Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[FrankO]

[B]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.

I have no real problem with that, Dusty. If he wanted to see if, by any chance, he would be able to see Mizen and signal him down to get the ambulance, then the thing would be to either walk just a little beyond the board school or to the opposite side of the street. Remaining by the body would not be the thing to do. But I can understand Christer's view, too, because the evidence may read as if only seconds after having sent Thain for the doctor, Neil spotted Mizen and only after he'd sent Mizen for the ambulance, he rang the bell at Essex Wharf.

[Fisherman]

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.

The basic problem I identify with the Bakers Row scenario is that it would predispose that Neil actively sought out Mizen and just happened to be in the right place to see him when he was passing along Bakers Row, something that would occur perhaps once every half hour and would last for a mere seconds only. Neil must have known this. Would he stake out Bakers Row with the faintest of hopes to have Mizen arriving any time soon? Mizen must also have peered to his left in order to see Neils lantern. Moreover, Mizen would at that stage, if he had decided to skip over going to Bucks Row, have worn his bullseye lamp dark, having covered the light outlet - so how in the world would Neil see him at all from 200 yards plus away in the first place?

To me, it is a simple case of Mizen having set out - just as he said - towards Bucks Row, and Neil noticing him as he drew nearer, regardless of where the two were at the time.

But of course, the Bakers Row scenario lends itself a lot better to producing a picture of a lying PC! So it all boils down to what we want, as always. It actually points Mizen out as a liar if we accept it, and I would advice against it for that reason.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

Capturing Jack the Ripper, Neil R.A. Bell, page 76. As previously noted, various internet sites also confirm Neil's account. Hope that helps.

[FrankO]

Thanks again, Dusty!

[Fisherman]

Have you gentlemen seen Edwards latest post on JTR? It revolves around the matter of where Mizen was when first spotted by Neil, and adds quite a lot of material to what has previously been discussed. It seems the post has been left uncommented on for some reason.

[Elamarna]

Have you gentlemen seen Edwards latest post on JTR? It revolves around the matter of where Mizen was when first spotted by Neil, and adds quite a lot of material to what has previously been discussed. It seems the post has been left uncommented on for some reason.

Simple Christer. because I have made it very clear I will not debate with that person. I have also made it clear on the thread I will not reply.

There is LITTLE new material which addresses the various issues relating to the positioning of Mizen. It's mainly the same arguments as used previously dressed up differently.
To be fair one point, had not I think.been raised before, that being Mizen would not walk his beat with his lamp light exposed, such is of course very true.
However, i do not suggest he walked his beat with the lamp exposed at all times.

Mizen again is presented as a shining light of accuracy and truth, while Neil guesses and is mistaken

The use of the Phrase " Neil thought he saw" is interesting when compared with the phrasing used directly afterwards for Mizen, where it reads Mizen "Said".

The former is automatically questioning Neil, while the later implies acceptance of Mizen.

Again none of it makes Neil's testimony go away.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Simple Christer. because I have made it very clear I will not debate with that person. I have also made it clear on the thread I will not reply.

There is LITTLE new material which addresses the various issues relating to the positioning of Mizen. It's mainly the same arguments as used previously dressed up differently.
To be fair one point, had not I think.been raised before, that being Mizen would not walk his beat with his lamp light exposed, such is of course very true.
However, i do not suggest he walked his beat with the lamp exposed at all times.

Mizen again is presented as a shining light of accuracy and truth, while Neil guesses and is mistaken

The use of the Phrase " Neil thought he saw" is interesting when compared with the phrasing used directly afterwards for Mizen, where it reads Mizen "Said".

The former is automatically questioning Neil, while the later implies acceptance of Mizen.

Again none of it makes Neil's testimony go away.



Steve

Well, you did not seem to have any problems debating with "that person" initially? The problems only seem to have arrived now?

I fail to see how it is presenting Mizen as "a shining light of accuracy and truth", to accept as the more likely thing that he was en route to the murder spot when Neil saw him. I actually find it a lot more dubious to paint Mizen out as a liar, the way saying that he never headed for Bucks Row at all does. That is by far more controversial.
As for Neil, of course he may have guessed and been mistaken - he is tasked by you to pierce through 200 yards plus of darkness, picking out Mizen as the latter passes up at the dark junction of Bakers Row, you know. And that is no easy task by any means. It will be nigh on impossible.

It is not as if a great difference is made by me between the two, where one is painted out as a villain and the other as an angel, is it? It is instead accepting that Mizen probably did what he said he did and that Neil was unable to see as far and accurately as he believed he did. It is a very mundane explanation.
Yours, though, painting Mizen out as a rotten egg, is nothing of the sort. It´s highly remarkable.

And of course Neils testimony will not "go away". Ripperology is not about making things go away (or turning PC:s into villains for no reason at all). It is about offering as simple and credible solutions to apparent enigmas as can be done.

I find that is exactly what "that person" does in this case. He rules the totally improbable out in order for the very mundane and credible, whereas you choose to do it the fundamentalist way - and end up with a lying PC. After which you accuse ME of painting with too broad a brush...?!

I guess its everybody to this own, but I don't see any cadres of followers any time soon for you. Least of all when you first debate extensively with someone, only to then pull the plug and claim that you do NOT debate with "that person", come to think of it.

"That person", by the way - isn't that a common line for spinsters in comedies?

Maybe you should make me "such a person" too? I consort with "that person", you know (shudder). It WOULD facilitate matters for you.

[Elamarna]

Well, you did not seem to have any problems debating with "that person" initially? The problems only seem to have arrived now?

I fail to see how it is presenting Mizen as "a shining light of accuracy and truth", to accept as the more likely thing that he was en route to the murder spot when Neil saw him. I actually find it a lot more dubious to paint Mizen out as a liar, the way saying that he never headed for Bucks Row at all does. That is by far more controversial.
As for Neil, of course he may have guessed and been mistaken - he is tasked by you to pierce through 200 yards plus of darkness, picking out Mizen as the latter passes up at the dark junction of Bakers Row, you know. And that is no easy task by any means. It will be nigh on impossible.

It is not as if a great difference is made by me between the two, where one is painted out as a villain and the other as an angel, is it? It is instead accepting that Mizen probably did what he said he did and that Neil was unable to see as far and accurately as he believed he did. It is a very mundane explanation.
Yours, though, painting Mizen out as a rotten egg, is nothing of the sort. It´s highly remarkable.

And of course Neils testimony will not "go away". Ripperology is not about making things go away (or turning PC:s into villains for no reason at all). It is about offering as simple and credible solutions to apparent enigmas as can be done.

I find that is exactly what "that person" does in this case. He rules the totally improbable out in order for the very mundane and credible, whereas you choose to do it the fundamentalist way - and end up with a lying PC. After which you accuse ME of painting with too broad a brush...?!

I guess its everybody to this own, but I don't see any cadres of followers any time soon for you. Least of all when you first debate extensively with someone, only to then pull the plug and claim that you do NOT debate with "that person", come to think of it.

"That person", by the way - isn't that a common line for spinsters in comedies?

Maybe you should make me "such a person" too? I consort with "that person", you know (shudder). It WOULD facilitate matters for you.

It is a personal issue, unconnected to Ripperology Christer.
Indeed my first response was so short that you criticised me for it.

If you had read the book, you would know, I actually do not paint Mizen as a villain at all, not even a rotten egg, just a man covering his back.

I see the point about Neil "thought he saw" which gives an impression to the reader when compared to Mizen is not mentioned, Fair enough it was not your post.

However, one could have just said Neil "said he saw", or both men "claimed". But such was not said.

Of course, you don't know how credible any of my suggestions are, because you have not read the book, and hence do not know what those suggestions really are, or the arguments for and against.

Followers? it's not about egos, or who believes who.
Actually there are plenty who like the work overall.

The publicity that you and Mr Stow have provided is fantastic, thank you.


Steve

[Fisherman]

It is a personal issue, unconnected to Ripperology Christer.
Indeed my first response was so short that you criticised me for it.

Apparently, that "issue" was not around until today?

If you had read the book, you would know, I actually do not paint Mizen as a villain at all, not even a rotten egg, just a man covering his back.

Then I´d be interested to know why you DO paint him as a rotten egg out here? Because that IS what you do. No police should "cover his back" if it involves lying, because that DOES make you a rotten egg. So please do not try to make it out as if you are not pointing a finger at him as a liar.

I see the point about Neil "thought he saw" which gives an impression to the reader when compared to Mizen is not mentioned, Fair enough it was not your post.

However, one could have just said Neil "said he saw", or both men "claimed". But such was not said.

If you could avoid being ridiculous, much would be gained. Compare this choice of words to your flat out claim that Mizen lied. Proportions, please!

Of course, you don't know how credible any of my suggestions are, because you have not read the book, and hence do not know what those suggestions really are, or the arguments for and against.

I know quite well how credible your suggestion is that Neil could see Mizen in darkness 200 yards plus away, as he passed the smallish fraction of the Baker´s Row junction in two seconds or so. I need no book to realize the overall credibility of that suggestion.

Followers? it's not about egos, or who believes who.

Making a sound impression and being in the know is what will provide followers. And book buyers. Failing to do so and instead presenting untenable speculation to tarnish PC:s for obvious reasons will result in the opposite. That has nothing to do with egos, but everything to do with handling the evidence in a fashion that attracts positive attention.

Actually there are plenty who like the work overall.

Well, then I can only guess that the book is the polar opposite of the thoughts you expand on here and in podcasts.

The publicity that you and Mr Stow have provided is fantastic, thank you.


Steve

Then you should be ecstatic to learn that there is more to come.

[drstrange169]

>>Have you gentlemen seen Edwards latest post on JTR? It revolves around the matter of where Mizen was when first spotted by Neil, and adds quite a lot of material to what has previously been discussed. It seems the post has been left uncommented on for some reason.<<

With good reason, it's error filled, biased and since the person is discussing Steve's theory, claims not to have read his book, is tantamount to trolling.

Which is a great shame, because of its digital nature, Steve's book lends itself to correcting errors.

All the criticism so far has been contained to petty and largely irrelevant nitpicking, factually incorrect information, character assassination and alternative speculation, speculation which, as anyone who has actually read the book knows, is canvassed in Steve's book anyway.

So what's to comment on?

[drstrange169]

>> To be fair one point, had not I think.been raised before, that being Mizen would not walk his beat with his lamp light exposed, such is of course very true. <<

Can anyone point me to a citation that Victorian Bobbies didn't walk their night beat with the light on?

As I understand it, the whole purpose of a beat bobby was to check dark spaces, doors, windows, passers-by etc. all of which entailed the use of their Bullseye lantern.

According to Monty's book, they blocked the light to "improve stealth", walking beats wasn't a stealth issue, quite the opposite, they were there to be seen.

One can imagine Bobbies hiding, awaiting catching criminals, would want to block there lights, but what "stealth" was involved with Mizen walking down Baker's Row?

[Elamarna]

>> To be fair one point, had not I think.been raised before, that being Mizen would not walk his beat with his lamp light exposed, such is of course very true. <<

Can anyone point me to a citation that Victorian Bobbies didn't walk their night beat with the light on?

As I understand it, the whole purpose of a beat bobby was to check dark spaces, doors, windows, passers-by etc. all of which entailed the use of their Bullseye lantern.

According to Monty's book, they blocked the light to "improve stealth", walking beats wasn't a stealth issue, quite the opposite, they were there to be seen.

One can imagine Bobbies hiding, awaiting catching criminals, would want to block there lights, but what "stealth" was involved with Mizen walking down Baker's Row?

That's a fair point, and one I may address in the next update, if we get a definitive reply Dusty.
I have assumed he turned the beam on and off as he felt was needed.


Steve

[Fisherman]

>>Have you gentlemen seen Edwards latest post on JTR? It revolves around the matter of where Mizen was when first spotted by Neil, and adds quite a lot of material to what has previously been discussed. It seems the post has been left uncommented on for some reason.<<

With good reason, it's error filled, biased and since the person is discussing Steve's theory, claims not to have read his book, is tantamount to trolling.

Which is a great shame, because of its digital nature, Steve's book lends itself to correcting errors.

All the criticism so far has been contained to petty and largely irrelevant nitpicking, factually incorrect information, character assassination and alternative speculation, speculation which, as anyone who has actually read the book knows, is canvassed in Steve's book anyway.

So what's to comment on?

I should say your claim the the criticism is about "nitpicking".

[drstrange169]

>> I should say your claim the the criticism is about "nitpicking".<<

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Just to be clear, can you point to any errors in the book that need correcting?

Because, as I've already pointed out, they can be corrected.

So far nobody has suggested any.

All we've had thus far is bluster.

[Fisherman]

>> To be fair one point, had not I think.been raised before, that being Mizen would not walk his beat with his lamp light exposed, such is of course very true. <<

Can anyone point me to a citation that Victorian Bobbies didn't walk their night beat with the light on?

As I understand it, the whole purpose of a beat bobby was to check dark spaces, doors, windows, passers-by etc. all of which entailed the use of their Bullseye lantern.

According to Monty's book, they blocked the light to "improve stealth", walking beats wasn't a stealth issue, quite the opposite, they were there to be seen.

One can imagine Bobbies hiding, awaiting catching criminals, would want to block there lights, but what "stealth" was involved with Mizen walking down Baker's Row?

It has always been my understanding that the light was used to shine on things and to signal, whereas the light was hidden during normal patrolling.

The bullseye lantern was worn on the belt by a PC; it would have been hot to handle and it allowed for the PC to have his hands free. If the lamp was turned on, it would have produced a wobbling light in front of the PC as he walked, and it would seriously impair his night vision. Plus, of course, I think we would have read about PC.s parading the streets like a string of pearls if the light was left on. The lantern was referred to as a "dark lantern". Here is a post on Bullseye lamps by poster Graham:

"Policemen (and others, nightwatchmen, etc) used what was known as a dark lantern. These utilised either a candle or oil, and had a sliding panel to shut off the beam. They must have got rather hot... Sherlock Holmes had a dark lantern with him in several of his adventures, and a dark lantern was issued to one of the pirates in Gilbert & Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance."

Some believe the shutter was part of a signaling system, but it was not. A PC who signaled a colleague simply waved the lantern from side to side.

This link: https://www.steppeshillfarmantiques....ers/march-2013 leads to a site where there is a picture of two policemen, one using the lit lamp and one wearing it in his belt, with the light hidden.

The text of the site also tells us that it was common practice to put the lamp under your clothes on cold nights, thereby supplying extra warmth. Another curiosity is the name "Black Lantern"; that name was also used as a description of any PC who would take bribes to allow criminals to get away.

There are bits and pieces that support that the lantern was normally not shining, like this one, quoting Lamb as he took a look inside Dutfields Yard:

"Seeing people moving about some distance down Berner-street, I ran down that street followed by Constable 426 H. I went into the gateway of No. 40, Berner-street and saw something dark lying on the right-hand side, close to the gates. I turned my light on and found it was a woman."

Note how this must have meant that Lamb had carried his lamp with the light hidden to be able to turn the light on.

A further example is found in the testimony of PC Thompson, relating to the Coles case in 1891:

"When I turned into the passage I could see the woman lying under the arch on the roadway, about midway under the arch. I turned my lamp on as soon as I got there. I could not see it was a woman until I turned my lamp on."