe that at the core of a Ripperologist beats the heart of a writer, and I have been amazed at the penmanship expressed in the writings of particular member's posts; enough that I have incorporated their metrics into my own professional philos. Any new perspective is entirely welcome since we are all working from the same stagnant material; still, I have been witness to those who have been able to slice slabs of meat from bones considered plucked dry. With that being said ...

I feel that I am properly inebriated to respond in post. What made me disregard you as a bag of farts, Steve, was a private message to me from you oh so many years ago which asked me not to be too critical of your foray into your initiall thread of the Polly Nicholls' murder. At the time, I was attempting a friendly criticism of your "it could be this, or maybe this; then again it could be that; but that's not to say that the possibility that it could also be something else entirely", uhm, attempt at quote-unquote research. This PM obviously was coming on the heels of your behind-the-scenes social networking of other CB members in an attempt to discredit Pierre as a rightful loon and well into your new focus of attention, "Christer's documentary" (can't fault you for aiming at the marquis). However, your private and personal hypersensitivity seemed ridiculous in part considering that you were throwing stones with 4-seamed fastball intentions. Now I begrudgingly acknowledged your appreciation of my translations of the Pigott suicide; still, I had you measured by then and disregarded you as a troll. As someone who went to lengths to work against the efforts put forth by other ologists. Whether my own posts paid the price for this public announcement against you is subject to my own paranoia.

I am fully aware that Christer is his own man; and in a three-round exhibition, I would easily place my two pence on him to dismantle you within two. That is, to say, he needs no champion beyond his own typewriting fists. Still, I felt an outside perspective was due in order to make those silent members aware that the current Casebook Forums extends beyond a popularity contest and a vote-count of "harumphs" in your favor, which you have been garnering ever since you joined this site.

Whether an ologist believes Lechmere, Chapman, Druitt, Bury or Mr Bean was the culprit, I still find that there is a nugget to be learned. However, in your case I choose not to hold my breath.

[Elamarna]

Out of curiosity; which theory will you try and nullify in that context, Steve?

As for "If one believes something is misleading it is ones duty to point that out is it not", you have had my answer many times but now. Anybody can speak about high moral goals or "duties" as you so solemnly put it. The problem only arises when you fail miserably to live up to those principles. Regularly stating "you only say that because you have a bias" is not an example of the saintly principles you claim to live after.

Your aim is an obvious one: to paint me out as a biased suspectologist that cannot be trusted, and to present yourself as an unbiased researcher, trustworthy in every detail and with the best of intentions. It is an unsavoury approach, unworthy of any serious researcher as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, it has never worked, and that owes totally to your own posting out here. At the end of the day, its always about reaping what you sow.

If you need me to reiterate this again, just say so. Otherwise, I'm happy to let you go on with your work on Eddowes and that theorist, whomever that may be.

What a truly astonishing post, your opinion of your own importance is remarkable.

My work is not about you, nor is it solely about your theory. But of course you haven't read it so you don't know.
It's clear however that you think the world of Ripperology revolves around your theory.

It is also clear that you apparently feel that it's wrong to scrutinise any part of your theory, of course you actually have little idea, what I say in the book. So it's rather an odd approach, particularly if your theory is a strong as you say it is.

Theories stand or fall on the facts, not on the authors.

It appears that you are unable to give examples of Bias or factual errors in the book, yet you ask people not to read it because it's unfair.


It's really quite sad.

The next book is just the same as this one, not a suspect book, it will look at various events, and discuss them, again it will be 2/3 resources.


Bye for now

STEVE

[Fisherman]

We all have other and better things to do than this.
For me its Mitre Square and the GSG.

Steve

Out of curiosity; which theory will you try and nullify in that context, Steve?

As for "If one believes something is misleading it is ones duty to point that out is it not", you have had my answer many times but now. Anybody can speak about high moral goals or "duties" as you so solemnly put it. The problem only arises when you fail miserably to live up to those principles. Regularly stating "you only say that because you have a bias" is not an example of the saintly principles you claim to live after.

Your aim is an obvious one: to paint me out as a biased suspectologist that cannot be trusted, and to present yourself as an unbiased researcher, trustworthy in every detail and with the best of intentions. It is an unsavoury approach, unworthy of any serious researcher as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, it has never worked, and that owes totally to your own posting out here. At the end of the day, its always about reaping what you sow.

If you need me to reiterate this again, just say so. Otherwise, I'm happy to let you go on with your work on Eddowes and that theorist, whomever that may be.

[Elamarna]

Yes, precisely. However, permanently and falsely peddling the view that the originator of a theory is being too biased to reach anything but biased conclusions is NOT how research advances. It is instead how prejudice and unwarranted assumptions is allowed to replace real research. And the one thing that advances is bad blood. I thought I had made that clear?

Now I really have other things to do.

So if scrutiny of particular aspects of a theory, suggest that theory is wrong, and those mistakes are down to let's say over enthusiastic interpretation, it should not be reported.

If one believes something is misleading it is ones duty to point that out is it not.

You certainly did that on this thread, and were given answers not just by myself, but by others rebutting much of your argument.


It causes "bad blood" ; you mean you get upset because the theory and how your reach your particular conclusions is questioned.
One can always rebutt critism if one has the evidence.

I again ask you to provide examples of Bias in my book and to point out where it is factually wrong?

We all have other and better things to do than this.
For me its Mitre Square and the GSG.

Bye for now.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Is that not how research advances? By question theories, scrutinizing them, seeing they the stand up?

Yes, precisely. However, permanently and falsely peddling the view that the originator of a theory is being too biased to reach anything but biased conclusions is NOT how research advances. It is instead how prejudice and unwarranted assumptions is allowed to replace real research. And the one thing that advances is bad blood. I thought I had made that clear?

Now I really have other things to do.

[Elamarna]

Speaking about closed minds, this is interesting: You now want people to believe that I think that I set the rules for how sources should be interpreted! Wow! But my answer to you was on account of how YOU laid down the rule about how we either accept all or nothing in a source!
So who is the one trying to impose harsh rules and who is the one saying that we should not do that?
A prime example of how you oftentimes reason - and to boot, you say that I am the one resorting to semantics...!
I wonder how you look upon the Bible, Steve? As something that is completely useless as a source because it speaks of people walking on water? Or as proof that we CAN walk on water? Surely, its either or...?

After that opening of yours, I see no reason to answer the rest of your "points" - it would be to allow myself to get bogged down in more of that odd reasoning of yours. Instead I will meet your wish for shorter posts on my behalf and just say good luck with the project of convincing people that your book is not to a large extent a heavily biased attack on the Lechmere theory!

People CAN read, you know. Like Robert St Devil. That much I DO get.

Bye for now.

I am not sure why you laugh, for people of faith the Bilbe is true.

For historians and scientists who are not religious it is a collection of stories, which may have a factual background, the detail however is unproven and much the same as the Lloyds account.

An Attack on the Lechmere Theory you suggest.

That says so much, almost as if to question the theory or aspects of it is somehow wrong.

Is that not how research advances? By question theories, scrutinizing them, seeing they the stand up?

However it is not an attack on the theory.

If the book is bias give me examples?
If the book is factually inaccurate give me those mistakes and I will accept the mistakes and correct.

But of course it's not you won't respond, it's that without reading it you cannot respond.

Steve

[Fisherman]

What along way of admitting that your mind is closed.

... he said, making an even longer post.


Sorry to inform you Christer but YOU do not set the rules of how we interpret sources, no matter how much you think you do

Speaking about closed minds, this is interesting: You now want people to believe that I think that I set the rules for how sources should be interpreted! Wow! But my answer to you was on account of how YOU laid down the rule about how we either accept all or nothing in a source!
So who is the one trying to impose harsh rules and who is the one saying that we should not do that?
A prime example of how you oftentimes reason - and to boot, you say that I am the one resorting to semantics...!
I wonder how you look upon the Bible, Steve? As something that is completely useless as a source because it speaks of people walking on water? Or as proof that we CAN walk on water? Surely, its either or...?

After that opening of yours, I see no reason to answer the rest of your "points" - it would be to allow myself to get bogged down in more of that odd reasoning of yours. Instead I will meet your wish for shorter posts on my behalf and just say good luck with the project of convincing people that your book is not to a large extent a heavily biased attack on the Lechmere theory!

People CAN read, you know. Like Robert St Devil. That much I DO get. And anyone who reads a post like the one you just burped up will be able to effortlessly draw his or her conclusions about whether you are keeping a cool head and a neutral tone in these issues.

Bye for now.

[Elamarna]

What along way of admitting that your mind is closed.

Before looking at your comments, I see that you do not address the issue of my supposed "trashing" of Edward Stow, make the accusation, dont back them up, and dont apologize for false claims, oh well.

For Steve:

I have nothing much to add to what I have already said, and your posts do not change any of it.

It was never going to be wise to employ the attitude "Either we buy everything a source says or we discard it altogether", because the world is a tad more complex than that.

Sorry to inform you Christer but YOU do not set the rules of how we interpret sources, no matter how much you think you do

You say that we know that Paul was economic with the truth, but we actually don't - it can be a case of the journalist misinterpreting him or, perhaps more likely, spicing up the account. In which case Paul goes free.

Exactly as I argue and point out in the book, which you have not read, and in numerous posts here which you have.

This his of course something that makes the source harder to assess in terms of value - there is an uncertainty about the degree to which it correctly reflects what was said.

It is a reason to be cautious about the Lloyds article but not a reason to discard it, knee-jerk style.

Again something I argue in the book and in the many posts here.

Yu and me alike will suffer accusations of cherrypicking the parts we like, but that's how it goes out here, and it does nothing at all to the facts I mentioned earlier: we KNOW for certain that the process of approaching Mizen is not correctly described in the interview, and so we must be particularly cautious about that section. Simultaneously, we DON´T know that the issue about the time given by Paul is in any way in error - but we DO know that he said he was late and we DO know that knowledge of being late comes from having checked the clock.

We know that his time of 03.45 is contrary to that of 3 police officers, one of whom you appear to say has no reason to give false information.
Therefore, of course the time given by Paul is questionable, to post above that we do not know it was anyway in error is there total nonsense.
And of course you refuse to look at the issue of synchronization at all, that is NOT simply "Cherry picking" its disingenuous to those reading.

So there you are, that's how I believe the material must be regarded, and if you care to take a look at the history of science you will find it crammed with prominent scientists who accept some parts of a source and reject others, on the grounds of knowing that the latter must be wrong. It is common procedure.
As for how I ask you not to work from a preconceived notion that views held by Lechmere proponents must be biased to a degree that makes them less trustworthy than views presented by those who do not promote any suspect, it remains that I regard this as a totally unscientific and uncalled for approach that is shameful when applies knee-jerk style, as is often the case out here.

That is not what has been said, I have never said that being a proponent of Lechmere means your views are biased. What I have said is the views of some Proponents of Lechmere are biased, the same is true for any suspect.
If you had bothered to really read what has been written and listen to what has been said, rather than take a Knee-jerk reaction yourself, you would know I have not, and do not rule Lechmere out as a suspect, there are many I do.

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?

How can you make an unbiased recommendation, when you have not even read the book, that comment like this entire post is simply the equivalent of stick one's fingers in one's ears and saying I dont want to listen, go away. Such a response clearly suggests that your mind on the Whitechapel murders is closed.

it reminds me of the Knee-Jerk reaction of the Church to the film "Life of Brian", before it was even released.

And now you raise Kosminski, his name is mentioned Just once in the whole 543 pages, and then it's in an appendix on Lechmere:

"Mary Ann Street is no stronger a link than that of the Kosminski’s who probably lived closer to Berner Street, in Providence Street and at one stage may well have lived at 38 Berner Street, next door to the murder site."

I also raise the possibility of the Slaughterhouse men, in particular Henry Tomkins, to suggest I am clearing the way for Kosminski is hard to substantiate when I do not dismiss Lechmere or Tomkins.

You have completely misunderstood the purpose of the book, I give alternatives, it's for the reader to decide what they believe, Of course you have not and clearly will not read the book, so how would you know. Just as Poster Barnflatwyngarde said early, your REFUSAL to read it is somewhat perplexing. If its faulty it could be attacked just as Drew Gray's book has been.

"I can think that Kosminski is the best suspect and do my work in an unbiased manner anyway!" is perhaps what you would say to that? If so, I would reply that this goes without saying - you CAN promote a suspect and nevertheless demand that people accept that you do as unbiased a work as can be requested.

Which is what has been done, how one can suggest otherwise when one has NOT READ THE BOOK is symptomatic of a closed mind.

In your case, you have picked up a problem along the way, and that is reflected by Robers St Devils post above: I am personally certain that many posters out here believe that your book on the Bucks Row case is to a large degree a dig on the Lechmere theory, and so they invest little faith in you being that unbiased character you speak of as a necessity in so many posts. Maybe that is unfair, I cannot say since I have not read the book.

As you say you have not read the book,

Maybe you have never had any other aim than to present what you believe is an unbiased view of the case. Maybe you are totally surprised by being told that I think there is a very real risk of many posters regarding you not as an unbiased writer but as a totally biased part of a very infected debate, I don't know. But that is my understanding anyway, and so making it a general point always to speak of me being biased whatever I say, and reoccuringly adding "You only say that because you promote Lechmere" may well have developed teeth, going for your own behind. If so, and forgive me for saying so, I think that is a development with a healthy measure of poetic justice in it.

Maybe some do, people are allowed to form their own views, thats the point of the book. Many have read it and not formed that opinion.

Anyone who thinks I have made factual errors, is welcome to inform me, and if that is the case those faults will be corrected in the next update.

I for one don't think that we will get much further. I know I won't anyway, and so I will leave the issues there for now and look forward to as sound a debate as possible in the future.

Me too, I am already moving on to Books Two and Three, in the series.
You really do not get it do you, its not personal.

It's NOT an anti Lechmere book, its not a suspect book, it tries to look at the evidence we have on the Bucks Row Murder. It gives suggestions and alternatives and enough information(maybe too much) for the READER to reach their own conclusions

This entire post as I said before is simply a "I'm Not listening" cry.



Steve

[Elamarna]

I've never gained any traction on this forum, so I've reserved my posts to the occasional comment here and there. From an observers point of view over the past 4 years, it seemed that after Pierre got the boot, Steve turned his bias on debasing Christer's suspect since Pierre's lunacy was no longer available. Now I've never been one to name any particular suspect; still, most of Steve's compilation of the available resources was designed with a bias of discrediting Christer; thus, the focus of his work on the Polly Nicholls' murder. Now my two pence aren't worth two cents; still, I'll lay them on the bar with a grin and no qualms. Looking forward to the read, Stevie

It doesn't actually dismiss Lechmere Robert, it just looks at some of the evidence, it's for the reader to decided what is the likeliest version of events.
And now I have already started both books 2 & 3 in the series.

Steve

[Fisherman]

For Steve:

I have nothing much to add to what I have already said, and your posts do not change any of it.

It was never going to be wise to employ the attitude "Either we buy everything a source says or we discard it altogether", because the world is a tad more complex than that.

You say that we know that Paul was economic with the truth, but we actually don't - it can be a case of the journalist misinterpreting him or, perhaps more likely, spicing up the account. In which case Paul goes free.

This his of course something that makes the source harder to assess in terms of value - there is an uncertainty about the degree to which it correctly reflects what was said.

It is a reason to be cautious about the Lloyds article but not a reason to discard it, knee-jerk style.

Yu and me alike will suffer accusations of cherrypicking the parts we like, but that's how it goes out here, and it does nothing at all to the facts I mentioned earlier: we KNOW for certain that the process of approaching Mizen is not correctly described in the interview, and so we must be particularly cautious about that section. Simultaneously, we DON´T know that the issue about the time given by Paul is in any way in error - but we DO know that he said he was late and we DO know that knowledge of being late comes from having checked the clock.

So there you are, that's how I believe the material must be regarded, and if you care to take a look at the history of science you will find it crammed with prominent scientists who accept some parts of a source and reject others, on the grounds of knowing that the latter must be wrong. It is common procedure.

As for how I ask you not to work from a preconceived notion that views held by Lechmere proponents must be biased to a degree that makes them less trustworthy than views presented by those who do not promote any suspect, it remains that I regard this as a totally unscientific and uncalled for approach that is shameful when applies knee-jerk style, as is often the case out here.

I suppose you would be non too happy to hear that I think that people should abstain from your buying your book since alll 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?

"I can think that Kosminski is the best suspect and do my work in an unbiased manner anyway!" is perhaps what you would say to that? If so, I would reply that this goes without saying - you CAN promote a suspect and nevertheless demand that people accept that you do as unbiased a work as can be requested.

In your case, you have picked up a problem along the way, and that is reflected by Robers St Devils post above: I am personally certain that many posters out here believe that your book on the Bucks Row case is to a large degree a dig on the Lechmere theory, and so they invest little faith in you being that unbiased character you speak of as a necessity in so many posts. Maybe that is unfair, I cannot say since I have not read the book. Maybe you have never had any other aim than to present what you believe is an unbiased view of the case. Maybe you are totally surprised by being told that I think there is a very real risk of many posters regarding you not as an unbiased writer but as a totally biased part of a very infected debate, I don't know. But that is my understanding anyway, and so making it a general point always to speak of me being biased whatever I say, and reoccuringly adding "You only say that because you promote Lechmere" may well have developed teeth, going for your own behind. If so, and forgive me for saying so, I think that is a development with a healthy measure of poetic justice in it.

I for one don't think that we will get much further. I know I won't anyway, and so I will leave the issues there for now and look forward to as sound a debate as possible in the future.

[Robert St Devil]

I've never gained any traction on this forum, so I've reserved my posts to the occasional comment here and there. From an observers point of view over the past 4 years, it seemed that after Pierre got the boot, Steve turned his bias on debasing Christer's suspect since Pierre's lunacy was no longer available. Now I've never been one to name any particular suspect; still, most of Steve's compilation of the available resources was designed with a bias of discrediting Christer; thus, the focus of his work on the Polly Nicholls' murder. Now my two pence aren't worth two cents; still, I'll lay them on the bar with a grin and no qualms. Looking forward to the read, Stevie

[John Wheat]

You're nearing 20,000 posts. How many are yours?

I'd say around 17,000 are from Fisherman.

[Patrick S]

What happened to the very real possibility that Lechmere lied in order to fool the police after having killed Nichols...?

This is, of course, your "Mizen Scam" and it's something you simply made up... I think that can be said because it's not supported by available information. It's simply been suggested, massaged, embellished, and ultimately presented in a way that might lead one to believe that Cross was dishonest and misleading. ALL because Mizen said that he was told, “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman (is) lying.” You further maintain that this statement led PC Mizen to assume that the two men had been interrogated and released by a policeman - already at the scene in Buck’s Row - who had sent them to find him (Mizen). And, in light of this assumption, Mizen let the men go on their way. He did not take their names. He did not ask either man questions of any kind.

However, neither Paul nor Lechmere agree with Mizen. Lechmere testified after PC Mizen, on day two of the Nichols’ inquest. He was asked directly if he’d told Mizen that another policeman was awaiting him in Buck’s Row. The exchange was published in the Telegraph on Tuesday, September 4:

A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

Robert Paul’s statement in Lloyd’s Weekly makes no mention of a policeman waiting in Buck’s Row.

“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

Of course, at some point you invented an additional nuance: the secret conversation. You say that perhaps Cross spoke to Mizen in private, out of Paul's hearing, telling him his lie about a PC in Buck's Row. Of course, as with all things related to this "Mizen Scam", we've no evidence, no suggestion, nothing - from any source ANYWHERE - that this secret conversation took place. It's obvious to any rational person that such a conversation would have been remarkable. Yet, Paul says nothing about it. In fact, he alleges he did all the talking. Quite different from having done none of it and not having heard what was said. Perhaps more importantly, Mizen says nothing of Cross pulling him aside for a hushed chat while Paul stands some yards away.. apparently not finding it the least bit odd. There's a clear reason why no one mentioned a secret conversation between Cross and Mizen in Baker's Row: it didn't happen.

Of course, the alternative is equally untenable for your "Scam", isn't it? Here we must believe that Cross went with Paul, found Mizen, and then told him a bald-faced lie about a PC waiting in Buck's Row with Paul hearing it and knowing full well that this was a lie. Yet, Paul says nothing. He says nothing then and there in Buck's Row. He says nothing of it in his Lloyd's interview. He says nothing of it at the inquest. Obviously, there's a very likely reason for this: it didn't happen.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Christer,
I am curious as to why you have not yet read Steve's book.
If I was proposing a theory re a specific suspect, and a book was published which went into forensic detail about a very important aspect of the
case against this particular suspect, I would make reading the book a priority.

There may well be elements within the book which would strengthen the case against my suspect!

Just curious as to why you haven't prioritised reading it.