Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Fisherman]

Thank you for confirming that you are not a believer of the "Mizen never left Bakers Row" school - it is a thinking that unnerves me, as you will have noted.

The possibility you exemplify with is exactly that - a possibility. It would require that Neil was on the northernmost side of the street at a stage when he does not say that he was - but of course may have been. And it would require that Mizen stuck to the northern pavement. And that Neil looked west in the very second Mizen was there.

To me, it sounds like much of a stretch, but overall, whether Mizen was there or whether Neil only saw him after he passed Queen Anne Street (which I tend to think) is immaterial in many ways. To me, the important factor is that a perspective that pushes the point that Mizen was likely a liar who would have proceeded down Bakers Row if he had the chance, ignoring what he had been told by Lechmere must be looked upon with great skepticism.

What I always have said is that Neil will have picked up on Mizen as he was underway, looking for then woman and that PC, and both our suggestions are in line with that. I think Neil was at the crime scene when he saw both Thain and Mizen, and you think he was up at Essex Wharf, and neither man will be able to prove the other conclusively wrong, I guess. So let's live with that.

[FrankO]

As I understand it, policemen's Bullseye lanterns were always on.
They had a leather shield to prevent it burning them when it was hooked on their belt.
They also had the ability to make it brighter or darker, but it always stayed on.

Do you have a source or sources for that, Dusty? I'd be interested to know more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not going to get involved in this one but the most important question should be.....is it possible that Steve could be correct and that Mizen might have seen Neill’s signal (with Neill being across the street, possibly so that he might see a passing Constable) in that 3 second window? It appears from the digital reconstruction that the answer is yes. On the question of likelihood...coincidences occur every minute of the day. Why do we get so stressed about them? I’m not saying that Steve is correct or that Fish and Ed Stow are correct but Steve’s suggestion appears to be physically possible and surely not exactly a roulette wheel spin level fluke. Might he not just have crossed the road knowing that he could see part of Bakers Row and that a Constable would be along at any second? I’m not saying that it happened but it doesn’t appear on the face of it to be any kind of freak coincidence.

[FrankO]

- it is a thinking that unnerves me, as you will have noted.

Even if I wanted to, that couldn't have escaped my attention, Christer.

The possibility you exemplify with is exactly that - a possibility. It would require that Neil was on the northernmost side of the street at a stage when he does not say that he was - but of course may have been.

It shouldn't be regarded in such a rigid manner. Neil doesn't state explicitly when he went over to the northern side of the street, but there's much in the witness statements that isn't said. For instance, Neil didnt say what he was doing while waiting for Thain, when we know it must have taken Thain about half a minute to arrive at the crime spot. The same goes for the period after signalling Mizen and Mizen arriving. Does that mean that Neil just stood there waiting? Or may he instead have been looking around for any marks, a knife, blood or whatever? And don't you do sort of the same with "Paul being out of earshot while Lechmere spoke to Mizen"?

And it would require that Mizen stuck to the northern pavement. And that Neil looked west in the very second Mizen was there.

Assuming you meant to write "that Neil stuck to...", why would that be so very odd or illogic? Would it be odd for him to look around? Would it be odd for him to look in a western direction right after having signalled Thain in the east? In your scenario he must have done the very same thing. After all, we know he did need somebody to go fetch the ambulance. So, I think there's nothing odd for Neil to be looking west or stick to the northern pavement. And, again, Neil seeing Mizen where I put him could have given him the impression that he saw him in Baker's Row. Which, to me, is a bit of a stretch in the scenario you suggest.

What I always have said is that Neil will have picked up on Mizen as he was underway, looking for then woman and that PC, and both our suggestions are in line with that. I think Neil was at the crime scene when he saw both Thain and Mizen, and you think he was up at Essex Wharf, and neither man will be able to prove the other conclusively wrong, I guess. So let's live with that.

Yes, let's do that and enjoy the good weather.

[Fisherman]

Even if I wanted to, that couldn't have escaped my attention, Christer.

It shouldn't be regarded in such a rigid manner. Neil doesn't state explicitly when he went over to the northern side of the street, but there's much in the witness statements that isn't said. For instance, Neil didnt say what he was doing while waiting for Thain, when we know it must have taken Thain about half a minute to arrive at the crime spot. The same goes for the period after signalling Mizen and Mizen arriving. Does that mean that Neil just stood there waiting? Or may he instead have been looking around for any marks, a knife, blood or whatever? And don't you do sort of the same with "Paul being out of earshot while Lechmere spoke to Mizen"?

Assuming you meant to write "that Neil stuck to...", why would that be so very odd or illogic? Would it be odd for him to look around? Would it be odd for him to look in a western direction right after having signalled Thain in the east? In your scenario he must have done the very same thing. After all, we know he did need somebody to go fetch the ambulance. So, I think there's nothing odd for Neil to be looking west or stick to the northern pavement. And, again, Neil seeing Mizen where I put him could have given him the impression that he saw him in Baker's Row. Which, to me, is a bit of a stretch in the scenario you suggest.

Yes, let's do that and enjoy the good weather.

Whoa, Frank! How did Paul being out of earshot enter the debate? I'm happy to say that if Paul did not take part in the conversation with Mizen (and Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him, and he was aware that Lechmere would testify after himself), then he may either have
A/ Stood waiting for the few seconds it took Lechmere too inform Mizen, the way we sometimes stand waiting while our viwes look in a a shop window, or
B/ walked down Bucks Row (The Echo: "the other man, who walked down Bucks Row"), whereupon Lechmere caught up with him.

Whichever way we look upon it, it remains that Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him, and there will be a reason for that.

I don´t think that it would be odd if Neil took a look to the west as such. What I am saying is instead that for the green cross in your sketch to come into play, that predisposes that Neil stood there and looked as Mizen came into sight. It is not so much odd as coincidental. We should also weigh up the likelihood of Neil actually seeing Mizen if he took a random glance down Bucks Row. Mizen was on a beat, and if that beat was anything like Neals own beat, it could take half an hour before Mizen came into sight. And Neil would arguably have been aware of this, so I find it less likely that he actually crossed the street to start monitoring the Bakers Row junction. It sounds more to me as if he simply noticed Mizen as he came walking down the street, and if so, Neil would be much more likely to have been close to the murder site than to Essex Wharf, finding out as much as he could and taking note of the immediate vicinity of the site.

Then again, just as you say, the longer the distance Mizen covered after Neil having noted him, the more likely that Neil would have thought he originally saw him in Bakers Row. But I have my bet on the short distance anyway - in darkness, it is overall harder to gauge things, and I don't rule out that what he said could have been mistaken at the inquest. Maybe he said he saw the Bakers Row PC approaching or something such.

Anyways, yes, the weather is (unnecessarily) nice. Me and my dog could both have done with a few degrees less...

[Elamarna]

Whoa, Frank! How did Paul being out of earshot enter the debate? I'm happy to say that if Paul did not take part in the conversation with Mizen (and Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him, and he was aware that Lechmere would testify after himself), then he may either have
A/ Stood waiting for the few seconds it took Lechmere too inform Mizen, the way we sometimes stand waiting while our viwes look in a a shop window, or
B/ walked down Bucks Row (The Echo: "the other man, who walked down Bucks Row"), whereupon Lechmere caught up with him.

Whichever way we look upon it, it remains that Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him, and there will be a reason for that.

I don´t think that it would be odd if Neil took a look to the west as such. What I am saying is instead that for the green cross in your sketch to come into play, that predisposes that Neil stood there and looked as Mizen came into sight. It is not so much odd as coincidental. We should also weigh up the likelihood of Neil actually seeing Mizen if he took a random glance down Bucks Row. Mizen was on a beat, and if that beat was anything like Neals own beat, it could take half an hour before Mizen came into sight. And Neil would arguably have been aware of this, so I find it less likely that he actually crossed the street to start monitoring the Bakers Row junction. It sounds more to me as if he simply noticed Mizen as he came walking down the street, and if so, Neil would be much more likely to have been close to the murder site than to Essex Wharf, finding out as much as he could and taking note of the immediate vicinity of the site.

Then again, just as you say, the longer the distance Mizen covered after Neil having noted him, the more likely that Neil would have thought he originally saw him in Bakers Row. But I have my bet on the short distance anyway - in darkness, it is overall harder to gauge things, and I don't rule out that what he said could have been mistaken at the inquest. Maybe he said he saw the Bakers Row PC approaching or something such.

Anyways, yes, the weather is (unnecessarily) nice. Me and my dog could both have done with a few degrees less...

It's even warm here in Glasgow.


Steve

[Fisherman]

It's even warm here in Glasgow.


Steve

People will develop rigor in no time at all.

[FrankO]

Whoa, Frank! How did Paul being out of earshot enter the debate?

Just a random example, Christer!

Whichever way we look upon it, it remains that Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him, and there will be a reason for that.

The point is that no reason was given, which leaves room to fill it in for ourselves. And one of the 2 reasons you fill it with is that the existing evidence simply leaves room for Paul to have been out of earshot, precisely because nothing was stated about it.

We should also weigh up the likelihood of Neil actually seeing Mizen if he took a random glance down Bucks Row.

Agreed, as we should weigh up the likelihood of Neil’s attention being drawn by the light of Mizen’s lamp, combined with the notion that Neil would be on the alert.

It sounds more to me as if he simply noticed Mizen as he came walking down the street, and if so, Neil would be much more likely to have been close to the murder site than to Essex Wharf, ...

The statements sure read like that with Neil hearing & signalling Thain, sending him off to the doctor and Neil seeing & signalling Mizen and sending him for the ambulance all in 3 short sentences, one after the other. But, for now and for the reasons I posted before, I stick to my view.

Then again, just as you say, the longer the distance Mizen covered after Neil having noted him, the more likely that Neil would have thought he originally saw him in Bakers Row.

Thank you!

But I have my bet on the short distance anyway - in darkness, it is overall harder to gauge things, and I don't rule out that what he said could have been mistaken at the inquest. Maybe he said he saw the Bakers Row PC approaching or something such.

I can live with that.

Anyways, yes, the weather is (unnecessarily) nice. Me and my dog could both have done with a few degrees less...

As could we here in Holland... but it's good for the tomatoes!

[Joshua Rogan]

>> ...Mizen may also have put on his lamp in search of the woman.<<

As I understand it, policemen's Bullseye lanterns were always on.
They had a leather shield to prevent it burning them when it was hooked on their belt.
They also had the ability to make it brighter or darker, but it always stayed on.

I was under the impression that they were always lit when on night duty, but there was a shutter which could block some or all of the light emanating from them.
For example, Watkins' testimony, from (perhaps the clearest account) the Echo 4th Oct;

"I had my lantern fixed in my belt alight, and turned on."

So both alight and turned on, ie wick burning and shutters open.
Well, that's my understanding.

[FrankO]

I was under the impression that they were always lit when on night duty, but there was a shutter which could block some or all of the light emanating from them.
For example, Watkins' testimony, from (perhaps the clearest account) the Echo 4th Oct;

"I had my lantern fixed in my belt alight, and turned on."

So both alight and turned on, ie wick burning and shutters open.
Well, that's my understanding.

Thanks, Joshua!

[drstrange169]

>>Do you have a source or sources for that, Dusty? I'd be interested to know more.<<

I'm at work, so I can't conform it, but I probably first read about it in Neil's book, "Capturing jtr".

Since I fancied getting one at one stage, I've seen quite a few internet sites about the Bullseyes.

Here's a particularly good one,

https://heritagearmssa.com/2018/06/26/victorian-police-lanterns/

[drstrange169]

>> Neil doesn't state explicitly when he went over to the northern side of the street, but there's much in the witness statements that isn't said. For instance, Neil didnt say what he was doing while waiting for Thain ...<<

But he does say what he did after Thain left and before the doctor arrived, examined the area, so we know he was moving around looking for cart tracks etc. For all we know, that could have taken him passed the board school. If that were so he would have seen the full width of the junction with Baker's Row.

Since he'd dispatched Thain and Sgt Kirby had already done his check, the only other policeman to look out for would have been in Baker's Row. It's logical that he's look that way.

[Fisherman]

>> Neil doesn't state explicitly when he went over to the northern side of the street, but there's much in the witness statements that isn't said. For instance, Neil didnt say what he was doing while waiting for Thain ...<<

But he does say what he did after Thain left and before the doctor arrived, examined the area, so we know he was moving around looking for cart tracks etc. For all we know, that could have taken him passed the board school. If that were so he would have seen the full width of the junction with Baker's Row.

Since he'd dispatched Thain and Sgt Kirby had already done his check, the only other policeman to look out for would have been in Baker's Row. It's logical that he's look that way.

It is logical, yes - but one must keep in mind that if Mizens beat was like Neils own beat, then he would arguably only come into vision down at the Bakers Row junction once every half hour, which is why I don't think it is very likely that Neil would take up a spot by Essex Wharf and start looking for Mizen. I find it much more likely that Neil simply noticed Mizen as he was underway to the murder site, and Mizen would come into sight sooner or later regardless if Neil was at the murder site or somewhere else in the street. Basically, we can be fairly certain that most of the time during the first few minutes on Neils behalf were spent alongside the body.

Those are the basic guidelines the way I see them.

[drstrange169]

Either scenarios seem perfectly possible to me.

If I was forced to pick one, I'd go with Mizen in Baker's Row, but only because that's the actual eyewitness testimony.


>>I find it much more likely that Neil simply noticed Mizen as he was underway to the murder site...<<

Both versions rely on Neil looking down towards Baker's Row, which is why I don't mind either.

[FrankO]

>>Do you have a source or sources for that, Dusty? I'd be interested to know more.<<

I'm at work, so I can't conform it, but I probably first read about it in Neil's book, "Capturing jtr".

Since I fancied getting one at one stage, I've seen quite a few internet sites about the Bullseyes.

Here's a particularly good one,

https://heritagearmssa.com/2018/06/2...lice-lanterns/

Thanks for your reply and the link to the site, Dusty! If you can confirm that you read it & where you read it, that would be much appreciated.