Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Patrick S]

Wow. When I implied your comment was irrelevant you told me to read the thread only to finally confirm that... it was irrelevant. What a waste of time.

We've witnessed a fine example of "Debating With Christer Holmgren 101". TheCuriousCat will earn his diploma when he's been banished to the "ignore list".

[Patrick S]

Posts on Maybrick since 2008: 14074. Posts on Lechmere since 2008: 17130.

Quite a sardine.

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

[Patrick S]

Yes, we can trivialize errors occurring in a podcast.

And no, there is nothing strange about the odd mistake creeping in when there is no rehearsal or script.

True, where Kirby was is a much more important question than whether he was there as the result of walking a "round" or a "beat".

To me, the point of interest was that Steve Blomer met the critique coming from Edward Stow with a total diss, claiming that whatever point he made, he had simply misunderstood and/or misinterpreted everything. And that owed to the man delivering the critique being Edward Stow, meaning that it was to be expected that he got everything wrong. The podcast was immaculate and no criticism was going to change that, simple as.

I disliked that arrogance very much, and so I listened to the podcast and I thought it was lacking in a number of respects, which I worded out here. To facilitate things, I singled out the Kirby matter, because it was very clear that Jonathan Menges made the mistake he openly admits to have made.

Once I criticized the podcast, Steve Blomer emerged and stated that my criticism was an example of how Lechmereians favour semantics over facts.

Herein lies the real problem of the matter. It is not so much about the exact route Kirby took as it is about how criticism must be allowed for and met with a fair attitude, regardless if it comes from somebody you disagree over matters with. Putting your head in the sand and saying that criticism is not viable when it comes from some sources is just not going to work.

Last I checked Steve hasn't announced (with a flourish) that he'll no longer respond to this poster or that poster. Doesn't that constitute "putting your head in the sand"? Your lack of self-awareness is comical.

Claiming that you have the upper hand because your views are somehow better than those of people who hold a different opinion is not the way to proceed. Hinting at moral superiority is a disaster for any striving author. I have spent a long professional life as a journalist, and I therefore know who fare well and who get themselves into trouble when choosing how to react to just criticism, so I need no tutoring in that department.

Now, Jonathan Menges has made the best of what went down - kudos for that! - and overall, I believe my point about allowing in a fair way for criticism has found its target, and so I have no wish to pursue the matter any further.

In reading this post, and most of the other posted on this thread by Christer, directed at the podcast, his allegations of errors, disrespect, etc.... one thing is plainly obvious: Christer is clearly aware of his theory's fragility in that he's obliged to defend it from any perceived slight, real and (mostly) imagined, to such an extent that even a new poster who'd been attracted to the theory by the "internationally sent documentary" commented here that Christer's petty attacks serve to highlight the podcast's quality. I think that was quite an astute observation... and right on the money.

[Elamarna]

You can avoid interacting with Edward without tarnishing him, Steve. Furthermore, you can do so without leading on that having Lechmere as your prime suspect makes you a person given to half-truths, semantic dribbling and overall a low degree of trustworthiness. It is deeply, deeply unfair and it is not something any serious debater should resort to.

Whatever personal grudge there is between the two of you is something that must stay personal. Taking accusations to a public forum is a surefire way of doing the wrong thing. It would be a different matter if the forum had been filled with gunfire from both sides, but Edward does not even post out here.

If you can avoid making this a habit, much would be gained. I dabbled in boxing many years ago, and I would not want to have one of my arms tied on my back when boxing. I feel that is something that is the case when a poster starts out by saying "Ok, I will answer, but you should all know that the person I am asking holds views that make him morally inferior and likely to present incorrect and skewed information". Matters like that infuriate me, and it should not be hard to see why.

Accusations? I implied I considered his response to be bias because of his theory and association with Lechmere, on a forum on which he was present.
He has done the same with me on Kosminski on FB. it's part of how it works.

I have not trashed Edward, if I wanted to, given my background, I certainly could. However, such would indeed be unfair and unnecessary.
To not communicate is enough for me.

If I can avoid making what a habit?

If I had not replied I would be accused of hiding from critics and rightly so, instead I gave the briefest rely I could. I considered it to be a misinterpretation of the podcast, and I was not in the slightest suprised.

That you don't agree with that is of course your right.

The comment was on another forum, not here.
You raised it, and I told you the reasons for it.

Now you accuse me of trashing him. Totally untrue.

Let me be clear.
The reason for not talking to him is personal, nothing to do with his research. And I will not discuss it here.

Edward's research is outstanding, no question on that, it's his interpretation and analysis I question, just as you question mine, and as he has question mine in the past.


Steve

[Elamarna]

That is not the way to approach sources in my world,Steve. I say that every little piece of information must be treated ON ITS OWN, and I work from the assumption that sources can hold both good and bad information - it is a historically proven matter, as you will understand.

The same requests surfaced when Hebbert was discussed earlier; I think he was quite competent to gauge the cutting work in the torsos - he was a prominent and skillful medico - but I do NOT recommend to trust him on matters where criminal anthropology plays a role. Hebbert wa into criminal anthropology, and we know today that it was all balderdash.

Similarly, we know for a fact that Robert Pauls paper interview is wrong when it makes out that he left Lechmere behind and sought out Mizen on his own. Therefore, we must take that into account when assessing his information.

But we do NOT know that he couldn't tell the time! That information is not shown to be wrong, and since he was late, it is reasonable to accept that he had checked the time - otherwise he would not know that he WAS late.

I fully realize that this lends itself to shallow accusations of cherrypicking, ut it remains that information that we KNOW is wrong must be looked upon with skepticism, whereas information we DON´T know to be wrong cannot be discarded lightly.

I have not read your book, but I assume that you took the chance in the podcast to throw your heaviest bombs on Mizen and his veracity. And frankly, I did not hear anything that put his information in doubt. Its a game of perspectives, and it can always be said "he probably lied", but that takes some serious proof before it can be given any true weight.

We have very different views on using sources, if part is in question, because of the attitude of the source, rather than typos or missing words, in this case the apparent attitude of Paul, then either it is all questionable and we reject it all, or we try and work with it as best we can.
If we have a situation where new knowledge means the view in said source is now shown to be wrong, it is simply that, it does not make the source questionable.

Here we indeed know Paul is being economic with the truth, that is a reflection on HIM, his honesty and reliability, not his knowledge. We therefore question everything in his statement from that position.
I respectfully suggest that in such a case, it is either all or nothing.
We do however have points of his statement which can be corroborated by either Lechmere or Paul.
A study of such suggests that the basic story holds true, if not the details.


Your comments on Hebbert, are interesting, because they also relate to the other Medics involved.
However, what we have in these cases, is their professional, expert opinion, which needs to be judge against modern knowledge, it is not comparable to a man boosts his ego and taking the lead.

Again I see the question of 3.45 is oversimplified.
It's not, could Paul tell the time? But was that time correct?
Was it comparable to the 3 police officers 3.45,? Certainly not.
Was it comparable to the clock Lechmere used when he left home? In all probability, in the age of non synchronised time keeping, NO
If it is not comparable or syncronizied, it is meaningless.

And No, I only scratched the surface on Mizen, the idea of the podcast was to give an overview, I am not giving the all of the info away, I do want to sell the book after all..

We didn't even discuss the wounds or the bleeding, on the podcast, that's 3 chapters.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer, please understand, my comment with regards to Ed Stows post elsewhere was because I do not wish interact with him. However I did feel a comment was required, and although brief it was honest from my point of view.
It's is personal.

Steve

You can avoid interacting with Edward without tarnishing him, Steve. Furthermore, you can do so without leading on that having Lechmere as your prime suspect makes you a person given to half-truths, semantic dribbling and overall a low degree of trustworthiness. It is deeply, deeply unfair and it is not something any serious debater should resort to.

Whatever personal grudge there is between the two of you is something that must stay personal. Taking accusations to a public forum is a surefire way of doing the wrong thing. It would be a different matter if the forum had been filled with gunfire from both sides, but Edward does not even post out here.

If you can avoid making this a habit, much would be gained. I dabbled in boxing many years ago, and I would not want to have one of my arms tied on my back when boxing. I feel that is something that is the case when a poster starts out by saying "Ok, I will answer, but you should all know that the person I am asking holds views that make him morally inferior and likely to present incorrect and skewed information". Matters like that infuriate me, and it should not be hard to see why.

[Fisherman]

Yes there are serious issues with the Lloyds account, so either we try and work with them( accepting he is taking the lead role , his 15minutes of fame) or we discard ALL of his statement, the Whole of it. Including the 3.45.

I am happy to do either, I have enough without Paul to question the accuracy of Mizen's account.


Steve

That is not the way to approach sources in my world,Steve. I say that every little piece of information must be treated ON ITS OWN, and I work from the assumption that sources can hold both good and bad information - it is a historically proven matter, as you will understand.

The same requests surfaced when Hebbert was discussed earlier; I think he was quite competent to gauge the cutting work in the torsos - he was a prominent and skillful medico - but I do NOT recommend to trust him on matters where criminal anthropology plays a role. Hebbert wa into criminal anthropology, and we know today that it was all balderdash.

Similarly, we know for a fact that Robert Pauls paper interview is wrong when it makes out that he left Lechmere behind and sought out Mizen on his own. Therefore, we must take that into account when assessing his information.

But we do NOT know that he couldn't tell the time! That information is not shown to be wrong, and since he was late, it is reasonable to accept that he had checked the time - otherwise he would not know that he WAS late.

I fully realize that this lends itself to shallow accusations of cherrypicking, ut it remains that information that we KNOW is wrong must be looked upon with skepticism, whereas information we DON´T know to be wrong cannot be discarded lightly.

I have not read your book, but I assume that you took the chance in the podcast to throw your heaviest bombs on Mizen and his veracity. And frankly, I did not hear anything that put his information in doubt. Its a game of perspectives, and it can always be said "he probably lied", but that takes some serious proof before it can be given any true weight.

[Elamarna]

The question about who of the men spoke to Mizen gets different answers depending on what source you turn to.

Mizen categorically says that ONE man spoke to him: Lechmere.

Lechmere says that both he and Paul spoke to Mizen.

Paul says he alone went to Mizen and spoke to him in his Lloyds interview, but we know that this is in error.

In the inquest proceedings, Paul does not comment on who spoke to Mizen.

That should shut most people up (not you, of course) as regards my practicing what I preach. And REGARDLESS if I am a liar, a cheat, a fraud, a distorter, a lowlife, a train robber, an intellectual amoeba or anything else you would like to imply, that does not detract from how people in general need to admit their mistakes. Trying to blur the picture and shift the perspective does not alter that, I´m afraid.

Goodbye.

Yes there are serious issues with the Lloyds account, so either we try and work with them( accepting he is taking the lead role , his 15minutes of fame) or we discard ALL of his statement, the Whole of it. Including the 3.45.

I am happy to do either, I have enough without Paul to question the accuracy of Mizen's account.


Steve

[drstrange169]

>>See post 106<<


Your refusal to answer, says it all.

If anybody wants to ask about your credibility, we can just point to this thread.

PS thanks for quoting my posts in full, the more people read your mistakes the more the points in them get across.

[Elamarna]

Yes, we can trivialize errors occurring in a podcast.

And no, there is nothing strange about the odd mistake creeping in when there is no rehearsal or script.

True, where Kirby was is a much more important question than whether he was there as the result of walking a "round" or a "beat".

To me, the point of interest was that Steve Blomer met the critique coming from Edward Stow with a total diss, claiming that whatever point he made, he had simply misunderstood and/or misinterpreted everything. And that owed to the man delivering the critique being Edward Stow, meaning that it was to be expected that he got everything wrong. The podcast was immaculate and no criticism was going to change that, simple as.

I disliked that arrogance very much, and so I listened to the podcast and I thought it was lacking in a number of respects, which I worded out here. To facilitate things, I singled out the Kirby matter, because it was very clear that Jonathan Menges made the mistake he openly admits to have made.

Once I criticized the podcast, Steve Blomer emerged and stated that my criticism was an example of how Lechmereians favour semantics over facts.

Herein lies the real problem of the matter. It is not so much about the exact route Kirby took as it is about how criticism must be allowed for and met with a fair attitude, regardless if it comes from somebody you disagree over matters with. Putting your head in the sand and saying that criticism is not viable when it comes from some sources is just not going to work. Claiming that you have the upper hand because your views are somehow better than those of people who hold a different opinion is not the way to proceed. Hinting at moral superiority is a disaster for any striving author. I have spent a long professional life as a journalist, and I therefore know who fare well and who get themselves into trouble when choosing how to react to just criticism, so I need no tutoring in that department.

Now, Jonathan Menges has made the best of what went down - kudos for that! - and overall, I believe my point about allowing in a fair way for criticism has found its target, and so I have no wish to pursue the matter any further.

Christer, please understand, my comment with regards to Ed Stows post elsewhere was because I do not wish interact with him. However I did feel a comment was required, and although brief it was honest from my point of view.
It's is personal.

Steve

[Fisherman]

>The question about who of the men spoke to Mizen gets different answers depending on what source you turn to.<<

That has nothing to do with what I posted, as you well know. We are not talking about what they said, we are talking about what you said about Jonathan and the fact that you got his words and meaning wrong!

Jonathan's comments were fair and legitimate, given Swanson, Abberline and you own comments on other threads.

He did NOT say "spoke" as your post claimed. He did not display the bais you accused him off. You've now been given ample opportunity to acknowledge your error and stll you try to alter the avoid that acknowledgement.

Still you will not live by the standards you ask of others. Ego over evidence.

Yawn. Post 106, please.

[Fisherman]

>>Posts on Maybrick since 2008: 14074. Posts on Lechmere since 2008: 17130. Quite a sardine.<<

Shame you didn't actually read my post, here it is again,

"Having been on this site since the 1990's, I can state with certainty that Lechmere is a sardine swimming in the wake of The Diary's Sperm Whale. Back then the Diary was virtually the sole topic of conversation.

In fact, I maybe wrong here, but I think this site was set up as a response to the Diary.

See post 106, please

[Fisherman]

Post #50, Christer chastises Jonathan about the beats, saying,

“The thing to do when caught out with a mistake is to generously admit the mistake. One can either say "I was unaware of this, thank you for pointing it out" or one can say "That's correct, it did not come out right and needs to be amended"

But in fact in post #40, Jonathon did just that,

“When I ask questions to a guest on the podcast I usually don’t already know the answer to them. If by asking this question in such a way I was inadvertently presenting “false information” then I apologize.”

So how about it Christer? Do you have courage to live by the rules you demand of others?

Double posting

[Fisherman]

Post #33, Christer claimed,

“ … we do not know the beats of any division until later in time than 1888”

When shown to be wrong, in Post #38, instead of saying, "I was unaware of this, thank you for pointing it out" or one can say "That's correct, it did not come out right and needs to be amended"?

He altered, without apology, his story to,

“"the criticism offered here is that Steve says that "for H division … "… THIS is what is criticized, and I'm afraid Steves mentioning that we do not have the exact beats for Neil and Thain has nothing to do with it"”

As we can see from his original post, rather than acknowledging his error, he has altered his story and is now denying writing,

“ …"we do not know the beats of any division until later in time than 1888”"

Back to Post #33, Christer continued,

“…Mulshaw clearly stated that he was awake”

When it is proven to him that Mulshaw did NOT state “clearly” that he was awake, no apology again, but worse he makes up a story about Steve saying Mulshaw lied,

“Steve is at liberty to assume that Mulshaw was not telling the truth”

Double posting

[Fisherman]

Post #50, Christer chastises Jonathan about the beats, saying,

“The thing to do when caught out with a mistake is to generously admit the mistake. One can either say "I was unaware of this, thank you for pointing it out" or one can say "That's correct, it did not come out right and needs to be amended"

But in fact in post #40, Jonathon did just that,

“When I ask questions to a guest on the podcast I usually don’t already know the answer to them. If by asking this question in such a way I was inadvertently presenting “false information” then I apologize.”

So how about it Christer? Do you have courage to live by the rules you demand of others?

See post 106