Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Fisherman]

It would be nice if one day you would simply use the quote facility, it makes replying so much easier, but so be it.




We certainly do have different interpretation of the word, the podcast gave a truthful picture that there are no official records of the beats for J division which was the issue being talked about. there was NO ERROR



Neil is very clear he says he SEES Mizen IN Bakers Row. There is no solid evidence to dispute that Neil was incorrect, other than "speculation" that it was unlikely.

The "reality check" as you refer to it is simply opinion, the science shows it is very possible.
Once again this is interpretation, not Error.



Not at all, he simply looked down Bucks Row, it appears he responded to Neil at that POINT.

The Suggestion (speculation) that Mizen had not intended to go down Bucks Row is supported by evidence, that you do not accept such is irrelevant to this question. To speculate on what he may have done after the event, would be itself based on pure speculation, not evidence, which does not exist.
Such speculation we know, is commonly used for the Lechmere theory.




I disagree, it presents the view that the Carmen believed there was a woman in need of attention in Bucks Row, but they were not sure of her actual condition. Again we see its interpretation, NOT an Error




Yes thats your interpretation, not FACT. My interpretation may be wrong, as may yours be, that does not make either of them Errors




Once again it is clearly demonstrated by this very post, that these are not Errors, but differences in interpretation.




The transparent nature of these posts clear demonstrates the objection to the work is not based serious factual flaws, but a concern that the work may damage a theory.
The real concern of course, is that those objecting do not Know what the work actually proposes.

The suggestion that Mizen would have turned his lamp on for no reason at all before arriving at the junction of Bakers Row if he never intended to go down Bucks Row says it all. You HAVE to have the lamp on, otherwise Neil could not possibly have seen him, and you will NOT accept that he was in all probability not a liar. So you invent the totally improbable, turn things upside down totally after having agreed that PC:s did not walk their beats with their lamps turned on - and then you speak of ME speculating! It is a three and a half somersault with one and a half spin, and it lands yourself on your arse. Priceless!!

As I said, I can only lead a horse to water, I cannot make it drink. The same, I believe, goes for donkeys. Congratulations on a flawless life.

[Elamarna]

The suggestion that Mizen would have turned his lamp on for no reason at all before arriving at the junction of Bakers Row if he never intended to go down Bucks Row says it all.

There is a reason, I have never said there is no reason.
The problem is that you have assumed that I suggest that Mizen walks down Bakers Row, at a constant speed, and apparently that he looks over his shoulder down Whites Row, which is not what is suggested at all. The details were not discussed in the podcast, and having not read the book, you are clutching at mythical straws, which do not actually exist

You HAVE to have the lamp on, otherwise Neil could not possibly have seen him, and you will NOT accept that he was in all probability not a liar. So you invent the totally improbable, turn things upside down totally after having agreed that PC:s did not walk their beats with their lamps turned on - and then you speak of ME speculating! It is a three and a half somersault with one and a half spin, and it lands yourself on your arse. Priceless!!

Read what has been posted not what you want to have been posted.
I did not say they did not walk with their lamps turn on, but that they did not walk All of their beats with lamps on, rather they turned on when and if needed. A very different thing.

As I said, I can only lead a horse to water, I cannot make it drink. The same, I believe, goes for donkeys. Congratulations on a flawless life.

I see we are starting to resort to insults again.


Steve

[Fisherman]

There is a reason, I have never said there is no reason.
The problem is that you have assumed that I suggest that Mizen walks down Bakers Row, at a constant speed, and apparently that he looks over his shoulder down Whites Row, which is not what is suggested at all. The details were not discussed in the podcast, and having not read the book, you are clutching at mythical straws, which do not actually exist

Oh! AGAIN the book explains it all! Wow, Steve - Ripperology has a new Messiah! AND a new Bible!!

Read what has been posted not what you want to have been posted.
I did not say they did not walk with their lamps turn on, but that they did not walk All of their beats with lamps on, rather they turned on when and if needed. A very different thing.

And so we now have Steve disowning his earlier statement that "such isn of course the case" when I said that PC:s did not walk their beats with their lamps on. Now it is a case of CERTAIN beats (presumably first and foremost the Bucks Row beat) demanding the lamp to have been turned on.

Question: You said that you think that Mizen turned his lamp on just before coming up the the Bakers Row junction. Therefore, Bucks Row will have differed from Bakers Row - in the former, it was lamp on, in the latter, it was lights off. Why would that be? Pray tell us!

I see we are starting to resort to insults again.

Steve

Your ripperology insulting common intelligence is not my problem.

[Elamarna]

Not even difficult to rebut.

Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

There is a reason, I have never said there is no reason.
The problem is that you have assumed that I suggest that Mizen walks down Bakers Row, at a constant speed, and apparently that he looks over his shoulder down Whites Row, which is not what is suggested at all. The details were not discussed in the podcast, and having not read the book, you are clutching at mythical straws, which do not actually exist

Oh! AGAIN the book explains it all! Wow, Steve - Ripperology has a new Messiah! AND a new Bible!!

I just implied that your assumptions that I suggest Mizen was walking at a constant pace, and simply looked over his right shoulder are incorrect, so its not just in the book.
The issue of the lamp was never mentioned in the Podcast, was it?

Read what has been posted not what you want to have been posted.
I did not say they did not walk with their lamps turn on, but that they did not walk All of their beats with lamps on, rather they turned on when and if needed. A very different thing.

And so we now have Steve disowning his earlier statement that "such isn of course the case" when I said that PC:s did not walk their beats with their lamps on. Now it is a case of CERTAIN beats (presumably first and foremost the Bucks Row beat) demanding the lamp to have been turned on.

I have been very consistent in my view on this:

Post # 291
"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."

Post # 297
"I have assumed he turned the beam on and off as he felt was needed."

Post # 314
"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""

Post # 325
"I have said very clearly he would open his lamp when he wanted or needed to. Hence, it must be clear the suggestion is that he decided to open his lamp when he reached the junction. Mizen's possible actions on reaching the junction are all discussed in the book you have not read, and were not mentioned at all in the podcast."


Still trying to misrepresent, and doing it so poorly

Question: You said that you think that Mizen turned his lamp on just before coming up the the Bakers Row junction. Therefore, Bucks Row will have differed from Bakers Row - in the former, it was lamp on, in the latter, it was lights off. Why would that be? Pray tell us!

I see we are starting to resort to insults again.


Your ripperology insulting common intelligence is not my problem.

Another attempt at insulting fails to hit the target, no surprise.

[drstrange169]

>> Yes, I am convinced that Mizen had his lamp on as Neil saw him. <<

Of course, we do need to note there is no actual information to support your conviction.



>>Equally, I am convinced that Neil only saw him long after he had exited Bakers Row.<<

That's because you approach the subject with a heavy bias and do not accept alternative information e. g. the facts as stated by Neil. Such is the downfall of suspect motivated posts.



>>Equally, I am convinced that Mizen answered Neils signaling - something he could not have done had he not had his light turned on.<<

Mizen said nothing about being signaled, quite the contrary, in fact, he claimed to have "found" Neil who was "shining his light on the pavement" at the time.

Actual facts seldom fit flights of fancy.

It has to be noted that everybody who interacted with Mizen gives a different version of events to his.

I wonder why that is?

Perhaps with 20 years service behind him, Neil was just not as competent a witness as Mizen.

But then, if we believe Mizen, Cross and Paul only told him he was wanted by a policeman and they mentioned nothing about Mrs Nichols. I guess as a competent policeman, in your view, he needed not to ask the most basic question of all, why he was wanted?

Being such a competent policeman, Mizen it's claimed didn't think two men leaving the scene of a murder was anything to "attract attention".

Being a competent policeman, he didn't bother mentioning to Neil that he saw the two men he claims Neil supposedly sent.

And so it goes on. They were all out of step but our Jim, as Irving Berlin wrote.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=drstrange169;n721050]>> Yes, I am convinced that Mizen had his lamp on as Neil saw him. <<

Of course, we do need to note there is no actual information to support your conviction.

No, its nothing but a fair and logical guess - which is way better than the polar opposite!

>>Equally, I am convinced that Neil only saw him long after he had exited Bakers Row.<<

That's because you approach the subject with a heavy bias and do not accept alternative information e. g. the facts as stated by Neil. Such is the downfall of suspect motivated posts.

No, it is because he would be impossible to make out if it was dark and because I don't believe that Neil used much time to stake out the Bakers Row Junction, knowing quite well that it was nigh on impossible to see and that Mizen would only pass up there for a few seconds per beat. Logic again, thus.

>>Equally, I am convinced that Mizen answered Neils signaling - something he could not have done had he not had his light turned on.<<

Mizen said nothing about being signaled, quite the contrary, in fact, he claimed to have "found" Neil who was "shining his light on the pavement" at the time.

Actual facts seldom fit flights of fancy. <<[/B]

Very true - and who would be better suited to know all about that than you? In this case, it is lucky that we have material where Neils says that he signaled PC:s in both directions (and yes, that would mean Thain and Mizen) and was ANSWERED! If you think that means that Mizen yelled "COMING!!" at the top of his voice, that's your business.
Is a relief to see that you have abandoned the very poor effort to claim that "we know" that Neil had his lamp turned on when patrolling. You went very silent on the point once you were proven wrong - which IS the commendable thing to to, so I couldn't be more pleased.

Now I'm off and won't be back for some time. No more mischief while I'm gone, please.

[Fisherman]

[B]

But then, if we believe Mizen, Cross and Paul only told him he was wanted by a policeman and they mentioned nothing about Mrs Nichols. I guess as a competent policeman, in your view, he needed not to ask the most basic question of all, why he was wanted?

I notice I missed these attempts at being clever. So let's include them as a send-off!

Mizen had been told that there was a woman in Bucks Row that was either dead or drunk, and that there was another PC present who wanted his help. Policemen do not make it their business to explain to bystanders what they are doing and why, and so Mizen had no reason at all to think that Neil had divulged that kind of information. to the carmen. Nothing at all strange about that, I'm afraid - unless we WANT it to be.

Being such a competent policeman, Mizen it's claimed didn't think two men leaving the scene of a murder was anything to "attract attention".

The question asked about anybody LEAVING THE SCENE so at to attract attention rules out any possibility for Mizen to answer to begin with since he was NOT ON THE SCENE. More pertinently, the question asked could just as well have been worded "Did you see anybody who could have been the murderer/s?". And to Mizen, it would have been impossible for the carmen to have been the murderers, since he presumed NEIL was the finder and the carmen passers-by up at the murder spot AFTER the body was found. Therefore, they could not be the killers, and therefore, they were not the persons the question about attracting attention sought to find.

Being a competent policeman, he didn't bother mentioning to Neil that he saw the two men he claims Neil supposedly sent.

Why would he? It was of course totally obvious that he was sent by the carmen, the way Mizen saw it: He was told that there was a PC in place who had sent for him, and when he arrived Neil was there. Why would he say: "By the way, those two guys you sent did their job"? It would have been bloody obvious to both men if Mizen had been lied to, right? Or so Mizen will have thought - he had no idea that Neil had NOT been there when the carmen were.

Illogical reasoning never takes flight, I'm afraid. Nor does it collect vast hoards of Mizen-haters, who thinks he was a liar. But it WILL affect peoples view of you.

Now I really must go. Thanks for the entertainment.