Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Fisherman]

I just wanted to say that I was delighted by this podcast because I was one of those people who saw the documentary and thought it had finally been cracked. I mean, after all, he was seen hunched over the body, he suspiciously lied to Mizen, and he tried to keep Paul from talking. That all sounds very damning... I also got the distinct impression that all this information was lifted straight from the inquiry.

It was useful to learn that, at best, everything I took away from the documentary was debatable, and mostly it was just wrong.

Reading the debate here, I'm confused by the nature of some of the criticism. Whether the Sgt. was on a round, a beat, a walk, a route, a trajectory, a perambulation, a path, a way, a jog, a saunter, or a poke about, the fact remains that we don't know where he was at the time. That's the impression I got from the podcast, that's the impression I got now. Does it cast any light on what happened that night? Does a round make it more likely that Lechmere was the killer?

I could take you up on that.

Then again, I could resist the temptation.

[Fisherman]

hi fish
not that its here nor there but Von Braun helped us with our rocket/space program after the war, not on the atom bomb, which was developed mainly by American scientists.

True - I confused him with Oppenheimer! Oh, well - at least von Braun WAS a nazi and a former SS man enlisted by the US, NOT because he was once a fascist but because he knew his stuff.

Thanks for helping out!

[TheCuriousCat]

I just wanted to say that I was delighted by this podcast because I was one of those people who saw the documentary and thought it had finally been cracked. I mean, after all, he was seen hunched over the body, he suspiciously lied to Mizen, and he tried to keep Paul from talking. That all sounds very damning... I also got the distinct impression that all this information was lifted straight from the inquiry.

It was useful to learn that, at best, everything I took away from the documentary was debatable, and mostly it was just wrong.

Reading the debate here, I'm confused by the nature of some of the criticism. Whether the Sgt. was on a round, a beat, a walk, a route, a trajectory, a perambulation, a path, a way, a jog, a saunter, or a poke about, the fact remains that we don't know where he was at the time. That's the impression I got from the podcast, that's the impression I got now. Does it cast any light on what happened that night? Does a round make it more likely that Lechmere was the killer?

[Abby Normal]

Yes, I understand that you are suggesting that Edwards motivation. for criticizing the podcast lies in what you cal hatred towards you. The problem is, as far as I understand, that such accusations must be underpinned by more than a hunch, otherwise they are likely to look like paranoia. And that was never gonna be a becoming thing for a podcast runner. I trust you can see that,

In private conversations with Edward - long before the political issue surfaced - I have been given to understand that the controversy between the two of you has another instigation. But I am not part of whatever quibble you enjoy on your spare time!

I am just as fully aware that you did not call me a white supremacist, and why would you? I clearly stated that I am not any right wing voter (nor have I ever been so) and that I am by and large not very politically interested. It IS however interesting that the question should surface at all - where is the link between political convictions and the support for Lechmere, I wonder? I find that a deeply rooted wish to couple Edwards political stance and/or background to his work on Lechmere is very close at hand, as demonstrated to a degree by you, by Caz (not proven, but we seem to agree on it) and Monty on the boards.

You are, I believe, an American? May I be so bold as to remind you that America put an effective end to the second world war by enlisting a nazi and former SS officer, Werner von Braun, who engineered the atom bomb the was dropped on Hiroshima. Now, what must be kept apart is the political stance of von Braun and the aim of the bomb - to put a stop to the war.

Once more: political convictions are NOT any obstacle to being a great researcher and ingenious theorist. I really wish that we can stop any movement to nullify that truth out here from rearing its ugly head out here! If you can take Edwards theory apart by means of factual knowledge and research, then do so, If you cannot, please respect the value of the research done.

So you see, I do not fail to understand anything at all, but for the possible intentions to deny Edward Stow the right to be judged as an equal in terms of research and knowledge. Nor do I purposefully misunderstand anything.

I hope that is very clear by now.

hi fish
not that its here nor there but Von Braun helped us with our rocket/space program after the war, not on the atom bomb, which was developed mainly by American scientists.

[jmenges]

Thanks Fish.
You're welcome to come on the show at any time.

JM

[Fisherman]

as you know my thoughts on it are that more than likely it was a simple misunderstanding along the lines of lech saying something like youre needed in bucks row, and when mizen got there, and a PC already being there, just misremembered.

second most likely, that lech lied, maybe to not wanting to be delayed any longer.

and third (least likely IMHO) that mizen lied to save his arse.

but would like to know your reasoning in a nutshell on this?

What happened to the very real possibility that Lechmere lied in order to fool the police after having killed Nichols...?

[Patrick S]

Maybe we should all state our political stances before we make a post out here? That would enable us to sift the unwanted ones away.

I'm a member of the People's Front of Judea. Recently left the Judean People's Front.

[Fisherman]

No, but I feel it should be stated that if you cite a reviewer having critiqued the podcast it should be mentioned if said reviewer is already on record hating the podcasters guts.
Just providing a bit of background. Time to move along.

JM

I´m afraid the evidence is not there, and moving along must involve you acknowledging that. If you sense you are right, fine, but let's not confuse your hunch for established facts. It would disenable Edward - and possibly me, I don't know, maybe I face a future out here as the fascist´s apprentice? - to pass criticism about your podcasts in the future, right?

Now I am ready to move along. Good luck with your next podcast, and good luck to anybody investigating the case!

[jmenges]

No, but I feel it should be stated that if you cite a reviewer having critiqued the podcast it should be mentioned if said reviewer is already on record hating the podcasters guts.
Just providing a bit of background. Time to move along.

JM

[Jon Guy]

Maybe we should all state our political stances before we make a post out here? That would enable us to sift the unwanted ones away.

Agreed. I was thinking that.
With today`s facebook herd hysteria mentality, it probably just means he voted to leave the EU

[Fisherman]

Eddy Butler is “Ed Stow’s” real name. Former National Front member who has built a political career by terrorizing East End immigrants.

Google him. He’s a quite well-known fascist.

JM

Maybe we should all state our political stances before we make a post out here? That would enable us to sift the unwanted ones away.

[Abby Normal]

Eddy Butler is “Ed Stow’s” real name. Former National Front member who has built a political career by terrorizing East End immigrants.

Google him. He’s a quite well-known fascist.

JM

got it thanks JM.

[Fisherman]

I attempted to move on in posts # 23,24 and 27 and discuss the issues
You have not.
That was over a week ago.


Steve

So let's move on now, beginning by me apologizing for having overseen your posts and asking whether you want a reaction to them now.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,
I was suggesting what may have, in part, motivated Eddy Butler’s rather weak but lengthy criticisms of the episode. A vehement hatred towards me and a desire to take a shot. Any shot.
I did not call you a white supremacist or say that all Lechmere supporters are by definition racists.
You again either fail to understand what I’ve said or are “purposely” misrepresenting it.

JM

Yes, I understand that you are suggesting that Edwards motivation. for criticizing the podcast lies in what you cal hatred towards you. The problem is, as far as I understand, that such accusations must be underpinned by more than a hunch, otherwise they are likely to look like paranoia. And that was never gonna be a becoming thing for a podcast runner. I trust you can see that,

In private conversations with Edward - long before the political issue surfaced - I have been given to understand that the controversy between the two of you has another instigation. But I am not part of whatever quibble you enjoy on your spare time!

I am just as fully aware that you did not call me a white supremacist, and why would you? I clearly stated that I am not any right wing voter (nor have I ever been so) and that I am by and large not very politically interested. It IS however interesting that the question should surface at all - where is the link between political convictions and the support for Lechmere, I wonder? I find that a deeply rooted wish to couple Edwards political stance and/or background to his work on Lechmere is very close at hand, as demonstrated to a degree by you, by Caz (not proven, but we seem to agree on it) and Monty on the boards.

You are, I believe, an American? May I be so bold as to remind you that America put an effective end to the second world war by enlisting a nazi and former SS officer, Werner von Braun, who engineered the atom bomb the was dropped on Hiroshima. Now, what must be kept apart is the political stance of von Braun and the aim of the bomb - to put a stop to the war.

Once more: political convictions are NOT any obstacle to being a great researcher and ingenious theorist. I really wish that we can stop any movement to nullify that truth out here from rearing its ugly head out here! If you can take Edwards theory apart by means of factual knowledge and research, then do so, If you cannot, please respect the value of the research done.

So you see, I do not fail to understand anything at all, but for the possible intentions to deny Edward Stow the right to be judged as an equal in terms of research and knowledge. Nor do I purposefully misunderstand anything.

I hope that is very clear by now.

[Abby Normal]

Abby,
Hard to do in a nutshell, it takes up a whole chapter and ties into several others.

I too subscribed to the simple misunderstand before I realised where Mizen was when first seen by Neil.
He is in Bakers Row, going south.
At first i doubted this was possible for Neil to see Mizen there, but work by others help convinced me it was possible.

Mizen did nothing wrong in his encounter with the carmen,but I argue was worried how he would be seen in the press, especially following the Lloyds account on the 2nd. ( I argue he was not going to Bucks Row until Neil signalled him)
So he told a story, which had no material effect on the murder, and which could be written off as a misunderstanding, which it seems it was.

There are about 7 lines of argument which support my view, that of course does mean I am correct, and give 5 different possible explanations.

It's far to complicated to give the full details in a post, go on Abby, buy the book.


Steve

ok thanks EL!