An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wess told the reporter that the man being chased was believed to be the murderer. Did Schwartz or a mutual acquaintance tell Wess that he/Schwartz was the murderer?

Also, by suggesting a connection between Schwartz and Wess, and therefore the club, you have opened a Pandora's Box. This is what happens when theories are put forward to explain away anomalies - they end up creating bigger questions that the answers they supposedly provide.



Wess said the chasing man was not a member of the club. Kozebrodski was a member, as was Diemschitz. There is no evidence of this running ahead during the police chase. Repeating this made-up bit of evidence doesn't make it evidence.

The theory that Wess or someone talking to Wess got all confused, and Wess ended up telling a story to a journalist that by sheer coincidence sounded just like Schwartz running from a man at ~12:45, is curious, given that you've just said that Schwartz may have spoken directly to Wess about the incident on the street!



A Home Office marginal note on Swanson's Oct 19 report, includes the following.

The police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

The man was never identified but was not a suspect. It's likely that the inability to identify Pipeman was a reason for the eventual loss of interest in Schwartz's tale.

I’ve neither suggested or implied any ‘connection’ between Wess and Schwartz. Wess makes no mention of the Schwartz incident. He mentions someone being chased, someone that he described as “a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer.” So basically he’s saying that someone was chased up Fairclough Street and some people think that this might have been the murderer being chased.

The fact that Wess talks about people running up Fairclough Street at just the time that Diemschitz and Kozebrodski were doing exactly that, whilst shouting ‘murder’ stretches coincidence way past breaking point. Clearly there was confusion about Diemschitz and Kozebrodski running for a Constable.

This part is another confusion “The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.” I tend to think that this unnamed man was Edward Spooner. I reckon that Wess was told by one of the members that a man called Spooner had returned with Diemschitz. Wess, when asked later, couldn’t recall his name but he knew that he wasn’t a club member.

We know that Schwartz fled the scene well before Diemschitz returned. You are trying to create a mystery where none exists. Nothing mysterious occurred in Berner Street. There isn’t a single incident or event that can’t be explained. Berner Street is being turned into Dealey Plaza. It’s wearing thin.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz tells someone about what he’d seen either directly to Wess or via a third person.

Wess told the reporter that the man being chased was believed to be the murderer. Did Schwartz or a mutual acquaintance tell Wess that he/Schwartz was the murderer?

Also, by suggesting a connection between Schwartz and Wess, and therefore the club, you have opened a Pandora's Box. This is what happens when theories are put forward to explain away anomalies - they end up creating bigger questions that the answers they supposedly provide.

Someone tells Wess about seeing the men (Diemschitz and Kozebrodski) going for a Constable and yelling ‘murder.’ They mistake two men running for a Constable for one man chasing the murderer. This makes sense if Kozebrodski was up ahead with the guy that found the body running behind him.

Wess said the chasing man was not a member of the club. Kozebrodski was a member, as was Diemschitz. There is no evidence of this running ahead during the police chase. Repeating this made-up bit of evidence doesn't make it evidence.

The theory that Wess or someone talking to Wess got all confused, and Wess ended up telling a story to a journalist that by sheer coincidence sounded just like Schwartz running from a man at ~12:45, is curious, given that you've just said that Schwartz may have spoken directly to Wess about the incident on the street!

The police did arrest people. How do you know that they hadn’t located and questioned Pipeman?

A Home Office marginal note on Swanson's Oct 19 report, includes the following.

The police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

The man was never identified but was not a suspect. It's likely that the inability to identify Pipeman was a reason for the eventual loss of interest in Schwartz's tale.

[New Waterloo]

Hello Kattrup. No I can assure you I am not being sarcastic that would be inappropriate and no me at all. I apologise if my comments come across that way.

Perhaps puzzle is the wrong word but I would imagine that it is somewhat of a coincidence that Schwartz and Goldstein follow the same route at roughly the same time, both looking towards the club and both walking very fast as the walk by.

At the moment I am suggesting that there is no reason to suspect these are the same person. The evidence points as you say that they are two different people.

My point in a nutshell is that the only piece of evidence that separates Schwartz from Goldstein is that Goldstein was carrying a black bag.

My point is yes the evidence points to them being two separate people but we do not know if Schwartz was carrying a bag (as was Goldstein) and was the person Mortimer saw Goldstein or Schwartz.

If the man was Goldstein then where is Schwartz, if the man was Schwartz where is Goldstein. I think thats a reasonable question to ask.

I realise I am pushing at this a bit but don't mean to be opinionated just looking at what we have got. Mortimer only saw the one ‘walking man’

NW

[Kattrup]

just trying to solve this really difficult puzzle re Schwarz and Goldstein
NW

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic because there really is no puzzle at all, let alone a really difficult one.
Schwartz and Goldstein are two completely different people. There’s nothing to indicate otherwise.
A lack of information (i.e. not having a certain id of either later on) is not an admissible basis for a theory.

[New Waterloo]

Sorry if i am seeming difficult just trying to solve this really difficult puzzle re Schwarz and Goldstein
NW

[New Waterloo]

Hello NotBlamed and all. You make very good points and I am trying not to focus on any theory I have but trying to look at what evidence we have. mortimer sees somebody walking very fast carrying a black bag and looking towards the club. We cannot say who this person is. Wess believes it to be Goldstein and he and Goldstein tell this to the police and the press who Wess says accepts that it is Goldstein and his story checks out. I accept that could be the case.

however it really hangs on the evidence that Goldstein is carry a bag and is walking through Berners street at the time.

There is no mention of a bag being carried by Schwartz in his report to the police. Why would there be. If i witnessed something like an assault i would report what I saw. I wouldnt give my own description. Do any of of our other witnesses in this case give their own descriptions. Do Brown, Marshall, Spooner, Best and Gardner describe their own descriptions or what they were carrying.

I am just trying to say that it is feasible that Schwartz was carrying a bag and that the man Mortimer saw was him.

Wess could be defending Goldstein because he was a good chap in the area at the time with his black bag and worried that he could be implicated in the murder.

there could be lots going on including conspiracies at the club. Plenty of conspiring to protest against the authorities and anarchist activities I am sure but I am just trying to see where the statements from witnesses like Mortimer take us before forming any thory of my own at the moment.

sorry if I

[Herlock Sholmes]

Schwartz tells someone about what he’d seen either directly to Wess or via a third person. Someone tells Wess about seeing the men (Diemschitz and Kozebrodski) going for a Constable and yelling ‘murder.’ They mistake two men running for a Constable for one man chasing the murderer. This makes sense if Kozebrodski was up ahead with the guy that found the body running behind him.

The police did arrest people. How do you know that they hadn’t located and questioned Pipeman?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So what?

So, you need to think through the possible implications.

Someone told Wess about an incident relating to the murder - occurring right at the time Schwartz claimed to have turned into the street - before Schwartz even got Leman St station. Who was the "first hand" in the telling of this story? Was it the man with broad shoulders, or the man with a smoking pipe, or Schwartz himself? As Wess claims to have been told the chasing man's name, perhaps the man with a pipe is the best guess. Whoever it was, the man was supposedly not a member of the club, and the club was behind a paywall on the day of the murder. Yet, weeks later, the police still don't seem to have identified Pipeman! Very strange.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There is no evidence to suggest Leon Goldstein didnt exist.

Who has suggested he didn't exist?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/4945-wess-personal-effects#post4945

The location of Mortimers house is problematic in that it is very close to the club and the yard entrance. Some terrace houses in England may be only 12ft wide and there is only one house between hers and the club. Could Mortimer from her house, see into the yard entrance. Unlikely I think as the angle is too tight. But she could observe the other side of the street and anyone passing.

She either sees Goldstein or she sees Schwartz. There is some evidence for it being Schwartz in that at the time he is looking at the club he is walking fast as if to get away from something or some other reason. There is however some evidence its Goldstein as she states the man was carry a black bag.

If Mortimer saw Schwartz rather than Goldstein, the whole story becomes almost incoherent, unless it's accepted that we are not being told the full story, by certain actors. How did Goldstein end up holding the black bag, so to speak, if it were actually carried through the street by Schwartz? You keep insisting there is no conspiracy, so perhaps you could explain why Wess acting defensively to the point that he would substitute Goldstein for Schwartz, at a police station, does not amount to a conspiracy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wess told an Echo reporter about the "Schwartz incident" before Schwartz had signed his police statement.

So what?

[New Waterloo]

We have to remember this is 1888, no computers, yes telegraph but no police radios, communicating with other officer through writing notes/reports or face to face. Still for the time they did pretty well really in the few hours and days after the murders in getting as much info as they did.

Information cross referencing would be considerably slower than it is now. It was very poor right up to and including the Yorkshire Ripper murders. In that enquiry the left hand didn't always know what the right hand was doing.

I a lot of ways when looking at the Whitechapel murders we are lucking. There are many statements and press reports we just have to read what there is and really try to resist theories too much although I accept we all including me have to fill in gaps sometimes.

There is no evidence to suggest Schwartz was not genuine in what he reported. He may have misinterpreted what he saw.

There is no evidence to suggest Leon Goldstein didnt exist.

Mortimer says she saw a person with a black bag walking along Berners Street we cannot say who the person was she saw other than he appeared youngish and was carrying a bag. He was walking fast and looked back at the club when he walked by.

Wess and Goldstein go to the police station to suggest that the person Mortimer saw was Goldstein and that he was a member of the club.

Both Goldstein and Schwarz could be genuine. There is no evidence at this time of any conspiracy but there is evidence that some at the club would not wish to engage with the police or other authorities. This is normal in enquiries. Not all want to speak to the police and say what they may have seen. That is not evidence of conspiracy.

The location of Mortimers house is problematic in that it is very close to the club and the yard entrance. Some terrace houses in England may be only 12ft wide and there is only one house between hers and the club. Could Mortimer from her house, see into the yard entrance. Unlikely I think as the angle is too tight. But she could observe the other side of the street and anyone passing.

She either sees Goldstein or she sees Schwartz. There is some evidence for it being Schwartz in that at the time he is looking at the club he is walking fast as if to get away from something or some other reason. There is however some evidence its Goldstein as she states the man was carry a black bag.

We should look carefully at the evidence. I think there is no reason to suggest at this time that Schwartz and Goldstein are the are the same person.

I am going to try and work out this angle thing to see whether there could have been a commotion in the yard entrance without Mortimer seeing it.

NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Is there any thread on here that doesn’t involve a conspiracy or a cover-up?

Wess is completely unimportant.
Goldstein is even less important.

These two are in the ‘Mrs Fiddymont’ category. Why do they keep getting discussed? I know that we are short of new topics on here but how many times do we need to go over a series of events where we know what happened. It’s very simple. Schwartz was there.

Wess told an Echo reporter about the "Schwartz incident" before Schwartz had signed his police statement.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis.

If a woman saw a man with a black bag walking north at around the time of the murder, and that man not Leon Goldstein, who might it have been?

If you click on the >> link in the ChrisGeorge quote in my post (#30), it will take you to the corresponding thread. Check out the youtube video link posted by Nelson.

I suppose that there are a lot of people that it could have been, most of them being people that we don't know about.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is there any thread on here that doesn’t involve a conspiracy or a cover-up?

Wess is completely unimportant.
Goldstein is even less important.

These two are in the ‘Mrs Fiddymont’ category. Why do they keep getting discussed? I know that we are short of new topics on here but how many times do we need to go over a series of events where we know what happened. It’s very simple. Schwartz was there.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You make a valid point NotBlamed I will try and stay on track. Clearly a person calling himself Schwarz exists. He went to the police to report what he said he saw.

Wess go’s with a person called Goldstein to the police to report that the person Mortimer sees with a blag bag is Leon Goldstein.

My suggestion is that perhaps Wess is being defensive in some way (there was a volitile disturbance at the club a week or so before and Wess and many of his friends are declared anarchists anti police anti capitalist.

What are we to make of Wess's timing? Mortimer's comments were in the Monday morning papers. The Goldstein police statement occurred at about 11pm on the Tuesday. The delay could be explained away, it's just that in the meantime the Star reports that doubts have arisen over Schwartz.

Perhaps on this occasion Wess has jumpef the gun so to speak and started defending a member of the club (Goldstein) when the actual person Mortimer saw was Schwartz.

Then why would Goldstein agree to get involved? Your suggestion, if true, would mean that Goldstein was a false witness.

I dont think Schwartz and Goldstein are the same person. This is further confirmed when the press located Schwarz after he had been to the police.

That only proves the existence of one man. Even then, the police and press accounts are rather different, so we cannot even say with certainty that "the Hungarian" was Israel Schwartz.

there are probably many reasons Wess defended Goldstein like what activities were happening at the club, trying to seem helpful or that Goldstein was somehow involved.

cant really get my head round this at all but just trying to suggest that the man who Mortimer saw could have been Schwarz (he could have been carrying a bag) and Wess is being overly defensive because he was worried.

I think in the case of Wess and some other members and associates of the club they wete very academic intellectuals. Not all of course. But well able to manipulate the ordinary police officers at the time to protect their anarchist and protest activities.

NW

If the man Mortimer saw was actually Schwartz, then did Schwartz tell the police he had gone out for the day, with a black bag? If no bag at all, what did he do for food and drink? Was he so poor that he could leave his wife to move their meagre belongings to a new residence? Yet, the following evening he rocks up to a police station "well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line." Strange.

Why would Mortimer not mention all the carry-on that Schwartz noted?

If Schwartz had embellished his story (which would explain the lack of corroborating witnesses), he was just a man on his way home after a very long day out, who happened to look back at the club as he walked by. If police began to doubt his story, it would be necessary to avoid associating him to the man with a black bag. Hence Goldstein's appearance at Leman St station. That's the theory, anyway. However, Goldstein would then have to be Schwartz, and the man presenting to the police as Leon Goldstein would have to be faking an identity.