An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Herlock Sholmes]

On this particular issue we basically have four questions.

1. How far behind BS man was Israel Schwartz as he walked along Berner Street.
2. Where was Schwartz when the incident began.
3. Where was the woman standing.
4. Where was Schwartz, in relation to BS man, when he crossed the road.

We have two sources of information.

1. A general synopsis events from Donald Swanson.
2. An article in The Star.

So…

1. We have absolutely no way of putting a figure on this distance between the two men. Swanson makes no mention of it so he is of no help. The Star, however, does say: “As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.” Now, we can all agree that newspapers aren’t always the most reliably accurate sources of information but we can ask why they would simply invent this part? It doesn’t add any drama or insert anything that might add sensation to sell papers and it can’t be used as a chance of making the Police look bad. So there has to be a very reasonable chance that this part is correct and that there was a ‘some distance’ between them. Added to this we might ask ourselves if we often see two people, who don’t know each, walking down a deserted street but directly behind each other. If we saw that I’d suggest that it would look slightly strange. Therefore I believe that it’s very likely that there was a fair distance between the two men. How far? I don’t know. But it could have been ten or twenty or thirty yards.

2. In both Swanson’s synopsis and The Star we can see no reason to assume any notable gap of time between BS man stopping to talk to the woman and him putting his hand on her shoulder to pull/push her (according to which ever version we read) So if, as seems likely, there was a fair sized gap between the two men, and the actual incident began (as it appeared to) pretty much as soon as BS man spoke to the woman then it’s reasonable to assume that Schwartz couldn’t have walked far in a two or three seconds. So he could easily still have been twenty yards, or ten yards or even five yards behind him. We have zero reason to suspect that that either a) BS man and the woman chatted for a few seconds and then the ‘incident’ only occurred when Schwartz was adjacent to them, or b) or that Schwartz didn’t bother about the incident that was occurring up ahead until he’d walked to a position right next to them. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume, and is far more like to a point of close to certainty, that Schwartz was at least a few feet, maybe a few yards, back from BS man when the incident began.



3. The woman was said to have been standing in the gateway but was she standing back inside the passage next to the actual gate. Clearly not when BS man spoke to her or Schwartz wouldn’t have been able to see her. Also, if she was waiting for someone why would she stand back into the passageway where she wouldn’t have been able to see up and down the street? I’d suggest that it would make far more sense if we accept that ‘gateway’ as a figure of speech can be taken to mean the gap between the two buildings. And let’s not forget that it was Swanson who used the word ‘gateway.’ I’m unsure but had he ever visited Berner Street? Did he know that the gate sat back. So could she have been further out? According to The Star she stood at:” …the entrance to the alley way.” Just as I suggest as the likeliest location.




4. Schwartz crossed the road while there was still some distance between them. It might not have been much, but there would have been a distance.


Why is this an issue?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed. The problem is that Herlock sees himself as a sort of guardian of the truth. That being his truth.

This is untrue. All that I’m doing is trying to warn against people flying off into flights of fantasy. Like someone suggesting that Mr Richardson might have been running a brother from her cellar in 29 Hanbury Street. And yet I get criticised for that. Why is caution such a dreaded word?

A commendable attitude.

True

It's astonishing that an unambiguous phrase in an important report authored by the senior investigator of the case, has, by being taken literally, resulted in so much derision. It's not as though, by doing so, Schwartz is being dismissed as an unreliable witness. Rather it's about what exactly did occur, as best we can tell. Yet even that is too much for some to deal with.

But you are arguing for something that you cannot prove and the evidence points away from it. So why go on about it?

Your views are appreciated by myself, and I'm sure others too.

Myself too.

It's unfortunate but I think you would have enjoyed this forum more in years gone by. If you look at old threads, you can see there were more people posting and sharing a wider range of views. It would have impossible years ago for one member to dismiss so many others as posting rubbish. This forum is not what it was.

Of course there were more. And those topics have largely been exhausted. It’s very easy for you to make me the bad guy here Andrew perhaps you should look at your own contribution’s. Have you ever for once considered that I might be correct on anything? Have you noticed that I’m not universally disagreed with on this topic? So…maybe I’m right. Who would have thought it? You accused me of having set ideas that I defend but I have to ask this question - why do you only really ever post on the subject of Berner Street? A bit of an obsession maybe?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Respectfully, this is sometimes the response and tone taken when someone really doesn't like being disagreed with and feels the need to retain control by dismissing others views as stupid.

I've never been one for conformity though and I've felt compelled to ask questions regardless of how stupid, silly or pathetic they may sound.

I have always adhered to the belief that we should...

Accept nothing
Believe nobody
Challenge everything

The truth is that nobody knows what really happened throughout the series of murders; because we weren't there.

I will only add that when a statement says that the witness reached as far "as the gateway" before he sees an assault takes place; I would assume that logic and common sense would mean that the witness meant what he said and had got as far "as the gateway."

But based on your views on Schwartz, you clearly don't believe Schwartz got as far as the gateway. That is despite the official police statement; endorsed by Swanson and Abberline, saying that he did reach the gateway.

Quite literally.

And yet by me referring to & taking words directly from the actual police statement that underpins Schwartz's entire validity as a witness, it's somehow seen as irritating and my views on this are seen as both stupid and a waste of time.

I can appreciate we have different views & opinions on this. I would only have hoped for the same mutual reciprocative humility.

But maybe my views on this topic are wrong and I have no idea what the hell i am talking about.

If that really is the case, then I can only apologise for wasting everyone's time.
I can see that it is futile to try and navigate through the unwavering beliefs that some choose to take.

I really don't have the energy or will to do this anymore.

Regards to all


RD

Let me be clear RD. When I said “ Let’s stop wasting time with nonsense, inventions and subterfuge” I said it because for years we have had the same debate, usually centred around Michael Richards theory that Schwartz was basically acting on orders of the club to give the police the impression that the killer was a gentile and therefore not a club member because the police might have closed down the club if a murder had been committed on its premises. Whilst I’m not saying that Andrew (or yourself for that matter) supports this theory we are still getting this idea that Schwartz was lying and it appears that every means is being used to propagate this. If I came across as irritable or intolerant then I apologise but after a while it can feel like I’m in a world where some people are trying to inject their own narrative just for the sake of it. Your posts certainly aren’t stupid or a waste of time.

I get accused of many things but one is that I’m some kind of ‘guardian of an official version.’ This is untrue. I just think that we need strong evidence to justify a suggestion that a witness was lying or that the version of events that we have is wrong. If there is a reasonable chance that they could be wrong it should be said openly and discussed openly but I think that we often get two things happening - we get some people coming up with a theory (or a suspect) then they feel the need to defend it at all costs, also, to me, it appears that some people think that because some version has become ‘established’ then it’s time that this was changed, so they invent a scenario and argue strongly that this knew scenario must be the case. I’m for caution..nothing more. I think that on the majority of occasions witness tell the truth as they see it and I think that people usually do or say things for a reason. I think that we have to make allowances for poorly synchronised timings, poor estimates of periods of time etc.

[New Waterloo]

I don't think its that important in the case of the witness shwartz to determine exactly where he was in relation to the disturbance. Because there appears no doubt he saw the disturbance between Stride and BSM. He clearly wouldnt have wanted to get too close to the pushing and shoving so crossed the road. I think there is some strength to looking at angles as far as mortimer goes as clearly and without doubt if she wad INSIDE her house at the time of the BSM/Stride incident she wouldnt be able to see it.

The reports do open up the possibility (some distance ahead) of BSM entering Berner Street from Sanders Street just before Schwartz turns into Berner Street from Commercial Road. Possible even entering through Battys gardens but that is a bit far off in the dark (view wise)

Clearly Schwarz reports the disturbance but when they speak to the arrested persons? Its too confused. Perhaps has just misinterpreted what he sees. But in his mind he reports what he think happened.

NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Respectfully, this is sometimes the response and tone taken when someone really doesn't like being disagreed with and feels the need to retain control by dismissing others views as stupid.

Agreed. The problem is that Herlock sees himself as a sort of guardian of the truth. That being his truth.

I've never been one for conformity though and I've felt compelled to ask questions regardless of how stupid, silly or pathetic they may sound.

I have always adhered to the belief that we should...

Accept nothing
Believe nobody
Challenge everything

The truth is that nobody knows what really happened throughout the series of murders; because we weren't there.

A commendable attitude.

I will only add that when a statement says that the witness reached as far "as the gateway" before he sees an assault takes place; I would assume that logic and common sense would mean that the witness meant what he said and had got as far "as the gateway."

But based on your views on Schwartz, you clearly don't believe Schwartz got as far as the gateway. That is despite the official police statement; endorsed by Swanson and Abberline, saying that he did reach the gateway.

Quite literally.

And yet by me referring to & taking words directly from the actual police statement that underpins Schwartz's entire validity as a witness, it's somehow seen as irritating and my views on this are seen as both stupid and a waste of time.

It's astonishing that an unambiguous phrase in an important report authored by the senior investigator of the case, has, by being taken literally, resulted in so much derision. It's not as though, by doing so, Schwartz is being dismissed as an unreliable witness. Rather it's about what exactly did occur, as best we can tell. Yet even that is too much for some to deal with.

I can appreciate we have different views & opinions on this. I would only have hoped for the same mutual reciprocative humility.

But maybe my views on this topic are wrong and I have no idea what the hell i am talking about.

If that really is the case, then I can only apologise for wasting everyone's time.
I can see that it is futile to try and navigate through the unwavering beliefs that some choose to take.

I really don't have the energy or will to do this anymore.

Regards to all


RD

Your views are appreciated by myself, and I'm sure others too.

It's unfortunate but I think you would have enjoyed this forum more in years gone by. If you look at old threads, you can see there were more people posting and sharing a wider range of views. It would have impossible years ago for one member to dismiss so many others as posting rubbish. This forum is not what it was.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

One factor we should consider is the noise levels.

[Coroner] Was there much noise in the club? - [William Wess] Not exactly much noise; but I could hear the singing when I was in the yard.

[Coroner] If there was dancing and singing in the club you would not hear the cry of a woman in the yard? - [Morris Eagle] It would depend upon the cry.

[Coroner] Supposing a woman had screamed, would you have heard it? - [Phillip Krantz] They were singing in the club, so I might not have heard. When I heard the alarm I went out and saw the deceased, but did not observe any stranger there.

That's significantly more background noise than for the other murders.

Wess wasn't at the club at the time of the murder, Eagle was upstairs, and Krantz was down the back in the offices. Not the most relevant witnesses regarding noise, which were the women in the kitchen, behind a partially open door. Their comments to the press have been quoted here many times.

For me, the strongest point in favor of Schwartz' account is it makes Schwartz' look bad. At a minimum, he saw a woman being assaulted and not only did not help, he ran away.

The logical flaw in this argument should be obvious, but apparently it isn't. Saying "he saw a woman being assaulted" assumes the truth of Schwartz's story. The assault was not independently verified. No one heard or saw anything to back up this claim. Nothing about the state of the victim in the passageway, or in the medical examinations, hints at the assault described Schwartz. So, saying Schwartz's story must be true because of how he behaved, is faulty logic because it is only due to Schwartz that we suppose this assault actually occurred.

[The Rookie Detective]

Another thread plummeting unavoidably into a conspiracy rabbit hole. Why do we bother? Some people are allergic to reason.

Schwartz walked along Berner Street an unknown distance behind BS man but on the same side of the road.

BS man stops to talk to the women. Some form of ‘disagreement begins.’

Schwartz sees this from a distance behind BS man (he didn’t collide with BS man as some are suggesting)

Schwartz crossed the road to avoid getting involved.

As he continues to walk south on the opposite side he a) sees Pipeman, and b) he hears BS man call “Lipski.”

He leaves the scene.

That is what happened.

Let’s stop wasting time with nonsense, inventions and subterfuge.

Respectfully, this is sometimes the response and tone taken when someone really doesn't like being disagreed with and feels the need to retain control by dismissing others views as stupid.

I've never been one for conformity though and I've felt compelled to ask questions regardless of how stupid, silly or pathetic they may sound.

I have always adhered to the belief that we should...

Accept nothing
Believe nobody
Challenge everything

The truth is that nobody knows what really happened throughout the series of murders; because we weren't there.

I will only add that when a statement says that the witness reached as far "as the gateway" before he sees an assault takes place; I would assume that logic and common sense would mean that the witness meant what he said and had got as far "as the gateway."

But based on your views on Schwartz, you clearly don't believe Schwartz got as far as the gateway. That is despite the official police statement; endorsed by Swanson and Abberline, saying that he did reach the gateway.

Quite literally.

And yet by me referring to & taking words directly from the actual police statement that underpins Schwartz's entire validity as a witness, it's somehow seen as irritating and my views on this are seen as both stupid and a waste of time.

I can appreciate we have different views & opinions on this. I would only have hoped for the same mutual reciprocative humility.

But maybe my views on this topic are wrong and I have no idea what the hell i am talking about.

If that really is the case, then I can only apologise for wasting everyone's time.
I can see that it is futile to try and navigate through the unwavering beliefs that some choose to take.

I really don't have the energy or will to do this anymore.

Regards to all


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=1568361547b35126&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&sxsrf=AHTn8zptzUohSVAW9nuse85n9nVvrrMVog:1745250754064&q=a+shop+doorway&udm=2&fbs=ABzOT_BF2BQKolEz0Jz2KKb_4ZjDW6GeweRMv5cKJmH4v19471OpJRur1e2Yx3AmQWD61915T1iwtN3RsOGFxDTGiQLBStCUm6VTk6H_7mhCdBfFw8asTaKtuuT27ARODFgq8ZdqpmTNTUstu-dBtMz_sOaQ85Bnv0B0ahVVK1VQ44OffuIERi6SjnBfaAoEeBgRv2nk-l0aib5Wrv77rR2K9Q_aAtq06K47A61H0h5GKtFmJFVwsDc&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixw_XZvemMAxXXUkEAHbITH1YQtKgLegQIFBAB&biw=1024&bih=1242&dpr=2#vhid=WBEMXA8I7_-1uM&vssid=mosaic

On the subject of the word ‘gateway.’ This is a shop ‘doorway.’ If someone was said to have been ‘standing in the doorway’ would anyone take this to mean that they had to have been standing right up against the door? Or could they have been standing on that white part of the step looking out. I’d suggest that would be ‘in the doorway’ too. Just as ‘in the gateway’ didn’t have to mean up against the actual gates.

Also, if she was waiting there for someone (unless she was just standing there for absolutely no reason [except perhaps for soliciting]) why would she have gone back into the entrance out of sight and where she couldn’t look up and down the street to see if the person that she was waiting for was coming.

The answer is that we don’t know if Schwartz saw the woman slightly before the incident but it’s possible. Maybe it was physically possible to have seen her but he hadn’t noticed her until BS man stopped to talk to her? Either way, absolutely nothing about the evidence indicates that Schwartz was virtually on top of BS man when he crossed the road. Indeed The Star reported that he was a distance in front of Schwartz and it’s unsurprising that Swanson didn’t mention this unimportant detail. So clearly there was a gap between them when Schwartz crossed the road.

[Abby Normal]

Another thread plummeting unavoidably into a conspiracy rabbit hole. Why do we bother? Some people are allergic to reason.

Schwartz walked along Berner Street an unknown distance behind BS man but on the same side of the road.

BS man stops to talk to the women. Some form of ‘disagreement begins.’

Schwartz sees this from a distance behind BS man (he didn’t collide with BS man as some are suggesting)

Schwartz crossed the road to avoid getting involved.

As he continues to walk south on the opposite side he a) sees Pipeman, and b) he hears BS man call “Lipski.”

He leaves the scene.

That is what happened.

Let’s stop wasting time with nonsense, inventions and subterfuge.

exactly herlock. couldnt agree more!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another thread plummeting unavoidably into a conspiracy rabbit hole. Why do we bother? Some people are allergic to reason.

Schwartz walked along Berner Street an unknown distance behind BS man but on the same side of the road.

BS man stops to talk to the women. Some form of ‘disagreement begins.’

Schwartz sees this from a distance behind BS man (he didn’t collide with BS man as some are suggesting)

Schwartz crossed the road to avoid getting involved.

As he continues to walk south on the opposite side he a) sees Pipeman, and b) he hears BS man call “Lipski.”

He leaves the scene.

That is what happened.

Let’s stop wasting time with nonsense, inventions and subterfuge.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone who argues against you is both wrong and arguing in bad faith.

Not everyone.

What is important is that Schwartz has reached the gateway by the time he stops to watch the man who also stops, to talk to the woman. At that point he has not crossed the street.

If the police and press accounts are in conflict, we go with the police. You want to do the opposite and accuse me of having an agenda. I wonder what people think about that?

You are suggesting that he was on the other side. It’s not me that’s coming up with such poor stuff.

Let's continue the quote: ... a man walking as if partially intoxicated.

Evidently, Schwartz caught up to him.

No he didn’t.

It was/is a narrow street. Anywhere across the width of the street, including footways, is still behind him. The phrase "He walked on behind him" doesn't have to be taken so literally that we should imagine Schwartz tracing the man's footsteps. It just means that Schwartz has seen the man when turning into the street and followed him down it.

Rubbish. They were on the same side and Schwartz was a distance behind BS man.

“As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

For me, the strongest point in favor of Schwartz' account is it makes Schwartz' look bad. At a minimum, he saw a woman being assaulted and not only did not help, he ran away.

I hadn’t considered that but again, a good point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One factor we should consider is the noise levels.

[Coroner] Was there much noise in the club? - [William Wess] Not exactly much noise; but I could hear the singing when I was in the yard.

[Coroner] If there was dancing and singing in the club you would not hear the cry of a woman in the yard? - [Morris Eagle] It would depend upon the cry.

[Coroner] Supposing a woman had screamed, would you have heard it? - [Phillip Krantz] They were singing in the club, so I might not have heard. When I heard the alarm I went out and saw the deceased, but did not observe any stranger there.

That's significantly more background noise than for the other murders.

Good point Fiver.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unless Stride was standing on the street side of the gateway, and not as the statement says "standing in the gateway," then the question of when Schwartz first saw the woman CAN be answered...

He first saw Stride when he could first see the gateway.

Because she was standing IN the gateway.

It says in his statement word for word.

Therefore, for Schwartz to have seen Stride standing in the gateway, he must have been close enough to see the gateway itself; which was set back slightly from the road and was not visible from the same side of the road until he passed Mortimer's house.

That's a geometric physical fact.

No it’s not. This is nitpicking on a ludicrous level. If she was seen standing in the gap between the two buildings then she would have been said to have been ‘in the gateway.’

The exact same statement also says he got "as far as the gateway" and then the assault began afterwards.

This doesn’t mean that he got in front of the gateway.


To deny that is to question both Swanson's and Abberline's integrity.

No it’s not. It’s to use the English language with common sense.

Schwartz's statement literally says that he reached as far "as the gateway" and saw the man (who he had noticed from much earlier up the street) "stop and talk to a woman who was standing in the gateway."

But it doesn’t say that he hadn’t already seen the woman. He might have done and he might not have done.

So the question of when he first saw Stride can indeed be answered...

All that’s important is that we realise that Schwartz never got to the gateway. This is s fact.

He first saw Stride when he was physically close enough and within sighting of the gateway to be able to physically see her standing in the gateway and by proxy; within sightline of the gateway itself.

Which could have been from a position 10 yards behind BS man. You appear to be suggesting that Schwartz walked along Berner Street 10 feet behind him.

This all occurred BEFORE the assault began and BEFORE he crossed the road.


It may seem unimportant, but it's actually crucial to understanding the chronological sequence of what Schwartz witnessed.

No…it’s pointless nitpicking that advances our useful knowledge of events not one iota.

And the beauty of my point, is that all I am doing is sticking precisely to the exact wording of the statement that was endorsed by both Swanson and Abberline.

I haven't changed anything but simply analysed the actual police statement to decipher the sequence correctly.

Of course, if it was possible for Schwartz to have seen Stride standing in the gateway from when he first turned into Berner St (like you previously implied) despite the gateway not being visible from that distance and geometic angle, then Schwartz may have had some sort of super power and could see through walls.

For gateway read gap in the two buildings.

Or we can dismiss Swanson and Abberline and stick with the Star's report.

A sensationalist tabloid paper obsessed with sales and rhetoric, or 2 senior police officers involved directly with the case.

The Star's report isn't worth the paper it was written on.

The reason why Schwartz felt he had to cross the road, was because the assault started and he needed to give it a wide berth.

Yes and you and Andrew are claiming that Schwartz was walking behind BS man so closely that he would barely have had chance to cross over. He would pretty much have bumped into the back of BS man.

There wasn't any other need for him to physically cross the road because 22 Ellen Street would require him to stay on the same side of the road as the club.

These anomalies won't go away just because something is deemed unimportant.

My entire reasoning and point is based solely on the exact wording and sequence of the statement endorsed by Swanson and Abberline.

If that statement is wrong, then so am I.

And if the statement is wrong, then Schwartz's words mean nothing and his testimony becomes worthless.

That by proxy may explain why such a seemingly key witness on paper, just fades into obscurity and isn't even called to the inquest.

That last paragraph is merely conjecture of course.

I’m losing the will to live here.

Schwartz walked down Berner Street at an unknown distance behind BS man. He saw him stop and talk to the woman. You two are assuming that this woman was in hiding. She was standing there for a reason. If someone is using that location as a spot for meeting someone why the hell would they go back to the actual gates? Next you’ll be claiming that she was next to the side door of the club. When you see a gate between two buildings the gap itself can be called the gateway.

Although it doesn’t say that he did, it cannot be impossible that he actually the woman before BS man stopped to talk to her. but if he didn’t it’s not important. The alternative is that he saw the woman when BS man got to her and she then came to the pavement. We still can’t know how far behind BS man Schwartz was at this point. What certainly can’t have happened is what you and Andrew are claiming…the Schwartz virtually bumped into the back of BS man. He was a short distance behind when he crossed the road.

[Fiver]

That the report says that the Leman Street police have reason to doubt the story doesn’t mean that they think that Schwartz lied about being there of course. It could have meant that Schwartz misinterpreted the incident.

The Swanson synthesis was written over two weeks after the murder and in it Swanson writes: “But I understand the Inspector to suggest that Schwartz’ man need not have been the murderer.”

We know that Abberline believed Schwartz because he tells us just that.

For me, the strongest point in favor of Schwartz' account is it makes Schwartz' look bad. At a minimum, he saw a woman being assaulted and not only did not help, he ran away.