Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

It's fairly obvious to even a blind beggar and his arthritic dog that PC Neil was not in Bucks Row standing by the body of Polly Nichols at 3.45 am. Had he been, Cross and Paul could not have failed to register his presence, and would have given him their evidence.

Inquest evidence—

"Replying to the coroner, witness [Cross] denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left."

Inquest evidence—

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

PC Mizen's BS story, cobbled together after the fact, placed PC Neil exactly where he should have been at 3.45 am.

Regards,

Simon

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

It's fairly obvious to even a blind beggar and his arthritic dog that PC Neil was not in Bucks Row standing by the body of Polly Nichols at 3.45 am. Had he been, Cross and Paul could not have failed to register his presence, and would have given him their evidence.

Inquest evidence—

"Replying to the coroner, witness [Cross] denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left."

Inquest evidence—

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

PC Mizen's BS story, cobbled together after the fact, placed PC Neil exactly where he should have been at 3.45 am.

Regards,

Simon

Neil not being in Bucks Row at 3.45, while Lechmere and Paul are is where we disagree Simon. Too me its clear that Paul is wrong about his time, just as its apparently clear to you he is not.

Cobbled together after the fact, we agree on that, such is suggested by the evidence.

We can't agree on it all, part is better than none. Hope you are well.


steve

[Elamarna]

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.

Sorry Harry, to ignore something because we dont like it, or agree with it is poor history.
The event does not in my view, materially have any effect on the murder.
This is the first book to concentrate on the Bucks Row Murder, it is meant to be a complete account.

The disagreement between Mizen and Lechmere is raised at the inquest. therefore it cannot be simply ignored and swept under the carpet, it MUST be addressed.


That you fail to recognize this is your choice, and i am completely at a loss to understand your reasoning. Let us just agree to disagree.

steve

[harry]

What I do not fail to realise steve,is that Aberline was present at the inquest.He heard the evidence,he was able to observe both Cross and Mizen.He must have deemed it unworty of investigation and ignored it.So it's not poor history for me to ignore it.That is my reasoning,so do not be at a loss any longer. steve.

[Elamarna]

What I do not fail to realise steve,is that Aberline was present at the inquest.He heard the evidence,he was able to observe both Cross and Mizen.He must have deemed it unworty of investigation and ignored it.So it's not poor history for me to ignore it.That is my reasoning,so do not be at a loss any longer. steve.

We will disagree, if it should be in an account of the Murder, i think you will find the majority would say it needs to be mentioned.

It seems we agree on what was thought of the incident in 1888.


Steve

[Fisherman]

I am noting now that there is a debate ongoing on this subject on the other site. I find there that Steve Blomer accuses Edward Stow of being biased, whereas he fervently denies being biased himself. Edward Stow makes the point that much of the speculation Blomer does seems tailormade to promote Blomers own favorite suspect, Kosminski. Curiously, Blomers defense is that he has not mentioned Kosminski in either the podcast or in this book - as if not mentioning a suspect would automatically mean that you cannot possibly work with a bias relating to that suspect...?

As I have pointed out numerous times, on many occasions when I have made a point out here, regardless if Lechmere has been mentioned or not, Steve Blomer has made it his business to say that I only made my point because I have a bias (in fact, since I have that almighty bias, ALL my points can be expected to be less trustworthy, it would seem).

But suddenly, the suspect you have must now have been named before a bias can be suggested...? Or perhaps the Lechmere bias is per se admissible without mentioning the suspects name whereas the Kosminski bias cannot be spoken of unless the name has been uttered by the potentially biased part? Help me out here, please!

I also note that the ever wise Gary Barnett has taken me up on my idea to bring Edward Stow on the podcast too. It would certainly allow for a fuller picture in many ways if Messr:s Stow and Menges can see their way through to such a thing.

[Elamarna]

"What a tangled web......"

This would be funny, if it was not so sadly transparent.

I am noting now that there is a debate ongoing on this subject on the other site. I find there that Steve Blomer accuses Edward Stow of being biased, whereas he fervently denies being biased himself. Edward Stow makes the point that much of the speculation Blomer does seems tailormade to promote Blomers own favorite suspect, Kosminski. Curiously, Blomers defense is that he has not mentioned Kosminski in either the podcast or in this book - as if not mentioning a suspect would automatically mean that you cannot possibly work with a bias relating to that suspect...?

It is Mr Stow who has openly accused me of Bias, he says I am bias toward Kosminski, and thus all my work is tainted. The simple and logical reply must be that if such is true for me, it must be true for all who have a preferred suspect, that includes Christer and Mr Stow.
The logical extension is that no book by someone with a preferred suspect is credible

Much of the speculation is "tailor-made" to promote Kosminski? Which speculation is that exactly?
Given neither who are complaining have read the book, it must be that included in the podcasts.
This is a very interesting claim since the podcasts only really speculates about:

1. The police beats.
I am interested in knowing how looking at the various alternatives for the beat of Neil, which are all based on the Echo article of 20th is tailor-made for Kosminski? How does it promote him?

2. The Scam.
This one is fascinating, how does my preferred take on the scam, or indeed my second choice or a simply misunderstand, promote Kosminski, the logic to reach such a conclusion simply denies reason.

3. The escape routes.
Yes I prefer a southern route, because such is the quickest, and the direction with the most cover. However, I consider not only southern escape routes and have a great many possibilities in the book.

It seems clear from posts in many threads on both sites that south is considered by many posters to be the likely escape route, I assume that makes them all bias towards Kosminski.

4. That the area may have been known for prostitution.
How does this promote an argument for Kosminski over any other suspect? Again the logic and reasoning need explaining

5. The Slaughter men.
Here I speculate big time, even wondering if they, in particular Tomkins, could be involved in the murder, really not sure how that is tailor -made for Kosminski, given it suggests someone else.

As I have pointed out numerous times, on many occasions when I have made a point out here, regardless if Lechmere has been mentioned or not, Steve Blomer has made it his business to say that I only made my point because I have a bias (in fact, since I have that almighty bias, ALL my points can be expected to be less trustworthy, it would seem).

But suddenly, the suspect you have must now have been named before a bias can be suggested...? Or perhaps the Lechmere bias is per se admissible without mentioning the suspects name whereas the Kosminski bias cannot be spoken of unless the name has been uttered by the potentially biased part? Help me out here, please!

To begin the arguments put on this thread were that there were many mistakes in the podcasts, of these one was a verbal slip by Jonathan, which he acknowledged and the other pointed out to me by Mr Stow was that I had ascribed a comment from Paul to the Inquest when it was in fact in the Lloyds Weekly account. A simple mistake, which was immediately and happily accepted.
The other claims of mistakes have all be rebutted, by more than one poster.

Now however, having failed on the "mistakes" line, it's the "you are bias in favour of Kosminski" line.
Yes he is my preferred suspect, but I also consider, others who could fit Anderson's suspect. I also am very interested in Jacob Levy, Tumblety and Cuttbush.


I return again to the "Tailor-made" claim above, it is clear none of my speculation in the podcasts is tailor-made for any suspect, yet alone Kosminski, those who have read the book, can confirm such is true for the book too, could the real objection to the work be that it simply does not promote a particular suspect over any other.

I also note that the ever wise Gary Barnett has taken me up on my idea to bring Edward Stow on the podcast too. It would certainly allow for a fuller picture in many ways if Messr:s Stow and Menges can see their way through to such a thing.

All I can comment is that Mr Holmgren has been offered that opportunity on here, himself.


steve

[Fisherman]

[B]"What a tangled web......"

This would be funny, if it was not so sadly transparent.

What is transparent, Steve? And would you rather have me beating about the bush...?

It is Mr Stow who has openly accused me of Bias, he says I am bias toward Kosminski, and thus all my work is tainted. The simple and logical reply must be that if such is true for me, it must be true for all who have a preferred suspect, that includes Christer and Mr Stow.
The logical extension is that no book by someone with a preferred suspect is credible

Exactly! Bravo! I agree one hundred per cent - if Edward says you are biased, you are at liberty to call him biased every bit you like to. The problem is that I want it THE OTHER WAY AROUND; I have - over and over and over again - been subjected to you claiming that I have a bias when I have made points out here, and I therefore think it may be a good thing to give you a taste of your own medicine. After having gulped that down and frowned, maybe the time has come for you to realize that it may not be all that good an idea to, knee-jerk style, claim that I have a bias whenever I make a point, thereby implying that my posts are less trustworthy that those of other posters. The fact is that we can make very good points that are very valuable to a discussion, points that moreover support our own suspects, which may nevertheless be good and useful contributions to the overall discussion. Therefore, if you could manage not to speak about a bias on my behalf whenever I write something on Casebook, much would be gained and the discussion climate would be a better one.

Much of the speculation is "tailor-made" to promote Kosminski? Which speculation is that exactly?

I´ll exemplify from my own angle. What Edward meant is something that must stand for him, and he will in all probability expand on matter in the future.
In the podcast, you say that you believe that Mulshaw was sleeping. In the exchange with Edward, he points out that Mulshaw in fact said that he did not think he was sleeping, whereupon you say that not thinking you were sleeping is a long way from being sure you did not sleep.
That is correct.
But it is also correct that suggesting that saying that Mulshaw was probably sleeping is very much FURTHER from what he claimed in his witness statement. True, he said he sometimes dozed off, but he did NOT think he did so at the relevant hours we speak of here.

So why would you do this? Perhaps because you favour Kosminski as a suspect, and because the escape to the south you believe in would be very well suited to take him home, regardless if we speak of Sion Square or Greenfield Street? Suddenly this becomes an issue where your chosen favorite suspect seems to have tainted your judgment and provided you with a bias. Given what Mulshaw said, the likelier thing is that he was awake, likely barring an escape to the south.

Maybe there was never any such intention on your behalf. Maybe it was a subconscious thing. But the fact remains that you seem to pave the way for Kosminski by disbelieving Mulshaw.

Of course, once we have a hunch, it is fair enough to stand by it. I know I favour solutions in relation to Lechmere that others may think less likely, but in the overall scheme of things, I believe there is overwhelming evidence pointing in his way, and so I will always explore beyond probabilities only - once there is a possibility, I will look at it and see if it is totally improbable or not. So far, no such thing has surfaced visavi the carman, of course.
Once we both understand that these matters can be looked upon as suspect-driven behavior, we will be just fine - until we start throwing manure at each other, calling our respective stances biased and untrustworthy, that is.

As I say, I am certain that Edward Stow will expand on why he says that there is a possible bias in your thinking and writing, so you may need to wait to get the complete picture. Subsequently, I will not go into what you say about the podcast and how other posters have defended you. That is regularly the case, fractions form and alliances are made, and so people will come to your aid in times of trouble.

All I can comment is that Mr Holmgren has been offered that opportunity on here, himself.

steve

I have! And call me Christer, please. But I hope that Jonathan Menges will extend the invitation to Edward since he is the real master of all things Lechmere, plus he is the one who is likely to publish a book on the carman and the case, making him best suited to take that place. I realize that the two gentlemen may not be the best of friends, but as I say, I am in no doubt that Edward would be able to overcome whatever animosity he may harbor against Jonathan and so I hope that could work both ways. If so, the Ripperological community would be in for a treat!

[Elamarna]

I have! And call me Christer, please. But I hope that Jonathan Menges will extend the invitation to Edward since he is the real master of all things Lechmere, plus he is the one who is likely to publish a book on the carman and the case, making him best suited to take that place. I realize that the two gentlemen may not be the best of friends, but as I say, I am in no doubt that Edward would be able to overcome whatever animosity he may harbor against Jonathan and so I hope that could work both ways. If so, the Ripperological community would be in for a treat!

To say I don't think so is to say you are unsure.
Which is what Mulshaw said.

Touchy, you called me Blomer twice, yet you object to Mr Holmgren, says everything.


Steve

[Fisherman]

To say I don't think so is to say you are unsure.
Which is what Mulshaw said.

Touchy, you called me Blomer twice, yet you object to Mr Holmgren, says everything.


Steve

To say "I don't think so" is to allow for uncertainty, yes.

But it still means that to the best of Mulshaws recollection, he did not sleep at the relevant hours.

Meaning that it is LIKELIER that he was awake than asleep.

Ergo, making the conscious choice to opt for Mulshaw having been asleep is more likely to be false than true. You choose the option furthest away from what Mulshaw himself testified about.

It is really quite simple. He may have been asleep, there is nothing wrong per se with having a hunch he was - but it is not what is suggested by the facts.

Therefore, knowing that you are a Kosminski proponent, you open yourself up to suspicion of being biased and making choices not on account of the likely truth but instead on account of wanting a less likely thing to be true.

We can do it that way, throwing accusations of a bias whenever the other party opens his mouth (you have done so for quite some time now, so its not new to you), or we can extend each other the courtesy of accepting that we may both do our best to stay as unbiased as possible. I have asked for this a dozen times or so now, and I am still waiting for a response from your side.

If you think it is me being touchy when I offer you to call me by my christian name instead of being formal, then that's your prerogative. Most people regard it as a friendly gesture.

[Elamarna]

Exactly! Bravo! I agree one hundred per cent - if Edward says you are biased, you are at liberty to call him biased every bit you like to. The problem is that I want it THE OTHER WAY AROUND; I have - over and over and over again - been subjected to you claiming that I have a bias when I have made points out here, and I therefore think it may be a good thing to give you a taste of your own medicine. After having gulped that down and frowned, maybe the time has come for you to realize that it may not be all that good an idea to, knee-jerk style, claim that I have a bias whenever I make a point, thereby implying that my posts are less trustworthy that those of other posters. The fact is that we can make very good points that are very valuable to a discussion, points that moreover support our own suspects, which may nevertheless be good and useful contributions to the overall discussion. Therefore, if you could manage not to speak about a bias on my behalf whenever I write something on Casebook, much would be gained and the discussion climate would be a better one.

The point of course is that I have not said Mr Stow is bias in those posts, I have merely pointed out that if all theorists are bias, as he suggested, that includes him too.

Much of the speculation is "tailor-made" to promote Kosminski? Which speculation is that exactly?

I´ll exemplify from my own angle. What Edward meant is something that must stand for him, and he will in all probability expand on matter in the future.
In the podcast, you say that you believe that Mulshaw was sleeping. In the exchange with Edward, he points out that Mulshaw in fact said that he did not think he was sleeping, whereupon you say that not thinking you were sleeping is a long way from being sure you did not sleep.
That is correct.
But it is also correct that suggesting that saying that Mulshaw was probably sleeping is very much FURTHER from what he claimed in his witness statement. True, he said he sometimes dozed off, but he did NOT think he did so at the relevant hours we speak of here.

Not at all, if he is not sure he was awake, which is what he says, and he himself admits that he did sleep at times it is a legitimate suggestion to make.
Of interest of course is that he makes no comment about 2 of the slaughter men passing him to go to the murder site, if awake surely he had seen them, they must walk past him.

On JtR forums when Edward Stow gave examples to back up his view that Mulshaw was awake, he made mistakes, he claimed Mulshaw saw one police officer, possibly Thain.
In fact Mulshaw claimed to see two police officers during his night long spell, one he identified as Neil, the other could have been Thain, or it could have been the officer on duty before Neil, or even Kirby. He was not able to say at what time he saw the police and so that does not back up the view he was awake between 3-4.

Edward further claimed that Mulshaw so a man possibly Tomkins.
What Mulshaw actually said was a man passed and told him there had been a murder, the time he gives for this is about 4.40, who it was is unknown, but again it does not show he was awake between 3-4.


I will further add then when Edward pointed out a mistake made, on a quote, i accepted such immediately.
Despite Me providing quotes, he has not done the same.

So why would you do this? Perhaps because you favour Kosminski as a suspect, and because the escape to the south you believe in would be very well suited to take him home, regardless if we speak of Sion Square or Greenfield Street? Suddenly this becomes an issue where your chosen favorite suspect seems to have tainted your judgment and provided you with a bias. Given what Mulshaw said, the likelier thing is that he was awake, likely barring an escape to the south.

Maybe there was never any such intention on your behalf. Maybe it was a subconscious thing. But the fact remains that you seem to pave the way for Kosminski by disbelieving Mulshaw.

Mulshaw being awake would not bar any escape to the south, it may rule out Woods Buildings, but even that is debatable given he appears not to have noticed the two Slaughter house men . However, it cannot in any circumstance be used to rule out Court or Thomas Street, its just not a reasonable suggestion.

You previously said "Much of the Speculation", you have mentioned one item, not quite the same thing.

I do note and am sure others will too, that you have not addressed the issues commented on in the previous post, indeed you have simply ignored them on the issue of a southern escape route.

Of course, once we have a hunch, it is fair enough to stand by it. I know I favour solutions in relation to Lechmere that others may think less likely, but in the overall scheme of things, I believe there is overwhelming evidence pointing in his way, and so I will always explore beyond probabilities only - once there is a possibility, I will look at it and see if it is totally improbable or not. So far, no such thing has surfaced visavi the carman, of course.
Once we both understand that these matters can be looked upon as suspect-driven behavior, we will be just fine - until we start throwing manure at each other, calling our respective stances biased and untrustworthy, that is.

As I say, I am certain that Edward Stow will expand on why he says that there is a possible bias in your thinking and writing, so you may need to wait to get the complete picture. Subsequently, I will not go into what you say about the podcast and how other posters have defended you. That is regularly the case, fractions form and alliances are made, and so people will come to your aid in times of trouble.

Let's be clear he has not said possible he has said there is a bias.
What does he intend to do, post everything i have ever written about Kosminski and say because i have a suspect, my work must be bias?
If so the same will apply to ALL people with a suspect.


CLEARLY THE ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT ON THE LINES OF FACTUAL INACCURACY HAVE FAILED, SO WE TURN TO THIS .

[Elamarna]

To say "I don't think so" is to allow for uncertainty, yes.

But it still means that to the best of Mulshaws recollection, he did not sleep at the relevant hours.

Meaning that it is LIKELIER that he was awake than asleep.

We disagree on the interpretation

Ergo, making the conscious choice to opt for Mulshaw having been asleep is more likely to be false than true. You choose the option furthest away from what Mulshaw himself testified about.

It is really quite simple. He may have been asleep, there is nothing wrong with believing he was - but it is not what is suggested by the facts.

Again we disagree, i believe the evidence, suggests he was asleep.

Therefore, knowing that you are a Kosminski proponent, you open yourself up to suspicion of being biased and making choices not on account of the likely truth but instead on account of wanting a less likely thing to be true.

We can do it that way, throwing accusations of a bias whenever the other party opens his mouth (you have done so for quite some time now, so its not new to you), or we can extend each other the courtesy of accepting that we may both do our best to stay as unbiased as possible. I have asked for this a dozen times or so now, and I am still waiting for a response from your side.

If you think it is me being touchy when I offer you to call me by my christian name instead of being formal, then that's your prerogative. Most people regard it as a friendly gesture.

Yes indeed it is friendly, but you did not even give me the respect of Mr in your post, maybe you forgot, Twice!!

[Fisherman]

We disagree on the interpretation.

You actually cannot interpret what Mulshaw said as a statement acknowledging that he was asleep. If you think so, you are deceiving yourself.

If he had not known whether he was asleep or not or if he had no idea about it, he could have said so: "I don't know". That would be a statement in the exact middle: either he slept or he did not.

But once he says "I don't think I did", and is furthermore able to point out a number of events that he was witness to during the hours discussed, we immediately have a greater likelihood of him being awake than of him being asleep. I will quote the ad verbatim Morning Advertiser:

"The Coroner. -- Were you alseep between three and six o'clock? -- Witness: I don't think I was. There was no one about whatever, and I heard no cries for assistance or other noise. The slaughterhouse is about fifty yards from where I was. About twenty minutes to five a man coming past said, "I say, old man, a woman has been murdered up yonder." On going to the spot I saw the deceased, and a doctor examining her."

As you can see, Mulshaw is telling us that there were no-one about during the hours in question, and he recounts how a man contacted him at 4.40. There is no hint at all at him being asleep, and he himself denies that it is a probable thing by saying that he does not think he was asleep.

How you manage to "interpret" that into it being more likely than not that he slept is something I believe most literate people find hard to understand. Unless, of course, I "misinterpret" that.

Again we disagree, i believe the evidence, suggests he was asleep.

If we read the evidence backwards, then yes; "Since the killer will have fled to the South, Mulshaw must have been asleep". Then again, once we do that, the one thing that has gone South is our credibility.

Yes indeed it is friendly, but you did not even give me the respect of Mr in your post, maybe you forgot, Twice!!

So now it IS friendly? I thought you claimed that it "said everything" when I offered you to use my christian name...? And now I am disrespectful for not calling you Mr Blomer?
Is that the most damning thing you can think up about me?
And what happened to the question I repeatedly ask you: Would you be so kind as to stop calling me biased whenever I make a point out here? Or would that be handing over what you perceive as a necessity in your repertoire?

When will we see an answer to that question from the unbiased and righteous Mr Blomer? I´ll keep asking until we do, you know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ed Stow has done himself no favours at all by trying to make an issue of the beat/route issue on the podcast. It’s transparently obvious to all that this was nothing more than a slip-of-the-tongue by JM which Steve simply didn’t pick up on at the time. Yet ES rather pathetically tries to use it to imply a lack of knowledge on Steve’s part.

He’s in danger of injuring his back by stooping that low imo.

[Fisherman]

Ed Stow has done himself no favours at all by trying to make an issue of the beat/route issue on the podcast. It’s transparently obvious to all that this was nothing more than a slip-of-the-tongue by JM which Steve simply didn’t pick up on at the time. Yet ES rather pathetically tries to use it to imply a lack of knowledge on Steve’s part.

He’s in danger of injuring his back by stooping that low imo.

I am not at all sure that Edward is looking for favors, Herlock.

Me, I'm looking for the favor of not being pointed out as an untrustworthy, biased poster by Steve every time I have something to say. But it seems he is not very interested in taking me up on that. He instead spends all his time telling us that there is no bias in claiming that the evidence points to Mulshaw being asleep, opening up an escape route that would suit a murderous Kosminski quite well.

Of course, we need to accept that Steve is always totally unbiased (he says so, so it will be true - that does not apply to Mulshaw, though) and will not lower himself to the levels Edward and I spend our miserable ripperological lives at.

Now, if you have any more problems with Edward, tell him about it. Don't tell me.