Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Fisherman]

>> 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.

I disagree, of course, with the possible exception that I agree that you are likely not understanding what I am saying. Let's leave it there.

PS. Since I have not read the book, I find it difficult to point out errors in it. But I work from the assumption that what Steve says on the boards and on podcasts is representative of what he says in the book. Maybe that is wrong, though, in which case I would be happy to have it pointed out that he says one thing on the boards and another in the book.

[Fisherman]

I'm off to the gym now, so I will not comment any further until at a later stage. I am glad I at least got the bullseye matter sorted. Perhaps something to agree on, at long last?

Of course, in spite of my having found that Lamb and Thompson normally would have carried their lamps with the light hidden, that does not mean that PC Mizen can not have been an exception to that rule, and you are welcome to push that option if you want to. It would be a welcome and much needed addition to the proposition that Neil could have seen him from 200 yards plus away in utter darkness as he in two seconds passed up at the Bakers Row junction.
To be fair, I myself am convinced that Mizen DID have his light showing as Neil saw him. The only little difference between your take and mine is that he had turned it on because he was on his way down Bucks Row, searching for the woman and the PC he had been told about by Charles Lechmere.

[drstrange169]

>> I am glad we at least got the bullseye matter sorted.<<

Always good to agree, the claims about "stealth" were quite bizarre and a good indicator of the quality of the criticism.

[drstrange169]

Re post #31 >> I disagree, of course ...<<

What's to disagree? Either there are errors in Steve's book or there aren't.

Can you name any error in the book that has been brought up here or on jtr forums thus far?

[Fisherman]

None of Steves errors are errors quoted from the book. I thought I made it abundantly clear that I have not read it? The errors pointed out are from the podcast and the boards. As I also pointed out, I would find it odd if he sats one thing in podcasts and on the net, but the polar opposite in his book. If this is so, just say it.
You may be aware that this thread is devoted to the podcast and not to the book.

[Fisherman]

>> I am glad we at least got the bullseye matter sorted.<<

Always good to agree, the claims about "stealth" were quite bizarre and a good indicator of the quality of the criticism.

I believe the term "stealth" was a quotation from Neil Bells book about London policing.

But now that we agree, can you also see how that affects the whole matter of whether Neil was likely to have been able to see Mizen more than 200 yards away in the dark of the night, as the latter passed a minuscule section of the junction up at Bakers Row? It would seem that Steve claims to have been aware of how the lamp worked ("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."), but if so, I fail to understand how he could persist in thinking that Neil would have glanced west in the exact two seconds that Mizen passed (which may have been once per half hour!), and was able to grab hold of his bullseye lamp and start signaling in that same period of time, while Mizen simultaneously would have looked over his shoulder to his left and seen the signaling - and all the (extremely short) while it was pitch dark and Neil would have to make out a dark figure from 200 yards plus...?

To me, the mere suggestion becomes quite futile - and it is in no way helped by how Mizen will NOT have had his lamp turned on if he was the scoundrel he is pointed out as.

It therefore seems to me a near certainty that Steve has painted Mizen out as a man skipping over his duties and lying about it, while all the while he seems to have done the exact opposite.

In your book this may perhaps amount to "nitpicking", I don't know. In my book, it amounts to a seriously flawed and extremely unhealthy reasoning.

[drstrange169]

>>The bullseye lantern was worn on the belt by a PC; it would have been hot to handle ...<<

If you had actually looked at the site you posted,https://www.steppeshillfarmantiques....ers/march-2013 you'd have seen the lamp had handles for holding.

Of course they could hold them.



>> 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.<<

According to Neil Bell's book, page 90, the lamp was worn on the side of the belt to avoid unwanted light spillage when walking.



>>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...<<

Lamb was on a major road (Commercial) walking with another PC, so no surprise he didn't have a light on.

Not the best example to use.



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

Swallow Gardens was well lit by two street lights according to Thompson's testimony and it's a very confused testimony.

First he says he saw the body, then says he couldn't see the body in the very next sentence!

[drstrange169]

>> None of Steves errors are errors quoted from the book. I thought I made it abundantly clear that I have not read it? The errors pointed out are from the podcast and the boards. As I also pointed out, I would find it odd if he sats one thing in podcasts and on the net, but the polar opposite in his book. If this is so, just say it.<<

But there aren't errors, that's the point.

You seem to think if someone holds a different opinion to you it's an error. It isn't.

Hence the nitpicking.

There are parts of Steve's book were I disagree with his opinions, but that doesn't make an error.



>>You may be aware that this thread is devoted to the podcast and not to the book.<<

Since, nowhere in the podcast does Steve talk about such things as Bullseye lanterns etc, apparently not.

[Fisherman]

>>The bullseye lantern was worn on the belt by a PC; it would have been hot to handle ...<<

If you had actually looked at the site you posted,https://www.steppeshillfarmantiques....ers/march-2013 you'd have seen the lamp had handles for holding.

Of course they could hold them.



>> 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.<<

According to Neil Bell's book, page 90, the lamp was worn on the side of the belt to avoid unwanted light spillage when walking.



>>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...<<

Lamb was on a major road (Commercial) walking with another PC, so no surprise he didn't have a light on.

Not the best example to use.



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

Swallow Gardens was well lit by two street lights according to Thompson's testimony and it's a very confused testimony.

First he says he saw the body, then says he couldn't see the body in the very next sentence!

Neither man had the light on until they needed to check things. They would not obscure the light on account of a road being well lit if the standard procedure was to have the light on. Why would they do that? To save fuel?

What Thompson says is that he could not see that Coles was a woman until he turned his light on. There is nothing at all to be confused about:

"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."

I guess we can go on forever arguing about whether we think the article is "confusing" or not, so let's not do that since it would shift the focus. And we would not want that, would we?

PC:s normally did NOT have their light turned on when patrolling.

[Fisherman]

>> None of Steves errors are errors quoted from the book. I thought I made it abundantly clear that I have not read it? The errors pointed out are from the podcast and the boards. As I also pointed out, I would find it odd if he sats one thing in podcasts and on the net, but the polar opposite in his book. If this is so, just say it.<<

But there aren't errors, that's the point.

You seem to think if someone holds a different opinion to you it's an error. It isn't.

Hence the nitpicking.

There are parts of Steve's book were I disagree with his opinions, but that doesn't make an error.

The Bullseye lamp business is an example of an error, and it is an error that helped Steve shape the opinion that Mizen was a liar.


>>You may be aware that this thread is devoted to the podcast and not to the book.<<

Since, nowhere in the podcast does Steve talk about such things as Bullseye lanterns etc, apparently not.

Here it is again: The errors pointed out are from the podcast and ensuing discussions on the boards.
I specifically underlined the important part to facilitate for you to understand what I am saying.

[Fisherman]

So is this the probable scenario: Hmmm, Whitechapel Road, let's turn the lamp off, there is a lot of light here anyway. And now I turn into Brady Street, maybe I should leave the lamp off until I get a little further into the street? Okay, now I should turn it on, it is getting darker, and here we turn into Bucks Row, let's keep it on until we reach Schneiders cap factory, were there is a lamp shining, I can obscure my light then, and afterwards, as I have passed the lamp, it is time to turn it on again, here we go ...

I understand if it would be helpful to Steves (and you) suggestion that Mizen was a rotten liar if he had his light turned on up at the Bakers Row junction, but the odds seem stacked against it.

Maybe its just me, but I think we may sometimes need to bow to the obvious.

[Elamarna]

Please Christer, you keep talking of errors by me, apart from attributing a quote from Paul to the wrong source in the WS question and answer section, which I acknowledged, can you supply another actual error, rather than simply having a different interpretation to you?

Steve

[Fisherman]

Please Christer, you keep talking of errors by me, apart from attributing a quote from Paul to the wrong source in the WS question and answer section, which I acknowledged, can you supply another actual error, rather than simply having a different interpretation to you?

Steve

Since you yourself admit to the podcast not being correct on all counts, there is no further call for pointing out this. The real problem arises when you speak of "interpretations". Itīs all good and well if there are different interpretations of different matters, but when it comes to the case of the supposed sighting, where Neil would have seen Mizen up at the Bakers Row junction, it must be realized that no sound interpretation can lead to the suggestion you are making: that Jonas Mizen lied to the inquest when he claimed to have gone directly to Bucks Row.

Your "interpretation" of the events is that he never did so, that he intended to walk right past Bucks Row and that he never had any plans to do his duty and seek out the woman mentioned by the carman.

I am not saying that this is an error per se, since I cannot prove it. But I Can point to how it is an idea born out of sheer ignorance and a left out check of the facts, and that is perhaps worse than an error.

We know that it was a dark night. We are aware that Paul only says he notices Lechmere as he arrives outside Browns. We also know that Lechmere says that he HEARS Paul from 30-40 yards away, and waits for him to emerge from the darkness. Ergo, neither man seems to have been able to make out the other person from a distance of 30-40 yards ot thereabouts.

Furthermore, Neil says that he heard Thain, and signaled him. So he did not SEE his colleague, a hundred yards away.

Nevertheless, you are proposing that Neil saw Mizen from two hundred yards plus. In darkness!

if Mizen had had his bullseye lamp on, he could perhaps have seen him, but it seems clear that PC:s patrolled with the lamplight obscured. You own take of the issue was worded like this in an earlier point of yours:

"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."

Apparently we agree that the lamp Mizen carried would have been dark - IF he intended to walk right past Bucks Row.

If NOT, and if Mizen was telling the truth when he testified, then he would probably have turned his light on, searching for the woman.

Moreover, Neil would have been acutely aware that Mizen walked a beat up at Bakers Row, and so the only logical thing for him to surmise was that IF he could see Mizen, then the latter WOULD be in Bakers Row! Neil was at that stage not aware that Mizen had been instructed by Lechmere about the presence of the woman and also that another PC was already in place, so he would not have expected Mizen to show up in Bucks Row!

As has been pointed out, if Mizen had passed up at the junction, there would have been very few seconds only for the two to take notice of each other. It would predispose that Neil - who could not know when Mizen, possibly on a half hour beat would show up at the junction - would have posed himself outside Essex Wharf at the exact two seconds when Mizen passed, plus that Mizen must have looked slightly back over his shoulder and to the left as he passed the junction if those few seconds.

If Lechmere and Paul could no see each other from thirty-forty yards away, how on earth would Neil be able to see Mizen from more than TWO HUNDRED yards away? In darkness?

Too add to this, there is another problem. There was a lamp burning outside Schneiders cap factory, and that lamp will have been placed in Neils line of sight. And what happens when we try to see something in the distance in darkness - and a lamp is placed in-between us and that far away point we are trying to see? We are disabled to do so, that's what happens - the light will ruin our chances of seeing what is hidden in darkness behind it. Try it out, and you will see, Steve! Put a car facing yourself fifty yards away from you in a dark forest. Put a person two hundred yards away, onehundrsed and fifty yards behind the car. If you can see that person - which gets unlikelier the darker it gets - what happens when the car turns the headlights on?
This is how the Schneiders lamp puts any idea that a person could be seen 150 yards behind it to rest. It cannot be done.

These things, you have not factored in. You have factored one thing only in: That Neil said that he saw Mizen in Bakers Row. And you gloatingly tell me that what Neil said "won't go away".

Well, neither does the notion that Neil simply must have been mistaken do so.

This is something that you lightheartedly want to call an "interpretation" of the facts, but it seems you have not assessed the facts at all. If you HAVE, what is it that makes you believe that Neil could see Mizen - apart from what seems to be a faulty supposition only on Neils behalf?

This is a VERY crucial matter, and not something to try and sweep under the carpet - it will help people make their minds up about whether Mizen was a likely liar or not. This is why I expected you to admit that it seems impossible that Neil could have seen Mizen up at Bakers Row if Mizen did not have any light visible - but you instead opted for telling me that Neils testimony "will not go away".

I hope this goes to show you why I do not invest much in how you "interpret" the affair, because that interpretation seems to build on either an extensive lack of insight or a bias towards the Lechmere theory that allows for something very different from what the known facts allow for.

I notice that Gareth on the other site urges people to never get close to the Lechmere theory since it "poisons" people. That is also an interesting "interpretation" of things - apparently, we should not be allowed to be critical to work that is critical of the Lechmere theory, come what may - your side represents pure-hearted efforts and my side malice and hatred only.

Another poster on the same site congratulates Edward on a brilliant series of posts.

You do neither, since you refuse to talk to "that person". Nowadays.

So talk to me.

[Elamarna]

Since you yourself admit to the podcast not being correct on all counts, there is no further call for pointing out this.

Not so, I acknowledge that In the Whitechapel Society, question and answer section, which is actually a separate podcast, I misattributed a source.

From your response one assumes that there are NO ERRORS in the main podcast You ARE ABLE TO RAISE

The real problem arises when you speak of "interpretations". Itīs all good and well if there are different interpretations of different matters, but when it comes to the case of the supposed sighting, where Neil would have seen Mizen up at the Bakers Row junction, it must be realized that no sound interpretation can lead to the suggestion you are making: that Jonas Mizen lied to the inquest when he claimed to have gone directly to Bucks Row.

My suggestion is based on Neil's inquest testimony, that you do not like that does not make it go away. It is not an Error

Your "interpretation" of the events is that he never did so, that he intended to walk right past Bucks Row and that he never had any plans to do his duty and seek out the woman mentioned by the carman.

I am not saying that this is an error per se, since I cannot prove it. But I Can point to how it is an idea born out of sheer ignorance and a left out check of the facts, and that is perhaps worse than an error.

It's not an Error at all.
The suggestion is not born out of ignorance or a failure to check facts, Rather it is based on the facts, and as been extensively checked.

We know that it was a dark night. We are aware that Paul only says he notices Lechmere as he arrives outside Browns. We also know that Lechmere says that he HEARS Paul from 30-40 yards away, and waits for him to emerge from the darkness. Ergo, neither man seems to have been able to make out the other person from a distance of 30-40 yards ot thereabouts.

Furthermore, Neil says that he heard Thain, and signaled him. So he did not SEE his colleague, a hundred yards away.

Nevertheless, you are proposing that Neil saw Mizen from two hundred yards plus. In darkness!

It is what Neil claims in his testimony, that you do not like it, does not make it go away. It is clearly NOT an Error

if Mizen had had his bullseye lamp on, he could perhaps have seen him, but it seems clear that PC:s patrolled with the lamplight obscured. You own take of the issue was worded like this in an earlier point of yours:

"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."

Apparently we agree that the lamp Mizen carried would have been dark - IF he intended to walk right past Bucks Row.
If NOT, and if Mizen was telling the truth when he testified, then he would probably have turned his light on, searching for the woman.

Sorry we do not agree that Mizen had no light showing when he reached Whites Row.
It would of course help if you provided the full quote giving my correct response on this, that being that he would expose his lamp as needed.

"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"


Again there is No Error

Moreover, Neil would have been acutely aware that Mizen walked a beat up at Bakers Row, and so the only logical thing for him to surmise was that IF he could see Mizen, then the latter WOULD be in Bakers Row! Neil was at that stage not aware that Mizen had been instructed by Lechmere about the presence of the woman and also that another PC was already in place, so he would not have expected Mizen to show up in Bucks Row!


As has been pointed out, if Mizen had passed up at the junction, there would have been very few seconds only for the two to take notice of each other. It would predispose that Neil - who could not know when Mizen, possibly on a half hour beat would show up at the junction - would have posed himself outside Essex Wharf at the exact two seconds when Mizen passed, plus that Mizen must have looked slightly back over his shoulder and to the left as he passed the junction if those few seconds.

If Lechmere and Paul could no see each other from thirty-forty yards away, how on earth would Neil be able to see Mizen from more than TWO HUNDRED yards away? In darkness?

No it is NOT the only logical thing for Neil to surmise, Neil's Testimony gives the distinct impression that Mizen is going along Bakers Row, not coming towards him when Neil sees him. That you believe your view is the ONLY logical choice says much.
That you find it unlikely is your choice and right, it is however completely inline with Neil's Testimony, there is again NO Error

Too add to this, there is another problem. There was a lamp burning outside Schneiders cap factory, and that lamp will have been placed in Neils line of sight. And what happens when we try to see something in the distance in darkness - and a lamp is placed in-between us and that far away point we are trying to see? We are disabled to do so, that's what happens - the light will ruin our chances of seeing what is hidden in darkness behind it. Try it out, and you will see, Steve! Put a car facing yourself fifty yards away from you in a dark forest. Put a person two hundred yards away, onehundrsed and fifty yards behind the car. If you can see that person - which gets unlikelier the darker it gets - what happens when the car turns the headlights on?
This is how the Schneiders lamp puts any idea that a person could be seen 150 yards behind it to rest. It cannot be done.

If one were to actually check, one would notice that the lamp is not in Neil's line of sight to Bakers Row, and from the proposed Position of Mizen looking back towards Neil, the light is not visible.
To compare a street light in1888 to a cars headlights is highly misleading.

These things, you have not factored in. You have factored one thing only in: That Neil said that he saw Mizen in Bakers Row. And you gloatingly tell me that what Neil said "won't go away".

Not so. all have been checked, of course it would help to read the book before making such inaccurate statements.

Well, neither does the notion that Neil simply must have been mistaken do so.

This is something that you lightheartedly want to call an "interpretation" of the facts, but it seems you have not assessed the facts at all. If you HAVE, what is it that makes you believe that Neil could see Mizen - apart from what seems to be a faulty supposition only on Neils behalf?

There is no reason to conclude Neil is mistaken, indeed I started from the position that he was, and my analysis showed there to be no factual or logical reason to believe this, thus I changed my view.
There is NO ERROR.

This is a VERY crucial matter, and not something to try and sweep under the carpet - it will help people make their minds up about whether Mizen was a likely liar or not. This is why I expected you to admit that it seems impossible that Neil could have seen Mizen up at Bakers Row if Mizen did not have any light visible - but you instead opted for telling me that Neils testimony "will not go away".

Christer there is no reason to say it's impossible, the facts demonstrate that it is clearly possible. In which case Neil's testimony will not go away, no matter how much you may wish it too.
No Error

I hope this goes to show you why I do not invest much in how you "interpret" the affair, because that interpretation seems to build on either an extensive lack of insight or a bias towards the Lechmere theory that allows for something very different from what the known facts allow for.

I really care not for what you invest in my interpretation, it is for others who read the book to decide.

I notice that Gareth on the other site urges people to never get close to the Lechmere theory since it "poisons" people. That is also an interesting "interpretation" of things - apparently, we should not be allowed to be critical to work that is critical of the Lechmere theory, come what may - your side represents pure-hearted efforts and my side malice and hatred only.

My side?

That really puts this "debate" into its true perspective, your "side" trying to defend its theory, from a book you have not read.

Another poster on the same site congratulates Edward on a brilliant series of posts.

You do neither, since you refuse to talk to "that person". Nowadays.

So talk to me.

You have claimed, more than once that there were errors on the podcast, and in these posts, it is however clear that apart from one minor error on my part, in a separate podcast, that this claim is untrue.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Not so, I acknowledge that In the Whitechapel Society, question and answer section, which is actually a separate podcast, I misattributed a source.

From your response one assumes that there are NO ERRORS in the main podcast You ARE ABLE TO RAISE




My suggestion is based on Neil's inquest testimony, that you do not like that does not make it go away. It is not an Error





It's not an Error at all.
The suggestion is not born out of ignorance or a failure to check facts, Rather it is based on the facts, and as been extensively checked.






It is what Neil claims in his testimony, that you do not like it, does not make it go away. It is clearly NOT an Error




Sorry we do not agree that Mizen had no light showing when he reached Whites Row.
It would of course help if you provided the full quote giving my correct response on this, that being that he would expose his lamp as needed.

"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"


Again there is No Error





No it is NOT the only logical thing for Neil to surmise, Neil's Testimony gives the distinct impression that Mizen is going along Bakers Row, not coming towards him when Neil sees him. That you believe your view is the ONLY logical choice says much.
That you find it unlikely is your choice and right, it is however completely inline with Neil's Testimony, there is again NO Error




If one were to actually check, one would notice that the lamp is not in Neil's line of sight to Bakers Row, and from the proposed Position of Mizen looking back towards Neil, the light is not visible.
To compare a street light in1888 to a cars headlights is highly misleading.





Not so. all have been checked, of course it would help to read the book before making such inaccurate statements.





There is no reason to conclude Neil is mistaken, indeed I started from the position that he was, and my analysis showed there to be no factual or logical reason to believe this, thus I changed my view.
There is NO ERROR.






Christer there is no reason to say it's impossible, the facts demonstrate that it is clearly possible. In which case Neil's testimony will not go away, no matter how much you may wish it too.
No Error




I really care not for what you invest in my interpretation, it is for others who read the book to decide.





My side?

That really puts this "debate" into its true perspective, your "side" trying to defend its theory, from a book you have not read.






You have claimed, more than once that there were errors on the podcast, and in these posts, it is however clear that apart from one minor error on my part, in a separate podcast, that this claim is untrue.


Steve

What a long post! I notice that you say "Sorry we do not agree that Mizen had no light showing when he reached Whites Row". But I never mentioned Whites Row at all. Are you now saying that Mizen LEFT Bakers Row with his light off and entered Whites Row with it on? Because it is becoming a tad confusing, so there is need for you to be exact about this.

I also note that you say something else that I have not commented on. You say it is untrue that there were errors in the podcast, but I didn't go into that topic in my last post. You yourself pointed out that you had made an error, so I thought it was kind of unnecessary to further point it out. But now that you mention it:

1. Suggesting that Tomkins may have been the witness at the inquest due to the slaughtermen agreeing amongst themselves or Tomkins pushing himself forward shows a lack of knowledge of how witnesses were summoned to an inquest - at the coroner's discretion. He would have interviews taken from all three from which to choose. So we know it was the coroner's choice. Error.

2. You mixed Lechmere's testimony up with Mizen's testimony of his account of the Mizen Scam. You mixed up who said what. Error.
3. You said there were less papers available for the Nichols case than any other, which was not true, it was the same as for Stride and Chapman. Error.
4. You said there were only press reports to use but there are also police files. Error.
5. You claimed that the police beats are known for the H Division. But the maps you used relate to the 1930:s and not the 1880:s. Error.
6. You seemingly thought Sergeant Kirby had a beat - the interviewer said this twice and you didn't correct it. Instead you said that we have "no idea" about it when Menges said that we did not know the beat Kirby had. Error.
7. You claimed that Mulshaw was probably asleep when Mulshaw said he thought he was awake. Error. The evidence is replaced with pure invention.
8. You ignored the police orders which outlawed payment for knocking up. Mizen admitted knocking up and wasn't punished so he will not having been charging any money for it illegally. Error. And an error that is in line with the bullseye lamp business implicating Mizen as a rotten egg.
9. You got mixed up between Paul's newspaper interview and his witness testimony. Error.
10. You got the date of the Echo article about police beats wrong, claiming it was on the 20:th of September when instead it was on the 21:st. Error.
11. You claimed that Abberline was brought in because J Division was out of its depth. Error. The material shows that this was not true.
12. You claimed that Lechmere only told Mizen that the woman was unwell, adding "shall we say". Error. We don't know this.

For a man who speaks of "half-truths" in the Lechmere theory, this is anything but a flattering list. But you may "interpret" that differently? That would be another error if so.

It does not matter that Neil said that he saw Mizen in Bakers Row, because it is impossible to do in the darkness. If Mizen had his light on, then he was en route to Bucks Row, if he did not, he would not have been able to see.

You are welcome to the publicity, as always!