Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Elamarna]

absolutely New Ford
But whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Fish has spent more than three years work researching lech and has also been personally attacked constantly by many more people. He gives as good as he takes, and IMHO I find it odd that so many have such reaction against lech as a suspect. hes exactly the type of candidate that needs more looking into. and considering all the nonsense on the boards lately re suspects (maybrick, royal conspiracy, phantom conspiracy) I really am at odds with the vitriol against lech as a suspect. I think it may have something to do with people not liking Fish and his debating style. but it takes two to tango, no?

I have the ultimate respect for El and his research ability and look forward to reading his book, but lets be frank-he and fish have a history and he has latched onto this suspect as something to refute almost obsessively. hes made statement on threads here in the past regarding lech, and the mizen scam that seem odd for someone who is supposed to be unbiased-mainly that Mizen intentionally lied about what lech told him to save his arse. when the most obvious explanation is that it was simple misunderstanding.

I wasn't going to comment on this thread until I read the book, but after your post id thought id chime in. but I agree with most of what you say especially the "keyboard warrior kindergarten" part.

Fair as normal Abby, (No pun intended).

My reasons for my view on Mizen are where the evidence as lead me. It would have been far easier to stick with the misunderstanding, and far less controversial.
However I do say in the book, it for you, the reader to decide which explanation you think is the most reasonable.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I had been improperly inebriated, I would never have posted; I've learned my lesson with that regards.

This is a momentous occasion - an actual response from Herlock after, what, two years. That it would come defending Stevie is (yawwwn) not surprising. I've always been curious - HERlock; is that a reference to you being a woman?

Firstly Robert, if I’ve never exchanged a post with you before then there’s no particular reason for that fact. There will be numerous posters that I haven’t exchanged posts with. This doesn’t mean that I hold any detrimental opinion of them.

Second, I don’t really understand the comment about Steve? I just thought your post strangely bitter. I’ve always found Steve vary fair as a poster and I’d guess that the majority posters would agree with me on that.

Thirdly, my username comes from the fact that I’m interested in all things Doyle and Holmes and have a book parodies where the main character is Herlock Sholmes written by the creator of Billy Bunter.

And fourthly, Steve is the only poster that I’ve actually met in person (once in The Ten Bells and I can assure you that neither of us were dressed as Victorian Prostitutes) and he will confirm that I’m 6’2” tall, 20 stone, I have a beard and a shaved head and that my name is Michael. I won’t go into further detail but I can assure you that I’m not a woman.


Why would it matter if I was a man or a woman?

[Abby Normal]

I rarely post here, choosing instead to learn from far more knowledgeable people than myself. What I have seen, repeatedly, on this thread has really disappointed me. Steve has spent the last three years writing a complete account of all scenarios regarding the Bucks Row murder. His aim has been to provide the reader with all the facts so they may make their own minds up. I've actually read the book, and it's good, well researched and innovative. It is most importantly unbiased. All statements are linked to source material, it is therefore factual by default. You can't spin a primary source. Any criticism regarding Steve being selective in his sources is simply nonsense, all aspects of the case are addressed so I'm failing to understand the criticism. How can your take aim at an individual, out of context comment when you've not read the book? To claim 'ah but this thread is only to do with the podcast' insults the numerous independent readers of it. The podcast, as you well know and fully understand, is an interview by Jonathan regarding the book. To split hairs regarding this insults our intelligence. This, however, is nothing compared to the vicious personal comments regarding Steve. You are grown men, act like it. It's like being in a keyboard warrior kindergarten.

absolutely New Ford
But whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Fish has spent more than three years work researching lech and has also been personally attacked constantly by many more people. He gives as good as he takes, and IMHO I find it odd that so many have such reaction against lech as a suspect. hes exactly the type of candidate that needs more looking into. and considering all the nonsense on the boards lately re suspects (maybrick, royal conspiracy, phantom conspiracy) I really am at odds with the vitriol against lech as a suspect. I think it may have something to do with people not liking Fish and his debating style. but it takes two to tango, no?

I have the ultimate respect for El and his research ability and look forward to reading his book, but lets be frank-he and fish have a history and he has latched onto this suspect as something to refute almost obsessively. hes made statement on threads here in the past regarding lech, and the mizen scam that seem odd for someone who is supposed to be unbiased-mainly that Mizen intentionally lied about what lech told him to save his arse. when the most obvious explanation is that it was simple misunderstanding.

I wasn't going to comment on this thread until I read the book, but after your post id thought id chime in. but I agree with most of what you say especially the "keyboard warrior kindergarten" part.

[New Ford Shunt]

I rarely post here, choosing instead to learn from far more knowledgeable people than myself. What I have seen, repeatedly, on this thread has really disappointed me. Steve has spent the last three years writing a complete account of all scenarios regarding the Bucks Row murder. His aim has been to provide the reader with all the facts so they may make their own minds up. I've actually read the book, and it's good, well researched and innovative. It is most importantly unbiased. All statements are linked to source material, it is therefore factual by default. You can't spin a primary source. Any criticism regarding Steve being selective in his sources is simply nonsense, all aspects of the case are addressed so I'm failing to understand the criticism. How can your take aim at an individual, out of context comment when you've not read the book? To claim 'ah but this thread is only to do with the podcast' insults the numerous independent readers of it. The podcast, as you well know and fully understand, is an interview by Jonathan regarding the book. To split hairs regarding this insults our intelligence. This, however, is nothing compared to the vicious personal comments regarding Steve. You are grown men, act like it. It's like being in a keyboard warrior kindergarten.

[Robert St Devil]

Out of curiosity, is it possible to block people on this site?

Block, evade, stalemate, ignore, avoid,... all viable possibilities

[TheCuriousCat]

If I had been improperly inebriated, I would never have posted; I've learned my lesson with that regards.

This is a momentous occasion - an actual response from Herlock after, what, two years. That it would come defending Stevie is (yawwwn) not surprising. I've always been curious - HERlock; is that a reference to you being a woman?

Out of curiosity, is it possible to block people on this site?

[Robert St Devil]

Enough said I think.

If I had been improperly inebriated, I would never have posted; I've learned my lesson with that regards.

This is a momentous occasion - an actual response from Herlock after, what, two years. That it would come defending Stevie is (yawwwn) not surprising. I've always been curious - HERlock; is that a reference to you being a woman?

[Robert St Devil]

Each to their own Robert, calling me a troll? ok what ever ticks your box.


Judging without reading, or knowing what the work says is a pool appreciation of research.



Steve

The narrative that I have followed extends back to your tit-for-tats with Pierre (not to continually invoke that loon's handle), these long-winded diatribes that consumed extensive server space as the solitary conversations between the two of you ran the course of pages and resulted in nothing more the by-product of pompous asswork ie. a bag of farts. From my recollection, Christer or Mizen or Lechmere or Bucks Row was not even a speck on your radar. What I do distinctly recollect from that time is how you and another member were privately collecting other member's nominees for Pierre's culprit; it came complete with a psuedo-scientific chart where you assigned percentiles for each nominee based on the clues that Pierre had dropped along the way. Then, for some reason beyond my general concern, Pierre was expelled from class; and instantaneously and overnight, you decided on the need to turn your hate towards ripping apart another member's working hypothesis because, Lord knows, you have never been one to base your work off of an original idea ever since your Join Date. Originality and Stevie are not two words that go hand-in-hand or belong in the same sentence. And so, you began to pot-shot at Christer because he was between fishing trips and posting at the time, and he was defending his Lechmere theory, and he had participated in that documentary. On its own, that is ethical since there is a place for spite and envy within the historical community; but somewhere in the mix of your verbiose doldrums, you got the dim idea that you would attempt your own research (akin to your Pierre's Culprit chart) that ran counter to his Lechmere hypothesis. And after bally-hooing it in the months prior, you presented your work as this scientific rendering type thing, which, in the end, was only a compilation of readily-available material that could be found here on Casebook. Worse yet, you never derived anything historical from your research; your initial thread came off as the work of a lab assistant who records all the measurements and metrics for a senior scientist, but doesn't have the brilliance to interpret any greater meaning out of the work. It was ripe with so many apologies and possibilities that noone could hold you accountable - "i claim A; but that doesn't mean that B isn't also possible; then again, my apologies, there is a chance that C could have happened. And if it isn't C, again my apologies, we mustn't forget D. Which brings me back to A." By then, with all the your forum cronies that you had garnered by grandstanding against Pierre, you had plenty of pats on the back; however, when I made a friendly yet critical remark prior to dismissing your work as boring, you messaged me NOT to be critical because gosh-darnit you had worked so super-duper hard on it. After that, I dismissed you as a flake. I've read your posts - better said, I've skimmed your posts - if your book is anything along the same type of writing, I'll pass on the offer to read it while safely claiming that Im not the worse off for it when it comes to the mystery or the history.

[Fisherman]

The readers and posters of Casebook are only a small fraction of the podcast’s total listenership. If the show avoided all topics concerning this case that have been discussed and debated on the boards then there would be no show. There would be nothing left to talk about.

JM

I must admit that I was a tad flummoxed by Harrys query too - of course the topic was relevant to the podcast. All in all, though, I think it is a simple case of allergy on Harrys behalf when it comes to any material that can be related back to me. I can't imagine why, but there you are.

[Fisherman]

The point being that I have not "Not decided" which is an action, I haven't even thought about it.
I assume we have a simply misunderstanding.


Steve

So when I say that you apparently have not made any decision to point to a theory, that is in effect me saying that you HAVE made a decision...? You have decided that you have not decided, sort of? The decision is one of not having made a decision?

So I misrepresented you when I said that no decision had been reached on your behalf to point to a theory, since you had not thought about whether you should make a decision or not...? Or? Has it been deflated to me "misunderstanding" you?

Let me get this straight: Are you still claiming that I am the one making curious semantic summersaults out here?

[jmenges]

There was no need to include the Mizen scam, which has been debated here over and over again.

The readers and posters of Casebook are only a small fraction of the podcast’s total listenership. If the show avoided all topics concerning this case that have been discussed and debated on the boards then there would be no show. There would be nothing left to talk about.

JM

[jmenges]

Good morning all at once,just one question,and it's not often I defend Fisherman,but why,in the first post was it written,'Discussions about the Mizen scam can be found'?
Why especiall,the Mizen scam?

Those ending bits about what apps the podcast can be found on is a little running joke I’ve used on many episodes. Nothing more.

and wherever in-depth podcast discussions about the Mizen Scam can be found.

and wherever else 90 minute audio chats about Sir Robert Anderson can be found.

wherever else in-depth presentations about Dr. Thomas Bond's profile on the Whitechapel Murderer can be found.

and anywhere Ripperological Tape Preservation Projects can be found.

Also in iTunes, Podcast Addict, PodBean, MixCloud and any other podcast app where in-depth discussions about Aaron Kosminski, the Crawford letter, and Robert Anderson's 'Polish Jew Theory' can be found.


JM

[Elamarna]

Try and read what I wrote again, a bit more slowly this time: "Thanks for the information about NOT having decided..."

Sorry for the gross misleading. I´ll shape up, promise!

You?

The point being that I have not "Not decided" which is an action, I haven't even thought about it.
I assume we have a simply misunderstanding.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Way too late?
Not adversely affected sales in the slightest.

Steve

I was not speaking about the book, Steve, I was speaking about your overall credibility. "Mein Kampf" also sold quite well, by the way, as did "Maos Little Red", all other comparisons aside. Selling well is not necessarily an indication of a good book, I'm afraid.

[Fisherman]

I did not say I have decided on anything, indeed I said I had not decided what the book will say, having note completed the research.

Again it's misleading

Steve

Try and read what I wrote again, a bit more slowly this time: "Thanks for the information about NOT having decided..."

Sorry for the gross misleading. I´ll shape up, promise!

You?