Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I have.

[Elamarna]

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?

You just can't stop trying to spin everything, can you Christer.

Timeline:

You referred to me by surname only, twice in a post, while you referred to others by full names.
I interpreted that not as formal, but disrepectful.
I decided to then refer to you as Mr Holmgren.

You response to that was interpretated by me as being you objecting to Mr Holmgren.

Now I am perfectly prepared to accept it was not meant to be read the way i did, because you say it was not.

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.

When you are bias, I will say so.
When you are not, I will not say you are.
When you stop turning every thread you post on into a Lechmere thread, even when it's not , I will not call you bias.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

You just can't stop trying to spin everything, can you Christer.

Let me see; you called me Mr Holmgren, I politely asked you to use my to use my christian name since we have never been formal with each other before, you were pissed off and said that my polite request "said it all".

And I am the one twisting things? Apart from this chosen topic of yours being arguably the silliest disagreement in the history of mankind, you now also want ME to take the blame for it?

I see.

When you are bias, I will say so.
When you are not, I will not say you are.
When you stop turning every thread you post on into a Lechmere thread, even when it's not , I will not call you bias.

Steve

You see, the problem with agreeing with you about how well suited you are to make these kinds of calls is that you are nowhere near suited at all. This may come as a surprise to you, but most of us who post out here do so with honest intentions, and really - we never needed you to judge for us whether we are to be deemed trustworthy or not.

When I say that I believe that the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same, for example, I do so on logical and factual grounds and I present those grounds in detail. To then have you saying that I only make that call because I am biased towards Lechmere is beyond ridiculous. The grounds are there, although you personally deny them. Others, posters who are quite knowledgable and well read up, agree with me that there is a very good case to be made.

Once we have a situation like that, it is not a sensible thing to do to discard what I am saying by simply playing the old bias card. Once that happens on a knee-jerk basis - and it does in your case - what we are looking at is not a factually based argument, but instead a cowardly attempt to nullify the value of important points. The discouraging insight that you can never win a factual discussion is once again soothed by your knowledge that you don't even have to discuss things - you just whine "Bias!", and that's it. it resembles a baby with a cherished pacifier.

I have tried my best to get you to leave that tactic for the longest time now, but you are not willing to do so. Fair enough! Just prepare to get your own medicine in return. It starts with you motivating your idea how an escape to the south in Bucks Row is the likeliest route, bolstering it by claiming that Mulshaws testimony tells us that he was probably sleeping (!). It goes on to point out that the southern escape route is something you arguably favor because you prefer Kosminski as a suspect. And it carries on to make the point that all your efforts to try and nullify Lechmere, unqualified and misdirected as they are, have come about only on account of a wish on your behalf to get rid of the best suspect there is, leaving Kosminski unscathed.

Let's see if that makes for a more productive debate.

Did I turn this into a Lechmere thread now, Steve? Hijack it, as it were?

[Fisherman]

Looking at this again, it really tells the story:

"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."

The very apparent message in here is that you find it incredible that YOU were accused of a bias. To you, the mere suggestion that YOUR book could have a bias is silly. And you very much dislike what you find "the logical extension" of Edwards reasoning: "that no book by someone with a preferred suspect is credible". Because you really think that YOU are able to have a suspect and still produce totally unbiased work!

This is why I wonder how it is that you think that you are so much better than Edward and I in that respect - how is it that YOU yourself can be perfectly unbiased whereas we can´t? How is it that what we suggest can and should always be met by the argument that we have a bias, whereas when you assert us that Mulshaw was sleeping and that his evidence should therefore be regarded as bolstering that take of yours, there is no bias at all involved?

To put it differently: If YOU can tell when I have a bias, why would not I be able to tell when YOU have one?

Any ideas?

[Elamarna]

Very briefly

Elamarna:

You just can't stop trying to spin everything, can you Christer.

Let me see; you called me Mr Holmgren, I politely asked you to use my to use my christian name since we have never been formal with each other before, you were pissed off and said that my polite request "said it all".

And I am the one twisting things? Apart from this chosen topic of yours being arguably the silliest disagreement in the history of mankind, you now also want ME to take the blame for it?

I see.

I have explained that because you referred to me simply as Blomer(which I consider rude in an exchange) twice, I referred to you as Mr Holmgren.
I was not "pissed off" at you asking me to call you Christer, either you have misread my post or you are being disingenuous.

When you are bias, I will say so.
When you are not, I will not say you are.
When you stop turning every thread you post on into a Lechmere thread, even when it's not , I will not call you bias.

Steve

You see, the problem with agreeing with you about how well suited you are to make these kinds of calls is that you are nowhere near suited at all. This may come as a surprise to you, but most of us who post out here do so with honest intentions, and really - we never needed you to judge for us whether we are to be deemed trustworthy or not.


When I say that I believe that the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same, for example, I do so on logical and factual grounds and I present those grounds in detail. To then have you saying that I only make that call because I am biased towards Lechmere is beyond ridiculous. The grounds are there, although you personally deny them. Others, posters who are quite knowledgable and well read up, agree with me that there is a very good case to be made.

Once we have a situation like that, it is not a sensible thing to do to discard what I am saying by simply playing the old bias card. Once that happens on a knee-jerk basis - and it does in your case - what we are looking at is not a factually based argument, but instead a cowardly attempt to nullify the value of important points. The discouraging insight that you can never win a factual discussion is once again soothed by your knowledge that you don't even have to discuss things - you just whine "Bias!", and that's it. it resembles a baby with a cherished pacifier.

You on occasion show a very clear bias, not a possible one, but a definitive one.
If you do so it is not wrong to point that out. Which is what I have said
It is you who have attempted to turn this thread away from factual content, not I.

I have tried my best to get you to leave that tactic for the longest time now, but you are not willing to do so. Fair enough! Just prepare to get your own medicine in return. It starts with you motivating your idea how an escape to the south in Bucks Row is the likeliest route, bolstering it by claiming that Mulshaws testimony tells us that he was probably sleeping (!).

Again you simply ignore the factual points that have been made on the issue. Continuing to say you interpret comments in a particular way, does not mean you are correct. Other arguments are presented for the view on Mulshaw, which you simply ignore.

It goes on to point out that the southern escape route is something you arguably favor because you prefer Kosminski as a suspect.

There are many posters here who favour a southern escape route, do they all favour Kosminski to reach that conclusion?
Or is the reason they reach that conclusion simply that it is the most logical and quickest means of escape. While preferring the southern route, routes of escape North, West or even East, are not ruled out. It is clear that you do not understand the approach in the book, of offering all possibilities, but then you havent read it.

I note that you ignore the factual issue that if Mulshaw is awake it does not bar an escape via Court st or Thomas St. And given Mulshaw does not apparently see Tomkins and another go past towards the murder site, one must ask if it would even bar someone escaping via Woods Building.

And it carries on to make the point that all your efforts to try and nullify Lechmere, unqualified and misdirected as they are, have come about only on account of a wish on your behalf to get rid of the best suspect there is, leaving Kosminski unscathed.

There is the crux of the matter, it is bias, in your view because you believe the work tries to nullify Lechmere, and such is simply not allowed. Maybe you should read the book, and see just what it does say, rather than continuing to comment from the ignorance of not reading it.

Let's see if that makes for a more productive debate.

Did I turn this into a Lechmere thread now, Steve? Hijack it, as it were?

Given it's about Bucks Row, how can it be hijacked to Lechmere, what a truly pointless comment.


steve

[Elamarna]

Looking at this again, it really tells the story:

"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."


The very apparent message in here is that you find it incredible that YOU were accused of a bias. To you, the mere suggestion that YOUR book could have a bias is silly. And you very much dislike what you find "the logical extension" of Edwards reasoning: "that no book by someone with a preferred suspect is credible". Because you really think that YOU are able to have a suspect and still produce totally unbiased work!

I do not find it incredible, expected, sadly yes. The message is that Mr Stow said bias is a problem with all theorist, thus we are all in the same boat. The logical extension is that no work on the case is credible if the author has a preferred suspect. That rules out just about every book or article, does it not?

This is why I wonder how it is that you think that you are so much better than Edward and I in that respect - how is it that YOU yourself can be perfectly unbiased whereas we can´t? How is it that what we suggest can and should always be met by the argument that we have a bias, whereas when you assert us that Mulshaw was sleeping and that his evidence should therefore be regarded as bolstering that take of yours, there is no bias at all involved?

Again simply misdirecting, the evidence, like it or not says Mulshaw openly admitted he was not sure if he slept during the period. That he did not see the slaughter men pass, argues at the very least he was not paying attention.

To put it differently: If YOU can tell when I have a bias, why would not I be able to tell when YOU have one?


Any ideas?

I have not said I am unbiased(of course pure objectively is impossible, we can only do our best), just that there is no bias demonstrated in the book.
You claimed there was "much speculation" in the podcast that showed a possible bias towards Kosminski.

In reality this amounts to a southern escape route favouring Kosminski in your view.
If that route had never been suggested before, or if it was only suggested by proponents of Kosminski you may have a point, but neither of those qualifiers is true.

[Fisherman]

I do not find it incredible, expected yes, my message is that Mr Stow said bias is a problem with all theorist, thus we are all in the same boat.

And indeed we are. So maybe it is time that you accept that it was never a case of me being biased and you not. it was never a case of you being singularly suited to decide about it. Once we have an idea about something, we all run the risk of allowing the idea to color our take on matters, that is a simple and universal truth. Once I believe Lechmere was the killer, I run the risk of letting that color my view, and once you believe Kosminski is the best suspect, you run the exact same risk. However, enlightened people are aware of this mechanism and they can strive to be as unbiased as possible, and that is exactly what I do - and I suspect you try to do also. Pondering that, it becomes an exercise in unworthy futility to automatically shout "bias" when somebody you disagree with makes a point.

Again simply misdirecting, the evidence, like it or not says Mulshaw openly admitted he was not sure if he slept during the period. That he did not see th eslaughter men pass argues at the very least he was not paying attention.

Mulshaw did NOT openly admit that he was not sure if he slept that period. An open admission would sound like this:
-Did you sleep during the hours we speak of?
-I may have done, yes.

Answering the question "I don't think I did, no" is NOT openly admitting that he was unsure whether he slept or not. It is stating that he believes he was awake, which is another thing altogether. The phrase "I don't think I did" is not necessarily an admission of the possibility of being wrong, by the way. You may be aware that my verdict on your suggestion is that I don't think that he admitted to possibly having slept. I am n ot saying that I am certain that he could not be wrong, I am saying that I doubt think your suggestion has anything going for it.

Does that mean that I allow for you being correct? Listen here Steve: I really don't think so.

There was no open admission. There was a phrasing that can sometimes be very strong, while on other occasions it is less strong. In no case does it amount to an open admission of possibly being wrong.


I have not said I am unbiased(of course pure objectively is impossible, we can only do our best), just that there is no bias demonstrated in the book.
You claimed there was "much speculation" in the podcast that showed a possible bias towards Kosminski.

I don´t have the book, as you know, so I can only comment on how there is very clearly a possible bias demonstrated by you in the podcast, just as there are very clear examples of what seems to be lacking knowledge in some instances. If, however, you say in the book that you favor a southern escape route on account of how you think Mulshaw was sleeping, then the game is up.
I prefer to say what you say yourself: one can only do ones best. And that is good enough. But NOT for you, apparently - when I do my best, you regularly shout "bias" anyway.

In reality this amounts to a southern escape route favouring Kosminski in your view.
If that routes had never been suggested before, or if it was only suggested by proponents of Kosminski you may have a point, but neither of those qualifiers is true.

Really, Steve: There is absolutely no need for you to follow somebody's lead to be biased. A bias comes from within, it is not purchased from others. Whether it has been proposed before that the southern escape routes favor Kosminski as a killer or not is neither here nor there - the fact of the matter is that it DOES favor Kosminski, and once we know that, you are at peril to be called biased for turning Mulshaws evidence on its head to promote the possibility. He does not "openly admit" that he may have been asleep at the relevant hours at all, he says that he sometimes do doze off at his job, but that he does not think he did so at the relevant hours. The obvious inference is that he I not willing to clim that he must have been awake that time, but to the best of his recollection, he thinks that he actually was.

How that transcribes into an open admission on his behalf that he may have slept during those very hours is something literate people find hard to see. Literate people accept that Mulshaw was a night watchman who sometimes fell asleep at work, people who accept that we don't know how often that happened, and people who accept that far from admitting to possibly have slept at the relevant hours, Mulshaw points out that although he sometimes could fall asleep on duty, his take on things is that this did not happen during those hours.

One more angle: The coroner wanted to know whether Mulshaw sometimes slept on his watch or not. The reason for asking is obvious: if he DID, then the killer could have passed him by unnoticed.
Mulshaw said he sometimes dozed off when on duty.
That opened up for the possibility of the killer having made his escape to the south, past Mulshaw. Therefore the coroner realized that he needed to qualify his question, and accordingly asked Mulshaw whether he had been asleep during the relevant hours when the killer would have escaped. And now Mulshaw - who very openly admitted that he COULD sleep at work - said that he did not think that he had done so at the relevant hours. So yes, he could sleep at times, but no, he did not do so at the relevant hours, to the best of his recollection.
And this is an "open admission" that he may have slept when the killer escaped...?

We can go on for eons turning this inside out, and these truths will not be affected anyway. So go ahead if you wish, but keep in mind that lost causes are normally best forgotten.

[Elamarna]

Really, Steve: There is absolutely no need for you to follow somebody's lead to be biased. A bias comes from within, it is not purchased from others. Whether it has been proposed before that the southern escape routes favor Kosminski as a killer or not is neither here nor there - the fact of the matter is that it DOES favor Kosminski, and once we know that, you are at peril to be called biased for turning Mulshaws evidence on its head to promote the possibility. He does not "openly admit" that he may have been asleep at the relevant hours at all, he says that he sometimes do doze off at his job, but that he does not think he did so at the relevant hours. The obvious inference is that he I not willing to clim that he must have been awake that time, but to the best of his recollection, he thinks that he actually was.

How that transcribes into an open admission on his behalf that he may have slept during those very hours is something literate people find hard to see. Literate people accept that Mulshaw was a night watchman who sometimes fell asleep at work, people who accept that we don't know how often that happened, and people who accept that far from admitting to possibly have slept at the relevant hours, Mulshaw points out that although he sometimes could fall asleep on duty, his take on things is that this did not happen during those hours.

One more angle: The coroner wanted to know whether Mulshaw sometimes slept on his watch or not. The reason for asking is obvious: if he DID, then the killer could have passed him by unnoticed.
Mulshaw said he sometimes dozed off when on duty.
That opened up for the possibility of the killer having made his escape to the south, past Mulshaw. Therefore the coroner realized that he needed to qualify his question, and accordingly asked Mulshaw whether he had been asleep during the relevant hours when the killer would have escaped. And now Mulshaw - who very openly admitted that he COULD sleep at work - said that he did not think that he had done so at the relevant hours. So yes, he could sleep at times, but no, he did not do so at the relevant hours, to the best of his recollection.
And this is an "open admission" that he may have slept when the killer escaped...?

We can go on for eons turning this inside out, and these truths will not be affected anyway. So go ahead if you wish, but keep in mind that lost causes are normally best forgotten.

Final few comments.


You are very clear that suggesting turning south is in itself a bias suggestion, therefore to be unbiased in your view, given that I prefer Kosminski, one must not include the possibility of a southern escape, that one must actively argue against the logic and reason of the fastest escape route.

As you have agreed the phrase used by Mulshaw is open to several interpretations, my view is different from yours.
If he really wanted to say he was awake, he would, in my view, say just that.


Its like the sport of cricket, not sure if you follow it at all.
The convention before TV replays, was that if catch was claimed, and it was not clear if the ball had been cleanly caught, the fielder would be asked, "did you catch it?" If he replied yes, the batsmen would walk and was out(sadly not all did).
If he said "i think so" it would be classed as not being sure, of not committing himself one way or the other, and NOT out.


On top of this, is the issue as I have mentioned several times, of his apparently not seeing the slaughter house guys pass by.
Of course his recollection of the police presence gives us two alternatives does it not?
Either the police did not do the full beat often or he was dozing.

There is no evidence for the first option, but it remains a possibility.
For the 2nd option he admits he slept at times, one must also taking into account the possible repercussions for Mulshaw if he admitted that he routinely slept, while working. If taken together, while not conclusive, these points are highly indicative that he slept more than he admitted.

That's how I view Mulshaw. You dont agree.

Lost Cause? I think not.

We can agree to disagree and leave the subject, its is entirely your choice.

steve

[Fisherman]

Final few comments.


You are very clear that suggesting turning south is in itself a bias suggestion, therefore to be unbiased in your view, given that I prefer Kosminski, one must not include the possibility of a southern escape, that one must actively argue against the logic and reason of the fastest escape route.

You are perfectly welcome to rule out a southern escape route - IF YOU DO SO ON SOUND GROUNDS. But you don't. You falsely say that Mulshaw openly admitted that he could have been asleep at the relevant hours.
For an open admission to be present, we would need a follow-up question from the coroner, could with an admittance from Mulshaw;

Mulshaw: "I don´t think I slept at the relevant hours"
Coroner: "But you may have done so?"
Mulshaw: "Yes."

THAT is what an open admission looks like. What we have is something that can be interpreted as an implicit admission - but before we know what Mulshaw would have answered, we can´t tell his exact stance;

Mulshaw: "I don´t think I slept at the relevant hours"
Coroner: "But you may have done so?"
Mulshaw: "Where did you get that from? I said I don't think I slept and I really don't think I did!"
alternatively
Mulshaw: "No, now that I think about it I am sure I didn't sleep."

Elevating what he said to claiming that he openly admitted that he may have slept is being untrue to the sources. End of.

As you have agreed the phrase used by Mulshaw is open to several interpretations, my view is different from yours.
If he really wanted to say he was awake, he would, in my view, say just that.

He said he thought he was, and as long as we don't know the reasoning behind that, we must accept his bid. We don't turn it on its head and claim that he will have been sleeping.

Its like the sport of cricket, not sure if you follow it at all.
The convention before TV replays, was that if catch was claimed, and it was not clear if the ball had been cleanly caught, the fielder would be asked, "did you catch it?" If he replied yes, the batsmen would walk and was out(sadly not all did).
If he said "i think so" it would be classed as not being sure, of not committing himself one way or the other, and NOT out.

This is not cricket, I'm afraid, and the phrase can be indicative of other things in other settings.

On top of this, is the issue as I have mentioned several times, of his apparently not seeing the slaughter house guys pass by.
Of course his recollection of the police presence gives us two alternatives does it not?
Either the police did not do the full beat often or he was dozing.

Correct: there are alternatives to what you prefer to think.

There is no evidence for the first option, but it remains a possibility.
For the 2nd option he admits he slept at times, one must also taking into account the possible repercussions for Mulshaw if he admitted that he routinely slept, while working.

So why did he admit that he did sleep at his work at all, if he harbored such a fear, Steve? Why not say "No, I never sleep at work"? Any ideas? If he admitted to sleeping for an unestablished amount of time, how would that get worse if he admitted to possibly have done so at around 4 AM?

If taken together, while not conclusive, these points are highly indicative that he slept more than he admitted.

No, they are not. It only amounts to evidence that you are not correctly describing what happened, instead opting for an idea that supports your take that the killer fled to the south. You tell

That's how I view Mulshaw. You dont agree. us that arguing against a southern escape route is to argue against the fastest and most logical route. Preconceived notions, anybody?

And I don´t argue against a southern escape route. I argue against promoting a southern escape route with inventions of our own that are not on historical record. As you know, I think the killer used the western route and that he never flew but instead calmly walked out of harm's way.

Lost Cause? I think not.

The "openly admitted" thing was what I mainly referred to with that phrase. And that IS a lost cause.

We can agree to disagree and leave the subject, its is entirely your choice.

steve[/B]

Thank you. Then I will carry on as long as you do not admit to the errors you make yourself guilty of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And now Mulshaw - who very openly admitted that he COULD sleep at work - said that he did not think that he had done so at the relevant hours. So yes, he could sleep at times, but no, he did not do so at the relevant hours, to the best of his recollection.
And this is an "open admission" that he may have slept when the killer escaped...?

You appear to be getting this confused too Fish.

1. Mulshaw admitted that he did at times sleep at work.

2. He didn’t think/believe that he’d slept at the relevant time.

If any of us sat through a long night occasionally nodding off would we really have been able to say ““well I slept from 1.30 until 2.15 and then from 3.20 until 4.15 and then from......””

. but no, he did not do so at the relevant hours, to the best of his recollection

Which of course means that although he didn’t think that he’d slept at that time....he might have done. Might we not also add that he might not have wanted to own up to having missed escaping killer due to his being asleep on duty?

[Elamarna]

"You are perfectly welcome to rule our a southern escape route - IF YOU DO SO ON SOUND GROUNDS"


So Christer, I am allowed to rule a southern escape route out, but to suggest one is bias.
That is perfectly clear.

Thank you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to add of course Steve mentioned several other possible escape routes. Did he say that the route past Mulshaw was the likeliest? And even if Kosminski was guilty could we be absolutely certain where he headed directly after killing Nichols?

Im sorry but saying that Steve was dishonestly keeping open an escape route for Lechmere because he favours him as a suspect is desperate stuff. Add this to the issue that’s being made out of a very obvious slip of the tongue on JM’s part which Steve failed to pick up on at the time and we can hear the very obvious sound of the bottom of the barrel being scraped.

[Fisherman]

You appear to be getting this confused too Fish.

1. Mulshaw admitted that he did at times sleep at work.

Exactly. I seem to have understood that perfectly.

2. He didn’t think/believe that he’d slept at the relevant time.

Exactly. I seem to have understood that perfectly too.

If any of us sat through a long night occasionally nodding off would we really have been able to say ““well I slept from 1.30 until 2.15 and then from 3.20 until 4.15 and then from......””

I think that will differ from person to person. Much will depend on how closely we monitor a clock, of course. Most people will not know when they fall asleep, I´ll say that much for you - but when we look at things in retrospect and know that we have noticed matters that happened during a certain time, then we will also know that we have been awake at that time.

Which of course means that although he didn’t think that he’d slept at that time....he might have done. Might we not also add that he might not have wanted to own up to having missed escaping killer due to his being asleep on duty?

Herlock, it seems YOU have misunderstood this. Nobody is saying that he could not have been asleep. What I am saying is that since he said that he did n ot think he was, that must take precedence over suggestions made 131 years afterwards by a poster who chooses to disbelieve Mulshaw.
On the point of owning up, Mulshaw DID own up to sleeping at times. He had absolutely no problems admitting he did. So why would he not say that he thought he may well have fallen asleep during the relevant hours - if he actually thought this was the case? The man had already admitted that he DID sleep on duty occasionally, remember.

So you see, Herlock, no confusion at all exists. On my behalf, that is.

[Fisherman]

"You are perfectly welcome to rule our a southern escape route - IF YOU DO SO ON SOUND GROUNDS"


So Christer, I am allowed to rule a southern escape route out, but to suggest one is bias.
That is perfectly clear.

Thank you.

You are perfectly welcome to rule IN a southern escape route too on the exact same grounds, Steve. As long as it is done on sound grounds, there is nothing wrong with it. Once you start making up things to bolster your take, it becomes another matter.

Thank YOU!

[Fisherman]

Just to add of course Steve mentioned several other possible escape routes.

I'm sure he did - but he favored the southern ones, and to facilitate for Kosminski - or anybody else - to make use of these routes (the most logical ones, I am told regardless where the killer lived, apparently...?), he opted for deciding that Mulshaw would have been asleep. And not only that, he claimed that Mulshaw at the inquest actually openly admitted that he may have ben asleep.
Have you seen that passage from the inquest, Herlock?
I know I haven´t.

Did he say that the route past Mulshaw was the likeliest?

No, he said the southern routes were the most logical routes and he added that he favored them. And since Mulshaw was a street south of Bucks Row, he would quite possibly or even likely have come into play - if he was awake. So Steve brings the Sandman on the stage, and voilá - problem solved. The killer gets his opportunity to escape towards the south.

And even if Kosminski was guilty could we be absolutely certain where he headed directly after killing Nichols?

Herlock, you know as well as I that the addresses given for Kosminski would both tally quite well with an escape to the south. And that is how we must regard the matter - we work from the suggestion that the killer made for home after the murder. It may be that he instead went for fish and chips up at Buckingham or that he felt a sudden urge to walk the streets of Bow. Typically, though, such suggestions need to be either likely or bolstered before we can use them as useful alternatives to him heading for home. Right or wrong, that is how these things work - we take a look to see whether the escape route after a murder tallies with our suspects´ base or living quarters.

Im sorry but saying that Steve was dishonestly keeping open an escape route for Lechmere because he favours him as a suspect is desperate stuff.

Would you say that Steves claiming that I only suggest that the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same because I promote Lechmere as the killer is also "desperate stuff"?
You see, that is the pertinent question here. Is it desperate when I make a suggestion that he makes calls that may be biased but completely legit when he claims that I am biased whenever I make a point? If so, can you explain how that works?

Add this to the issue that’s being made out of a very obvious slip of the tongue on JM’s part which Steve failed to pick up on at the time and we can hear the very obvious sound of the bottom of the barrel being scraped.

We will get to the bottom alright, Herlock. We are on our way.