Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Elamarna]

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!

Thank you the southern escape routes are on sound grounds, its not purely reliant on Mulshaw, but given you have not read the book, how could you know that.

Let's put this to Bed, Mulshaw said "I dont think I was". You have accepted such can reasonably be described as uncertainty. post 220

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


Therefore, it follows he admitted he was uncertain if he was asleep or not.

My initial comment on this today was:

"the evidence, like it or not says Mulshaw openly admitted he was not sure if he slept during the period."

Which seems completely consistent with that position of uncertainty.


Nothing is make up Christer, its simply how we interpret the testimony, you and Edward one way, me another.


Steve

[Fisherman]

One more thing, Herlock: I am not saying that Steve is dishonest, I an saying that his bias has gotten the better of his judgment. The difference is huge.

[Fisherman]

Thank you the southern escape routes are on sound grounds, its not purely reliant on Mulshaw, but given you have not read the book, how could you know that.

I´m afraid that when you offer something on a podcast, then that will have to stand for itself. Otherwise, it is not much use to listen in the first place, is it? if there are other factors involved, then by all means, present them.

Let's put this to Bed, Mulshaw said "I dont think I was". You have accepted such can reasonably be described as uncertainty. post 220

It can potentially point to an uncertainty, and as I say, we must allow for that possibility. What we must not do, however, is to regard it as an established fact that there WAS uncertainty.

Therefore, it follows he admitted he was uncertain if he was asleep or not.

No, it does not follow at all, as I have taken great effort to tell you. It is not until he is asked a follow-up question that he can admit that he was possibly asleep. The wording about an "open admission" is way off any allowed lines when it comes to establishing what happened. As I have said before, there is what may have been an implicit admission - but it may also not have been any admission at all. It would all hinge on how he would have answered the question that was never put to him: "Is it possible that you fell asleep during the critical hours?"
Once again, the one answer Mulshaw has provided us with is that he don't think he did.

My initial comment on this today was:

"the evidence, like it or not says Mulshaw openly admitted he was not sure if he slept during the period."

Which seems completely consistent with that position of uncertainty.

It introduces a claim of an open admission that was never there, and it denies any possibility on Mulshaws behalf to qualify his statement with a denial to have slept. Is that how we should treat the facts, Steve?

Nothing is make up Christer, its simply how we interpret the testimony, you and Edward one way, me another.

Steve

The open admission IS made up. From it, it follows that Mulshaw must have been uncertain whether he slept or not during the critical hours. That too is made up. These are interpretations that introduce a fact that was never there. It is making up things, therefore.

[Patrick S]

The problem at hand, Sherlock, is not - as Steve and a few more people will have it - that I cannot stand having any part of the Lechmere theory criticized. Criticize away, by all means - I welcome it.

Anyone who's read more than a few of your posts knows that you certainly do not welcome criticism. Of course, this is far from the silliest thing you've written on these boards... but that doesn't mean it's not very, very, VERY silly.

The problem is that the criticism is qualified by adding a detraction from my overall credibility by stating that since I have a suspect, I am not capable of understanding that it is my bias that leads me to all the wrong conclusions I keep drawing.

This is obviously and demonstrably (if one cares to read only a few dozen of your nearly 20,000 posts) UNTRUE. Many people have suspects, yet they're not regarded as you are. You clearly are NOT capable of understanding that it IS your bias that leads you to these wrong conclusions. One needs only consider that your "conclusions" rest ENTIRELY on things you've simply invented, based on nothing, out of whole cloth: your absurd "Mizen Scam", the honesty and purity of Jonas Mizen, the stupidity, dishonesty (except with it comes to knowing the time), big-upping, and police-hating of Robert Paul, the psychopathy of Cross.... it goes on and on and on and on. And there's not a shred of evidence for any of it. These are simply things you MUST have in order for ANY of it to work in the SLIGHTEST. But, in the end, none of it's believable. It doesn't work. And you rail. You insult... and otherwise make a fool of yourself while claiming it's, well, everyone ELSE who's foolish. One must admit that it's entertaining. But, it's sad, as well.

That, and that only, is where the criticism of the Lechmere theory goes totally off the tracks. If that could be avoided, so could most of the acrimony surfacing alongside the Lechmere debates.

You're incapable of understanding that it's you who's taken it off the tracks. I won't list the ways here. I think everyone knows them. And they're well represented on this thread.

A fine example of the attitude is offered by this sentence of yours:
"Id say that one of the main issues in Ripperology for me is the employment of an over-active imagination. An element of imagination is fine (thinking outside of the box) but it has to be tempered by logic and the known facts."

Obviously, this sentence makes perfect sense. Thus, it's unsurprising you take issue with it.

This is the EXACT method that is employed when many suspects are discussed (not Kosminski, Druitt et al, mind you), and nowhere is it more evident than on the Lechmere threads. I know that you did not specifically point me out, but I would nevertheless challenge you to tell me where/if you have identified an "overactive imagination" in my work on Lechmere as the possible culprit. If you cannot do so, I would ask you to take stock from that fact, and employ another attitude altogether when discussing the carman.

This is absurd beyond "imagination", isn't it? You invent scenarios that you've no reason to believe in... OTHER than the fact that you MUST believe in them in order to continue peddling this theory. EVERYONE has discredited this thing. And you pretend it's not happened, that it's not now happening, that anyone has made any points, ever, that may indicate your "suspect" may not be the best suspect, the ONLY suspect.

If you are up to it?

Everyone is up to it. It's takes no great skill... only simple common sense... perhaps the ability to read. Yet, you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and stamp your feet. Your throw childish tantrums, hurl insults... and cry foul when others return the favor.. or even if they dare question you or this "theory" of yours. Additional comments above bold.

[FrankO]

Much has been made of Steve’s suggestion that Neil was probably north of Buck’s Row when the murder was committed until shortly after Lechmere & Paul had left the body. According to Edward Stow and Christer this is a view that’s guided by the fact that Steve favours Kosminski as a suspect. I have no suspect but still have come to the same conclusion as Steve. It is simply very much supported by all the evidence there is regarding Neil’s beat.

What especially surprised me is that both Christer and Edward seem to think that the murderer, if he wasn’t on his way to work, MUST have chosen an escape route that talied with his home address. This doesn’t make sense to me. Getting home would not necessarily be the first priority of a killer wanting to leave a murder scene. His first priority would rather be to get away from the scene, whichever way that took him. Unless, of course, he KNEW that he had enough time to get away using a route directly home or that his escape route directly home was safe for him to take.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One more thing, Herlock: I am not saying that Steve is dishonest, I an saying that his bias has gotten the better of his judgment. The difference is huge.

And would you say that you are immune to that Fish?

[Fisherman]

And would you say that you are immune to that Fish?

Frankly, that is not only for me to judge. Whenever somebody has a suspect, they will always run the risk of getting too enthusiastic or dismissive about something, and when they do, they generally cannot see it themselves. On the whole, I know quite well that I have a very good case, but there are always risks out in the margins of things.

So it is up to others to judge, and that is something that a number of posters do not mind, you included. What I do, is to take a look at how the criticism looks; is it fair , is it generalized, is somebody offering criticism for the sole reason of having a dig at me, are there inclusions of claiming that I am psychologically unhealthy, and yes - all of these things are represented out here.

Lastly, there are also those who try to divert criticism by trying to turn matters on the one delivering it. Like you right now; instead of looking at the criticism of Steve, you set out to try and turn it into something that could damage me.

The good thing about having been subjected to these kinds of things is that you get to be very adept at seeing through it.

[Fisherman]

Much has been made of Steve’s suggestion that Neil was probably north of Buck’s Row when the murder was committed until shortly after Lechmere & Paul had left the body. According to Edward Stow and Christer this is a view that’s guided by the fact that Steve favours Kosminski as a suspect. I have no suspect but still have come to the same conclusion as Steve. It is simply very much supported by all the evidence there is regarding Neil’s beat.

What especially surprised me is that both Christer and Edward seem to think that the murderer, if he wasn’t on his way to work, MUST have chosen an escape route that talied with his home address. This doesn’t make sense to me. Getting home would not necessarily be the first priority of a killer wanting to leave a murder scene. His first priority would rather be to get away from the scene, whichever way that took him. Unless, of course, he KNEW that he had enough time to get away using a route directly home or that his escape route directly home was safe for him to take.

Last things first. I do not think that Kosminski - or any other killer - must have headed for home after the killings. I took great care to point out that it is nevertheless the parameter that is and will be used as a sort of indicator about a killers identity. There is nothing strange about that; as long as we have no information that the killer would have been likely to take another route, this is the material we should work from.
The prime example is of course the Goulston Street business, where we draw a straight line from Mitre Square, right through the Goulston Street doorway and further out to the east, landing in the vicinity of Doveton Street. There is no certainty that the killer was on his way home when dropping the rag, but making the assumption IS viable and as long as we have no other bids, it is also our best guess.

It is in this context we should look upon Steve and his eagerness to open up the escape routes to the south. Not only does he predispose that Neil was up north when the murder occurred, he also puts Mulshaw to sleep. Plus he asserts us that Mulshaw would openly have admitted that he could have been asleep during the critical hour between 3 and 4. He does not admit that this is in conflict with what Mulshaw himself said at the inquest, and so, once one knows that he favors Kosminski, he becomes every bit as open to an accusation of a bias as I myself am visavi Lechmere. And herein lies a lot of the rub for me - Steve has made it his business to, knee-jerk style, always say that I only reason the way that I do because I favour Lechmere as the killer. One example is my stance that the ripper and the torso killer were one and the same - I only say that because I favour Lechmere, he will tell me. And that is patently false and cowardly, because there is an ocean of similarities, some of them of the very rarest kind, between the series, and so a very good case can be made - with or without Lechmere. Of course, the 1873 torso case rules Kosminski out, and Steve does not like that, I´d say.

Overall, Steve has spent lots and lots of time trying to nullify Lechmere, and he apparently takes that effort into his book too. I find it very odd when somebody claims to have written a perfectly unbiased book, if that book contains inventing material that benefits the authors own suspect, while spending part of it trying to discredit a theory that promotes another suspect, a suspect the author has tried his damndest for years to nullify on public discussion boards (with nothing to show for it). In the end, the two words reaping and sowing come to mind.

I´d be interested to know exactly what it is that makes you place Neil to the north at the time of the murder of Nichols, if you feel up to it.

[FrankO]

Last things first. I do not think that Kosminski - or any other killer - must have headed for home after the killings. I took great care to point out that it is nevertheless the parameter that is and will be used as a sort of indicator about a killers identity. There is nothing strange about that; as long as we have no information that the killer would have been likely to take another route, this is the material we should work from.

Thanks for clarifying your view, Christer. I see better what you mean now, however, do not completely agree with it. You mention the example of Goulston Street, but that’s not a good example of what I’m saying. Simply because we don’t know which exit the murderer took to get out of Mitre Square. I’m saying that the murderer can also have taken the exit into Mitre Street and, when he felt safe enough, have adjusted his route to his home or wherever, passing Goulston Street on his way there. So, what I’m saying is that ‘exiting’ the crime scene through Wood’s Building is not necessarily indicative of the further route the murderer would have taken. Even Lechmere as the killer, should he not have decided to stay put, could have chosen a southern exit and still have gone west towards Pickford’s once he felt safe enough to do so. Getting out of site and earshot of the crime spot would be the first priority. Only when he felt safe enough, he would have adjusted his route to where he wanted to go.

I´d be interested to know exactly what it is that makes you place Neil to the north at the time of the murder of Nichols, if you feel up to it.

The first thing for me is the information about Neil’s beat in the Echo of 21 September. If you follow that, he would have gone from the eastern corner of Buck’s Row south through Brady Street to Whitechapel Road, then turn right and walk all the way west until he reached Baker’s Row, make a right turn again and walk north until the corner of Thomas Street, take a right turn again and cover Thomas Street and Queen Ann Street before returning to Buck’s Row, take a left turn there and walk all the way to Brady Street through Buck’s Row. That is how I read the information. If you go here and measure the exterior of this beat, you’ll see it fits quite well with the remark that “the exterior of the beats are at least a mile in extent and to this distance must be added the interiors.” I measured around 1550 meters. So it fits in this sense.

Obviously, it also fits with the fact that Neil and the 2 carmen didn’t see or hear one another, as there are places north of Buck’s Row where they would have been out of sight from one another: in Cross Street, the northern part of Queen Ann Street and the northern part of Thomas Street that runs in an east-west direction. For me, the northern part of Q. Ann Street fits best.

Then there’s Neil’s saying that “A quarter of an hour previously he was in Whitechapel road, where he saw some people apparently going to market, and some women.”
If we assume Neil walked at a speed of 2.5 miles per hour or 4 km/hr, then he would cover approximately 1005 meters. If you then measure 1005 meters back from the crime spot, you end up in Whitechapel Road. If you do the same, assuming that Neil had entered Buck’s Row through the southern end of Thomas Street just before finding Nichols, then you would end up in Brady Street, a little before turning right into Winthrop Street. In that sense, being north of Brady Street at the time of the murder also fits.

Neil having been in Queen Ann Street while Lechmere & Paul passed this street on Buck’s Row on their way to Mizen also fits better with Neil’s statement that he saw Mizen in Baker’s Row when he signalled to him. Having Neil enter Buck’s Row from the southern part Thomas Street, Mizen would have been much more clearly in Buck’s Row when Neil would have seen and signalled him. A minor point perhaps, as we don’t know how dark it was and other exact circumstances, but it doesn’t make Neil’s statement that he saw Mizen in Baker’s Row go away.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Thanks for clarifying your view, Christer. I see better what you mean now, however, do not completely agree with it. You mention the example of Goulston Street, but that’s not a good example of what I’m saying. Simply because we don’t know which exit the murderer took to get out of Mitre Square. I’m saying that the murderer can also have taken the exit into Mitre Street and, when he felt safe enough, have adjusted his route to his home or wherever, passing Goulston Street on his way there. So, what I’m saying is that ‘exiting’ the crime scene through Wood’s Building is not necessarily indicative of the further route the murderer would have taken. Even Lechmere as the killer, should he not have decided to stay put, could have chosen a southern exit and still have gone west towards Pickford’s once he felt safe enough to do so. Getting out of site and earshot of the crime spot would be the first priority. Only when he felt safe enough, he would have adjusted his route to where he wanted to go.

The first thing for me is the information about Neil’s beat in the Echo of 21 September. If you follow that, he would have gone from the eastern corner of Buck’s Row south through Brady Street to Whitechapel Road, then turn right and walk all the way west until he reached Baker’s Row, make a right turn again and walk north until the corner of Thomas Street, take a right turn again and cover Thomas Street and Queen Ann Street before returning to Buck’s Row, take a left turn there and walk all the way to Brady Street through Buck’s Row. That is how I read the information. If you go here and measure the exterior of this beat, you’ll see it fits quite well with the remark that “the exterior of the beats are at least a mile in extent and to this distance must be added the interiors.” I measured around 1550 meters. So it fits in this sense.

Obviously, it also fits with the fact that Neil and the 2 carmen didn’t see or hear one another, as there are places north of Buck’s Row where they would have been out of sight from one another: in Cross Street, the northern part of Queen Ann Street and the northern part of Thomas Street that runs in an east-west direction. For me, the northern part of Q. Ann Street fits best.

Then there’s Neil’s saying that “A quarter of an hour previously he was in Whitechapel road, where he saw some people apparently going to market, and some women.”
If we assume Neil walked at a speed of 2.5 miles per hour or 4 km/hr, then he would cover approximately 1005 meters. If you then measure 1005 meters back from the crime spot, you end up in Whitechapel Road. If you do the same, assuming that Neil had entered Buck’s Row through the southern end of Thomas Street just before finding Nichols, then you would end up in Brady Street, a little before turning right into Winthrop Street. In that sense, being north of Brady Street at the time of the murder also fits.

Neil having been in Queen Ann Street while Lechmere & Paul passed this street on Buck’s Row on their way to Mizen also fits better with Neil’s statement that he saw Mizen in Baker’s Row when he signalled to him. Having Neil enter Buck’s Row from the southern part Thomas Street, Mizen would have been much more clearly in Buck’s Row when Neil would have seen and signalled him. A minor point perhaps, as we don’t know how dark it was and other exact circumstances, but it doesn’t make Neil’s statement that he saw Mizen in Baker’s Row go away.

All the best,
Frank

If you go to https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=31906&page=2 you will find a map and Edwards view of the Neil beat, much the way I see it too.

You write:
"Neil having been in Queen Ann Street while Lechmere & Paul passed this street on Buck’s Row on their way to Mizen also fits better with Neil’s statement that he saw Mizen in Baker’s Row when he signalled to him. Having Neil enter Buck’s Row from the southern part Thomas Street, Mizen would have been much more clearly in Buck’s Row when Neil would have seen and signalled him."

I find this odd. Regardless of which street Neil came from, it applies that he was by the body when he "saw a constable up at Bakers Row" as he puts it. And in effect, there is only a very small gap that allows seeing up to Bakers Row from the murder site, and that predisposes that you cross the street over to Essex Wharf. If you do that, you will be able to see the southernmost fraction of the inlet to Bakers Row. To me, this makes it very clear that Mizen was not in Bakers Row as Neil saw him - he was on his way to Bucks Row and had walked down quite a stretch from Bakers Row.
To believe that Neil passed over to Essex Wharf and managed to get a glimpse of Mizen all that distance away and in darkness at the very second when he came into sight is a stretch to me. To accept that Neil only saw his colleague asa he was already en route to assist him is much likelier. Neil knew that Mizens beat did not encompass Bucks Row and he was not aware that Mizen had been sent to Bucks Row by the carmen, so the logical conclusion for Neil to draw was that if he saw Mizen, then he would be up at Bakers Row.

If the carmen had turned the corner to Bakers Row, Neil would not have seen them at any rate, regardless where he entered Bucks Row from. And he would not cover Queen Anne street on every round on his beat - he said it could be covered in twelve minutes, and so the green beat that Edward suggests fits well with that time.

There is also the simple fact that Neil says "I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street." That means that if he came from Queen Anne Street, he must have crossed the road to the residential side of the street. To me, it sounds like he came from the south and kept to the right. He may of course have crossed the street, but overall, I believe he would be more likely to prioritize the left-hand side of the street, since that was a side lined by factories and warehouses - all places more likely to get unwelcome visitors than the eastern side.

[FrankO]

I find this odd. Regardless of which street Neil came from, it applies that he was by the body when he "saw a constable up at Bakers Row" as he puts it.

I don't understand what you find odd, but, anyway, like I said it was a minor point, Christer. And the point I was only trying to make, and as far as I'm concerned it still stands, is that Mizen would be a good stretch closer to Baker's Row when seen by Neil in the "Queen Ann Street scenario" than in the "southern Thomas Street scenario" and, therefore, fits better with Neil's statement that he saw another PC in Baker's Row. For what it's worth.

And he would not cover Queen Anne street on every round on his beat - he said it could be covered in twelve minutes, and so the green beat that Edward suggests fits well with that time.

First of all, we don't know whether he would have covered Queen Ann Street on every round or not. We know this for Winthrop Street (or, at least, this is suggested by Mulshaw's testimony), which according to the Echo of 21 September is a so-called "interior", but this doesn't go for Queen Ann Street, which is part of the "exterior". So, I think we should be very cautious in making such assumptions.

Secondly, the green beat suggested by Edward actually doesn't fit with "The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes.". Edward's green beat is a little less than 700 meters, which would, at a speed of 5 km per hour, be (not too) "quickly walked over" in a little over 8 minutes. At 5.5 km per hour it would have taken around 7 and a half minutes.

There is also the simple fact that Neil says "I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street." That means that if he came from Queen Anne Street, he must have crossed the road to the residential side of the street. To me, it sounds like he came from the south and kept to the right. He may of course have crossed the street, but overall, I believe he would be more likely to prioritize the left-hand side of the street, since that was a side lined by factories and warehouses - all places more likely to get unwelcome visitors than the eastern side.

Whether he came from Queen Ann Street or the southern part of Thomas Street, the right-hand side would have been equally odd in both scenarios, because, as you say, the left-hand side was lined by factories and warehouses and in both scenarios he walked on the right-hand side.

[FrankO]

And the point I was only trying to make, and as far as I'm concerned it still stands, is that Mizen would be a good stretch closer to Baker's Row when seen by Neil in the "Queen Ann Street scenario" than in the "southern Thomas Street scenario" and, therefore, fits better with Neil's statement that he saw another PC in Baker's Row. For what it's worth.

I'd like to add a couple of things to the above.

We know that Neil, right after sending Thain off to get the doctor, needed someone and perhaps, preferably, another copper, to get the ambulance. Since he had just signalled Thain to the east of him, it was logical for him to direct his attention to the west of him to see if he could anybody there and, perhaps, if he was lucky, another copper.

I'm sure Neil was very well acquainted with the layout of the western part of Buck's Row and have no doubt that he knew that remaining by the body would not get him to see very far down Buck's Row for sure. And since he had no reason to expect Mizen to turn up in Buck's Row of his own accord, it would only have been logical for him to move to a position where he would, at the very least, have a better line of view of Buck's Row, regardless of whether it was too dark to see anything or not. In fact, he only needed to cross the street to have a better line of view down Buck's Row.

Staying by the body would afford a line of view that would not go much beyond Queen Ann Street (around 105 meters). Moving to Essex Wharf would afford a line of view that would go well beyond Thomas Street (around 165 meters). If Mizen would have his lamp on while searching for Neil (which is far from unthinkable), then Neil would have been able to see Mizen when he was even still quite close to Baker's Row. Obviously, this would not be the case if Neil remained by the body. He would have seen Mizen only when Mizen had already covered a little over half of the way from Baker's Row to the crime spot. I find it quite hard to believe that, if this would have been the right scenario, Neil wouldn't have realized that he must have seen Mizen not in Baker's Row, but much, much closer to him while Buck's Row wasn't part of Mizen's beat.

[Fisherman]

I don't understand what you find odd, but, anyway, like I said it was a minor point, Christer. And the point I was only trying to make, and as far as I'm concerned it still stands, is that Mizen would be a good stretch closer to Baker's Row when seen by Neil in the "Queen Ann Street scenario" than in the "southern Thomas Street scenario" and, therefore, fits better with Neil's statement that he saw another PC in Baker's Row. For what it's worth.

If Neil was on the southern side of Bucks Row, Bakers Row would be invisible from the murder site.
If he was on the northern side of Bucks Row - and he only says he went there AFTER having signaled down Mizen - he could have seen the fewest of feet of Bakers Row, namely the southernmost part of the opening towards Bucks Row. And Neil would have to see Mizen from a huge distance - in darkness. Ergo, it is much likelier to my mind that Mizen was some significant way down Bucks Row as Neil first noticed him.

First of all, we don't know whether he would have covered Queen Ann Street on every round or not. We know this for Winthrop Street (or, at least, this is suggested by Mulshaw's testimony), which according to the Echo of 21 September is a so-called "interior", but this doesn't go for Queen Ann Street, which is part of the "exterior". So, I think we should be very cautious in making such assumptions.

Secondly, the green beat suggested by Edward actually doesn't fit with "The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes.". Edward's green beat is a little less than 700 meters, which would, at a speed of 5 km per hour, be (not too) "quickly walked over" in a little over 8 minutes. At 5.5 km per hour it would have taken around 7 and a half minutes.

We cannot make any certain estimations here and so any assumption will be unsafe. We can see that the whole outlined beat as per Edwards sketch seems too long to cover in 12 minutes, and just as you say, Mulshaws testimony implies that the police did not walk all streets on every beat.

Whether he came from Queen Ann Street or the southern part of Thomas Street, the right-hand side would have been equally odd in both scenarios, because, as you say, the left-hand side was lined by factories and warehouses and in both scenarios he walked on the right-hand side.

The right-hand side would not be as unexpected if he came up from Thomas Street, no, because he would reach the southern pavement first if he came that way and the northern side if he came by way of Queen Anne Street.

[Fisherman]

I'd like to add a couple of things to the above.

We know that Neil, right after sending Thain off to get the doctor, needed someone and perhaps, preferably, another copper, to get the ambulance. Since he had just signalled Thain to the east of him, it was logical for him to direct his attention to the west of him to see if he could anybody there and, perhaps, if he was lucky, another copper.

I'm sure Neil was very well acquainted with the layout of the western part of Buck's Row and have no doubt that he knew that remaining by the body would not get him to see very far down Buck's Row for sure. And since he had no reason to expect Mizen to turn up in Buck's Row of his own accord, it would only have been logical for him to move to a position where he would, at the very least, have a better line of view of Buck's Row, regardless of whether it was too dark to see anything or not. In fact, he only needed to cross the street to have a better line of view down Buck's Row.

Staying by the body would afford a line of view that would not go much beyond Queen Ann Street (around 105 meters). Moving to Essex Wharf would afford a line of view that would go well beyond Thomas Street (around 165 meters). If Mizen would have his lamp on while searching for Neil (which is far from unthinkable), then Neil would have been able to see Mizen when he was even still quite close to Baker's Row. Obviously, this would not be the case if Neil remained by the body. He would have seen Mizen only when Mizen had already covered a little over half of the way from Baker's Row to the crime spot. I find it quite hard to believe that, if this would have been the right scenario, Neil wouldn't have realized that he must have seen Mizen not in Baker's Row, but much, much closer to him while Buck's Row wasn't part of Mizen's beat.

If Mizen had his lamp on in search of Neil, then that implicates that he had an intention of seeking out the PC mentioned by Lechmere. In Steve Blomers world, Mizen had no such intention, he instead chose to ignore the information he was given and was only alerted to the spot on account of Neil signaling him down.

As for Neil, he says that he went over to Essex Wharf AFTER he had seen Mizen. He does never say a word about going over the street in order to be able to see Bakers Row, he simply says that on seeing another PC in Bakers Row, he signaled him down.

You make the suggestion that Neil was aware of the difficulties involved in seeing all the way up to Bakers Row from the murder site, and although it may sound credible at first glance, I think it becomes less so when we give it some afterthought. It is only if we identify a future need to see all the way down to Bakers Row from the exact spot where Nichols was found that we will check such a thing out. It would have been a gliding scale, where the opening to Bakers Row gradually came into sight as Neil walked over to the other side, and if he came walking down that side it would have been the same thing - a gliding scale.
Are we to surmise that he know exactly how much of a street that could be seen from every spot along the beat? And did he ever walk Bucks Row from east to west, or was it always walked from west to east - in which case the panorama would be BEHIND him...?

Personally, I think the logical thing to expect is that Neil would have been aware that Mizens beat took him through Bakers Row but NOT down Bucks Row. Therefore, if he saw him, he would very naturally surmise that Mizen was in Bakers Row!

This is what the evidence suggests, and we know full well that Mizen did go down Bucks Row, so that makes it all work very well together.

PS. I live in a winding street in Helsingborg, Sweden. If you ask me, I cannot say how far I can see in either direction. Then again, I am no PC.

PPS. YToun may want to have a look at JTR Forums, where the thread about the podcast is very interesting right now. Not least are many misconceptions about Mizen from the podcast revealed, and its not looking very bright for Steve...

[Elamarna]

If Mizen had his lamp on in search of Neil, then that implicates that he had an intention of seeking out the PC mentioned by Lechmere. In Steve Blomers world, Mizen had no such intention, he instead chose to ignore the information he was given and was only alerted to the spot on account of Neil signaling him down.

As for Neil, he says that he went over to Essex Wharf AFTER he had seen Mizen. He does never say a word about going over the street in order to be able to see Bakers Row, he simply says that on seeing another PC in Bakers Row, he signaled him down.

You make the suggestion that Neil was aware of the difficulties involved in seeing all the way up to Bakers Row from the murder site, and although it may sound credible at first glance, I think it becomes less so when we give it some afterthought. It is only if we identify a future need to see all the way down to Bakers Row from the exact spot where Nichols was found that we will check such a thing out. It would have been a gliding scale, where the opening to Bakers Row gradually came into sight as Neil walked over to the other side, and if he came walking down that side it would have been the same thing - a gliding scale.
Are we to surmise that he know exactly how much of a street that could be seen from every spot along the beat? And did he ever walk Bucks Row from east to west, or was it always walked from west to east - in which case the panorama would be BEHIND him...?

Personally, I think the logical thing to expect is that Neil would have been aware that Mizens beat took him through Bakers Row but NOT down Bucks Row. Therefore, if he saw him, he would very naturally surmise that Mizen was in Bakers Row!

This is what the evidence suggests, and we know full well that Mizen did go down Bucks Row, so that makes it all work very well together.

PS. I live in a winding street in Helsingborg, Sweden. If you ask me, I cannot say how far I can see in either direction. Then again, I am no PC.

PPS. YToun may want to have a look at JTR Forums, where the thread about the podcast is very interesting right now. Not least are many misconceptions about Mizen from the podcast revealed, and its not looking very bright for Steve...

Christer,

The difficulties of seeing Mizen in Bakers Row, are you will find, not as great as you feel. The evidence says otherwise.

You say it is unlikely that Mizen and Neil would have looked in the correct direction at the same time, that is I am afraid just am opinion.
Neil says such happened.


The so called misconceptions are the opinions and interpretations of Mr Stow. They are personal opinions, they are not facts.

None of what you or Mr Stow say, makes Neil's testimony of seeing Mizen IN Bakers Row, not coming from it, go away.

Steve