Inside Bucks Row: An interview with Steve Blomer

[Elamarna]

Hi El
I haven't a chance to read your book yet but from previous discussions you had mentioned that the mizzen he said/he said issue probably came as a result of Mizen purposefully lying about lech saying he was wanted in bucks row by a police officer, in order for some arse saving on mizens part.

do you still come to that conclusion in your book? and if so-could you just briefly give the reasons why here?
id be very interested to hear.

and full disclosure-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?

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

[jmenges]

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

[Patrick S]

whos eddy butler?

That's a complicated question. Fisherman is probably best qualified to answer. He knows him best.

[Abby Normal]

Hi El
I haven't a chance to read your book yet but from previous discussions you had mentioned that the mizzen he said/he said issue probably came as a result of Mizen purposefully lying about lech saying he was wanted in bucks row by a police officer, in order for some arse saving on mizens part.

do you still come to that conclusion in your book? and if so-could you just briefly give the reasons why here?
id be very interested to hear.

and full disclosure-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?

[Abby Normal]

whos eddy butler?

[Elamarna]

Don´t be a primadonna, please. Let' s try and move forward in a productive manner instead of getting bogged down in this kind of horseshite! I find it slander to claim that Lechmereians (and let's be frank, I am the one you were talking about) resort to semantics instead of accepting the facts as they are.

If you want to attack slander, you may have noticed that I was just called a narcissist out here, by a poster I have long since decided is not worthy of any answer. That is my reality.

But I am quite prepared to say that you have NOT produced slander IF WE CAN ONLY MOVE ON TO A SERIOUS DISCUSSION INSTEAD!!!

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

[jmenges]

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

[Patrick S]

Don´t be a primadonna, please. Let' s try and move forward in a productive manner instead of getting bogged down in this kind of horseshite! I find it slander to claim that Lechmereians (and let's be frank, I am the one you were talking about) resort to semantics instead of accepting the facts as they are.

If you want to attack slander, you may have noticed that I was just called a narcissist out here, by a poster I have long since decided is not worthy of any answer. That is my reality.

But I am quite prepared to say that you have NOT produced slander IF WE CAN ONLY MOVE ON TO A SERIOUS DISCUSSION INSTEAD!!!

You take the discussion into the gutter. Insult Steve and Menges and Dusty... and now you want "SERIOUS DISCUSSION" (all caps!). I did call you a narcissist (and you seem to think writing about YOUR reality doesn't reinforce the idea?). I've been called much worse by you. As have myriad others.

Why not write your own book as refutation against Steve's? Or... at the very least... read his.

[Patrick S]

When the book or podcast is criticized for whatever reason, one expects this criticism to be met with a cool head and balanced answers.

JUST as you've met all criticism... with "cool and balanced answers". Please stand by while we all have a good, hearty laugh.

When Edward Stow criticized the podcast and questioned the level of understanding of the different parameters of the Nichols case in a lengthy post on JTR Forums, no such balanced answers were offered. Instead, the reply was a very short one:

"A complete misintreptation of what was said from begining to end, but one is far from surprised."

On this site, the author of this sentence - and of the book discussed in the podcast - made the following reply to the factually based observation that it is wrongly spoken in the podcast of a beat on behalf go Sgt Kirby:

" ...it's nit picking of the highest order, you used the wrong word, semantics is the game some pro Lechmere people love to play."

So we can see that there is a wish to present those who believe in Lechmere as the killer - in this case Edward and me - as generally speaking unreliable and playing semantic games.

Of course this is demonstrably true. One needs only to read a few of your, what, nearly twenty thousand posts (?), to understand this is simply a fact. Yet, this is FAR from saying anyone is "unbalanced". I'll go further. I agree that you and Ed whatever-his-name-is are unreliable and you certainly play games with semantics in order to keep your little pipe dream afloat, but I'll also say that - in my view - you're dishonest, as well. Especially you, frankly. You exaggerate what others say so you can make a show of taking offense. You twist words in ways you (I hope) must know the writer didn't intend in order to discredit, insult, and deride. It's all here for anyone to read. A monument that does you no credit.

To this, Jonathan Menges adds a little mockery about his mistake:

"My question, as Steve figured out, was about where Kirby was before he walked down Bucks Row and where he went afterwards. Whether he was on a round, a beat, delivering pizza or playing hopscotch."

The thing to do when caught out with a mistake is to generously admit the mistake. One can either say "I was unaware of this, thank you for pointing it out" or one can say "That's correct, it did not come out right and needs to be amended" in which case one points to having had the knowledge all along.

From the MASTER of admitting mistakes, no less. Again... let's pause for a good laugh. Let's just say that your attacking of Menges is a new low, even for you. And I expect it signals the beginning of the end for this Lechmere foolishness.

That is how one gains trust and makes the best of a mistake. It is how the book or podcast on offer is also best served, if one wants to retain as much credibility as possible.

The thing NOT to do in a situation like this is to mock the ones who present fair criticism about the material. And to single a group out as unfit to criticize material is disastrous, not least if everybody knows that there is a disagreement between author and criticizer over the topic criticized. Such behavior is tantamount to credibility harakiri.

Oh. The horror. Drama is something you strive to create. This is more of that. "Credibility harakiri". Sounds just awful! You're hope, clearly, is that as this theory of yours is in it's death throes, this drama will keep it afloat among those who don't depend upon Youtube to tell them what to believe.

From what I gather, there are parts of the book Steve has written that are useful as some sort of reference material. It is sad if that part of the effort is dragged down by an attitude that was never going to work when defending a written or aired piece.

It's too bad Steve didn't follow you're example. You've to eloquently defended your "aired piece", haven't you?

As for the encouragement to avoid debating with Edward Stow on account of him being "unbalanced", I am happy to accept that I may have gotten it wrong myself.

You did. Nice of you to admit being wrong. Rare as it is.

But I can assure you that he is anything but unbalanced in his views, plus he has a knowledge of the case - and not least of the Lechmere family - that is unsurpassed. Unbalance is not expressed in choosing a suspect, if that choice is well built under - and it is.

Of course he's unbalanced in his view. As are you. You're not alone. And it's generally not a problem. The problems come when you behave as you do. It's quite a show though. One that has to be seen/read to be believed.

Unbalance is instead something that is richly exemplified by the attitude taken against the criticism offered about the podcast about Steves book, and personally, I find it sad. It inevitably affects the reliability of those who present it, and of course also the reliability of their work.

Readability. Indeed. Have you read it? Better yet, why don't you publish your own book and show Steve by example how one should defend it from criticism and "attack".

[Fisherman]

It's not the same at all, if I wanted to say you were unfit to criticise I would, but you are perfectly capable of making critism if you wish. We really are playing victim.

The issue of course is that the critism is on the whole about interpretation and not about fact.
My considered response to those you posed, have not addressed


What slander have I perpetrated? That is a very serious allegation.
Please withdraw.

Steve

Don´t be a primadonna, please. Let' s try and move forward in a productive manner instead of getting bogged down in this kind of horseshite! I find it slander to claim that Lechmereians (and let's be frank, I am the one you were talking about) resort to semantics instead of accepting the facts as they are.

If you want to attack slander, you may have noticed that I was just called a narcissist out here, by a poster I have long since decided is not worthy of any answer. That is my reality.

But I am quite prepared to say that you have NOT produced slander IF WE CAN ONLY MOVE ON TO A SERIOUS DISCUSSION INSTEAD!!!

[Fisherman]

Let’s not kid ourselves.
Eddy Butler has a personal vendetta against me since I was the first to report on his far right-wing racist political activism, and I suspect that is what Caz was referring to when calling his views “very far from balanced”.

And so do I - but Steve does not, of course. He kids himself in all probability.

This might indicate why he criticized the podcast on so many minor points. He just had to get in a dig.

That will take some proving. I am anything but right-wing and I am by and large politically uninterested, but I found the podcast wanting in a number of matters nevertheless. Does that mean that I have converted to nationalism?
Regardless of a persons political beliefs and/or political history, that person is perfectly welcome to engage in Ripperology if he or she wants to. And if he or she produces solid research and represents a level of knowledge that is formidable - and it IS in Edwards case - I don't think it is wise to read criticism from that person as being less viable than any criticism coming from people of differing political views. If you feel paranoid about him, you need to prove your point about him having a dig at you before it becomes wise to go public with it. At least that is how I look upon things - accuse away, but use dry power, not horse manure.

All in all, I am wondering what a persons political ideas and background has to do with all of this? It seems to me that it is used as an excuse for very poor behavior and scholarship out here. And that is just sad.
Political beliefs have nothing at all to do with the ability to conduct useful research. If it can be proven that Edward is pushing some sort of racist political agenda by researching Lechmere, then I would be the first to call him unwanted, not only here but anywhere else too. But to be frank, I know the man well and I have never encountered anything within him but seriousness, straightforwardness, engagement, generosity and deep knowledge.
Shouldn't he have picked a non-englishman, by the way, as a suspect...?

The all-important point to make here is that the theory about Lechmere a the killer is not in any shape or form enhanced or diminished by all of this absolute and sad rot. Somehow, I get the feeling that many disagree with this, and for the very worst of reasons.

But as I’ve said before, at least twice now on this thread, I welcome corrections and discussion about the show. However it would be more helpful to our listeners if those criticisms were honest. As Dr. Strange has outlined, some of what’s being characterized as purposefully misleading statements made on the show were nothing of the sort.

JM

I don´t know where you got "purposefully" from. Sgt Kirby did NOT have a beat, and it is wrong to say that he did. The "purpose" behind pointing this out on my behalf is that I like to be served correct information and I want to clear away misconceptions for the benefit of anybody taking part of the material on offer. I salute your welcoming such strivings, but I find that mockingly speaking about pizza delivery and hopscotch is perhaps not the best way to show off your fair mind.
Whatever conflict you identify between Edward and yourself should not be allowed to cloud your judgment when providing me with an answer, as far as I can tell.

All in all, it is exceedingly evident that Charles Lechmere attracts ill will to a larger degree than any other suspect. If that could be altered and if it could be recognized that the theory is perfectly legitimate instead of - as Steve claims - a concoction of half-truths garnished with semantic distorsions, it would be good.

[Patrick S]

I´ll make quick work of this.

Stating "I have said that I do not wish to answer him, and that stands…" is not the same as promising never to do so. It explicitly says that I have no WISH to debate with you, and I really, really don't.

But when you misrepresent things it may be that I make the call that there is reason to step in and correct you.

Which is what I just did. You claim that it is "hypocrisy" on my behalf to first say that I do not wish to answer you and then do so.

The fact of the matter is that I dislike your debating techniques so very much that I find it utterly unpleasant to have anything at all to do with you. meaning that I will once again say that I do not wish to answer you after this post of mine. I however reserve myself the right to show the community out here what you amount to, should I feel so inclined.

In fact, even if I had said that I would never answer you, I would still reserve myself the right to do so, since that is MY prerogative, not yours.

So much for your first post - it goes awry from the outset, as always when somebody uninterested in the facts allows himself to get consumed by his own lacking judgment.

In your next post, you say that Jonathan Menges says that Kirby made rounds. Perhaps you missed out on my quotation? If so, here it is again: Jonathan Menges spoke of "the sections sergeants beat".

It could easily be said that a PC is making his rounds when on his beat. It cannot, however, be said that a section sergeant making his rounds is out on a beat.

This is the long and the short of it. The facts, as it were.

The moment I feel you need more tutoring in that field, I will make my own decisions about whether I want to take the trouble and abuse it will earn me to do so.

You'll never understand that disagreeing with you isn't the same thing as "misrepresenting". You seem incapable of rational response when challenged. Frankly, as the challenges to your theory have become more numerous this has become your standard response. You react indignantly, accusing others of all manner of verbal barbarism, looking for any way to distract and end any debate. It's alternately amusing and pathetic.

Of course you're a hypocrite. And of course there are things you simply do not wish to answer. Let me rephrase that. There are things that you simply CANNOT answer HONESTLY, lest your theory, already in tatters, falls apart with aid from your own hand. Amusing, also, is your assertion that you dislike ANYONE'S "debating technique". Anyone who pays attention knows you "dislike" any debater to doesn't simply take your far-flung, convoluted inventions as gospel truth... or at the very least... as the most "likely explanation" (i.e. that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, et al).

It's ironic you'd accuse anyone of being unpleasant. Frankly (and not to put it too lightly), you're the most unpleasant character on these boards. Each post contains some insult, some veiled, most intentional and apparent. Yet, you expect to be treated with kid gloves. Dusty isn't the first you've decided to ignore. I don't think I was, either. And....we've seen more than a few of your disappearing acts, preceded by a post informing us all of our sins, how disrespectful we've been, how obtuse we are, the utter depths to which we've sunken because we so revile YOU, we target YOU, we loath YOU... it's all about YOU. And our punishment is you're absence. Poor us.

But, it isn't about your at all. It's only your narcissism and arrogance that tells you it is... and your blinkered inability to see any flaws with this theory you've been peddling. And of course the anger comes because scarcely anyone within this community is buying... with all apologies to those legions of Youtubers you so often cite.

Frankly, I suggest we should all ignore you.. and your silly little theory. After all, we've read all your absurd refutations again and again... all taken with liberal doses of your insults and derision. We've seen your endless Christ on the Cross routine. It should be apparent to everyone that, for you, this isn't about your theory any longer. It's about you. It has been for some time. You seek validation. You seek acceptance. You're desperate for the respect your soul crushing arrogance tells you that you so richly deserve. That's why, in the end, you're a pitiable figure... at least in my view. And this thrashing about your so routinely do is particularly sad... and embarrassing.

You've decided everyone is enemy. Everyone is out to get you. Everyone is against you. And everyone is unworthy. Of you. Of your wisdom. Of your time. Of your attention. Honestly, I hope you figure it out before it's too late. You've made 10,000+ post out here. And I don't think you've enjoyed a minute of it.

[Elamarna]

One point will say it all:

"No one has said you are unfit to criticize the podcast"

That is rather a sly way of avoiding to take responsibility for the reoccurring digs on your behalf at those who support Lechmere. If you had been somewhat more upright, you would have admitted that saying that it was to be expected that Edward got things wrong and that stating that "some Lechmereians" (you seemingly did not have the guts to point me out) deal in semantics rather than facts is more or less the same as saying that those who endorse Lechmere ARE unfit to criticize the podcast, but no. It´s all about wriggling and avoiding to take responsibility for your slander.

Once you realize that, your words about semantics become quite the joke, don't they?

If that insight helps to sell your book, so be it. I'm always glad to help out.

It's not the same at all, if I wanted to say you were unfit to criticise I would, but you are perfectly capable of making critism if you wish. We really are playing victim.

The issue of course is that the critism is on the whole about interpretation and not about fact.
My considered response to those you posed, have not addressed


What slander have I perpetrated? That is a very serious allegation.
Please withdraw.

Steve

[jmenges]

Let’s not kid ourselves.
Eddy Butler has a personal vendetta against me since I was the first to report on his far right-wing racist political activism, and I suspect that is what Caz was referring to when calling his views “very far from balanced”.
This might indicate why he criticized the podcast on so many minor points. He just had to get in a dig.
But as I’ve said before, at least twice now on this thread, I welcome corrections and discussion about the show. However it would be more helpful to our listeners if those criticisms were honest. As Dr. Strange has outlined, some of what’s being characterized as purposefully misleading statements made on the show were nothing of the sort.

JM

[Fisherman]

Oh, fun




Which i did to your post #8, in post 22, 23, 24 and in depth in post 27, which you have not responded to, such of course is your choice.




I am not communicating with that person, I saw no need for anything other than that comment, to ignore completely would have been wrong..





You present that case very well without any help from anyone else.



I think you will find that Jonathan has happily accepted "Beat" may have been the incorrect word.



No one has said you are unfit to criticize the podcast, only that the criticisms are somewhat minor, and most so far mentioned are matters of interpretation or debate, rest assured all alternatives are mentioned in the book, which obviously cannot be covered in a 1 hour podcast. However, if those or any other comments suggest something is factually incorrect, changes will be made to the next update of the book, due in September.





It is fully accepted that he has knowledge, that does not however mean he is not bias in his views. You believe he is not, to be expected given that you have the same suspect, others have a different view. Obviously we will disagree on that.




We disagree on that very point, I see it built on half-truths, great exaggeration and very selective use of sources, as do many others. You and Ed obviously do not.

I will say that the book does not dismiss Lechmere as a suspect, and neither did the podcast, it merely attempts to look at the sources as objectively as possible.




Given that I responded to your initial criticisms, you have decided not to respond to those comments in any meaningful way.

I have in the last few days, answered again the points you have raised, and you have at the time of writing not replied to those.


Can I thank you for the free publicity your continuing posts ensure.


Steve

One point will say it all:

"No one has said you are unfit to criticize the podcast"

That is rather a sly way of avoiding to take responsibility for the reoccurring digs on your behalf at those who support Lechmere. If you had been somewhat more upright, you would have admitted that saying that it was to be expected that Edward got things wrong and that stating that "some Lechmereians" (you seemingly did not have the guts to point me out) deal in semantics rather than facts is more or less the same as saying that those who endorse Lechmere ARE unfit to criticize the podcast, but no. It´s all about wriggling and avoiding to take responsibility for your slander.

Once you realize that, your words about semantics become quite the joke, don't they?

If that insight helps to sell your book, so be it. I'm always glad to help out.