Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[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”

See post 106

[drstrange169]

Damn!

Sorry, Jonathan, I just realized I've been occasionally spelling your name wrong:-(

Jonathon was how my father spelt his name. Please forgive my discourtesy.

[drstrange169]

>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 still you try to alter the avoid that acknowledgement.

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

[drstrange169]

>>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.

[drstrange169]

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?

[drstrange169]

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”

[Fisherman]

>>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"<<

So does Christer practice what he preaches?

Post #8 Christer claimed,

“It (the podcast) sets out with Jonathan Menges stating that both Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen”

In post #12 he doubles down on his claim,

“ Menges pushed the idea of both carmen being involved in a conversation with Mizen as a fact…”

Both assertions are incorrect. Jonathan DID NOT say Paul Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen.

He said,

“Together they alerted a police officer.”

Which accurately reflects both Swanson and Abberline’s police reports. Reports that Christer is on record as saying do NOT imply both men spoke to Mizen.
Can anyone point to where Christer has written, "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"?

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.

[drstrange169]

Post #8 again, Christer says of Steve,

“He points out that the docu has Lechmere crouching over the body of Nichols. What one needs to realize is that the documentary works from the idea that Lechmere actually killed Nichols, and in order to do so, he must have crouched over her body at some stage. Attacking that depiction is attacking the sheer idea that Lechmere could be the killer, and that is not a wise thing to do.”

What Steve actually said was,

“(The TV show) having Lechmere crouching over the body as Robert Paul approaches him”

Steve did NOT suggest there was anything wrong with having Lechmere crouching over the body per se, but having it done in front of Paul, giving the impression to viewers that Paul saw Lechmere crouching over the body. Something I'’ve seen viewers of the TV show claim and Station Cat in this very thread also believed.

Can anyone point to where Christer has written, "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"?

Post #8 again, Christer says,

“Steve says that it is said that there was a nine minute gap and that there is no further discussion about that gap.”(In the TV show)

What Steve actually said was,

“There is no discussion about the fact that his (Paul’s) 3:45 is contrary to the evidence of Thain, of Neil and of Mizen.”

Steve does NOT say there is no discussion about the gap, as Christer claimed. He says they was no discussion about the other evidence about timings, a major and crucial factor and a massively major distortion of the know evidence.

Can anyone point to where Christer has written, "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"?

[Fisherman]

>> All in all, it is exceedingly evident that Charles Lechmere attracts ill will to a larger degree than any other suspect. <<

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.

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

Quite a sardine.

[drstrange169]

>>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"<<

So does Christer practice what he preaches?

Post #8 Christer claimed,

“It (the podcast) sets out with Jonathan Menges stating that both Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen”

In post #12 he doubles down on his claim,

“ Menges pushed the idea of both carmen being involved in a conversation with Mizen as a fact…”

Both assertions are incorrect. Jonathan DID NOT say Paul Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen.

He said,

“Together they alerted a police officer.”

Which accurately reflects both Swanson and Abberline’s police reports. Reports that Christer is on record as saying do NOT imply both men spoke to Mizen.
Can anyone point to where Christer has written, "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"?

[drstrange169]

>> All in all, it is exceedingly evident that Charles Lechmere attracts ill will to a larger degree than any other suspect. <<

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.

[drstrange169]

>>A prime example of why I dislike debating with you. Has it even dawned on you that you actually put "promise" within quotation marks? Talk about Freudian!<<

Sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what the above means.

[Fisherman]

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.

[jmenges]

I did it. I confess. The word “beat” left my lips. As Paul as my witness, Fish has caught me red-handed.
Amazing that such a thing occurs on an unscripted, unrehearsed, casual chat with an author.

A first in the 11 year history of the podcast I’m sure.

JM

[TheCuriousCat]

Nope. It was relevant to the criticism leveled at the podcast - there were errors in it. When somebody who extensively goes into trying to explain a development in which PC.s and a section sergeant are involved, it does not invoke faith if that somebody speaks about the sections sergeants beat.

Whether you consider that a waste of time is of no consequence to me.

Your criticisms of the podcast are so trivial as to be considered praise.