An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Fiver]

If the paper has modified some of the story, and other parts of the report rely on questionable translations, it cannot be regarded as a reliable document. Perhaps we can use it to get some idea of why Schwartz was on the street at that time, but we cannot intuit which parts are accurate and which parts are in error, with any confidence.

Based on this reasoning, we should throw out all accounts by all witnesses to all events related to the Ripper killings. That doesn't just shut down suspectology, it shuts down almost all discussion of the case, since virtually everything we have is from newspaper accounts.

Or we can apply common sense. If there are conflicting accounts, the most common is likelier to be true. Period newspapers were not above embellishment, so more sensational elements are less likely to have occurred. Most times given are estimates based on the last time witnesses saw a non-synchronzied clock. Multiple witnesses can give the same time for different events and not be lying. Human perception and memory are fallible. And things that don't make sense in a translation are probably the result of an inaccurate translation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even if we ignore the police for a moment and stick with the Star report (which you seem to prefer), we can see that neither the first man nor Schwartz were in a position to see Stride until they had reached the gateway.

This isn’t true. We can’t know that. It might be physically possible for someone to see something but they just don’t notice it. Like when they are looking at something or someone else…as in this case.

He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage ...

Pushing her back into the passage tells us where she had been - in the passage! The gates weren't on public property; they were part of Dutfield's Yard. Members of the club were in the habit of closing those gates, most nights. Standing in the gateway implies standing in the passageway - a location that makes her invisible to someone entering Berner St until they are essentially at the level of the gates.

No it doesn’t. You should stop ‘implying.’

Which aligns well with what we see in the Star.



The irony of you asking me about my English. I've been arguing in many posts that having Stride in the gateway with the other two makes little sense. Do you read posts carefully?

Schwartz never reached the gateway. He crossed the road before reaching there because the incident began. Your suggestion that he began on the other side of the road is nonsense of course.

Schwartz stopped to watch the man ill-using the woman. That is what Abberline tells us. From Swanson we know what at least some of that ill-using consisted of. It cannot have occurred over a period of one second. It seems improbable that this ill-using occurs with Schwartz right next to them in the gateway. However, there is plenty of room to watch these strangers, without getting into their personal spaces, from across the street. So, that is what I think occurred.

Comedy stuff.

If it so trivial, it shouldn't bother you either way, but it does, so...

Abberline considered him a genuine witness. I remain only partially convinced.

Yes, you want him to be a Freemason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay...

Let's keep this calm and try another approach...

Forget Bs man

Let's focus on the actual victim and alleged witness.

A simple question...


According to Schwartz, when did he first see Stride, and what was she doing?


Now all we have to go on are Swanson, Abberline and The Star.

Not a word the Star says can be trusted due to it's tabloid agenda.


So let's stick to Swanson and Abberline.

That trusted and admired clever copper duo.


In Schwartz's statement he says he has got as far "...as the gateway."

That could be of varying distance, but one can be reasonably certain that when Schwartz claims he had got as far as the gateway, that he would needed to have been within the distance and geometric angle to be able to actually see the gateway in order for his claim to retain its accuracy.

When we then combine some of the rest of the sentence that includes "...a woman standing in the gateway." we can then see that both quotes "as far as the gateway" and seeing a woman "standing in the gateway" work together as supportive claims respectively.

So, going back to the first part of my initial question...

"When did Schwartz first see Stride?"

Well when we combine the 2 quotes from the statement above plus the fact that he wouldn't have been physically able to see anyone standing in the gateway unless he could visually see the gateway with his own eyes as he walked down the street, then we can then be reasonably certain that when he saw Stride standing in the gateway before the assault, he must have literally been able to have seen her.

"As far as the gateway"
"Saw a woman standing in the gateway"
Schwartz being within the field of vision within the geometric angles required for him to have been able to have seen Stride in the first place.

The 2nd part of my question...

"What was Stride doing when he first sees her?"

Well again, she's seen standing in the gateway.

Meaning Schwartz needs to be close enough and within the geometric field of vision to be able to see her literally standing there.

He doesn't say she's already on the floor, he doesn't say he sees her before Bs man stops to go and talk to her.

He says he sees her standing in the gateway.

Schwartz sees Bs man stop and talk to her.

So when we combine all the above, it is evident that either Schwartz did get "as far as the gateway" BEFORE he then sees Bs man stop and talk to a woman standing in the gateway" All of this before the subsequent assault he then witnesses.

or...

Schwartz's statement holds litlle to zero literal meaning, as nothing he says can be verified by math and physics, and his statement is therefore reduced to being as reliable as a chocolate teapot.

There’s no need for another approach RD. We know what happened. That should be an end of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's unlikely someone came out of the Nelson, given that it had closed no later than midnight. It's also unlikely that a man coming from there or around that corner would feel any need to shout a warning to a man assaulting a woman, given that man had entered the street from the opposite direction. I don't think the Star got the location right. Swanson doesn't give us a location for Pipeman, but he does tell us the man followed him. This would suggest he was to the North of Schwartz when first spotted.

Where do you dredge this stuff up from? He was near the beer shop which is why the suggestion was made that he might have exited it.

If the paper has modified some of the story, and other parts of the report rely on questionable translations, it cannot be regarded as a reliable document. Perhaps we can use it to get some idea of why Schwartz was on the street at that time, but we cannot intuit which parts are accurate and which parts are in error, with any confidence.

Don’t you get bored with all of this? Schwartz walked behind BS man on the club side of the road. As the incident began Schwartz crossed the road. He then saw Pipeman.

These can be taken as facts.

Where did Robert Paul and Charles Lechmere walk - footway or road?

Footway. The clue is in the word ‘foot.’ It’s where you go if you are on ‘foot.’

[The Rookie Detective]

...a location that makes her invisible to someone entering Berner St until they are essentially at the level of the gates.

100% my entire point relayed in just one sentence, bravo!

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the point is 100% wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For years the suggestion has been made by some that Israel Schwartz was never in Berner Street and that something shady was going on. Actually there is no aspect of this case we some kind of chicanery isn’t suggested by someone. Some appear to be averse to any explanation which couldn’t have been created by Dan Brown but at some point we surely have to take in a dose of common sense. So we have to ask some (mostly fairly obvious questions)


Do we have any evidence-based suggestion as to why Schwartz might have lied about being in Berner Street (aside from the usual ‘15 minutes of fame’ point?)

- The only answer to this can be a resounding ‘no.’

How likely would it be that, during a series gruesome murders by throat-cutting that were all over the news, a man would lie to place himself right at the scene. Not only that he places himself there alone so that he has no bystanders or confederate to confirm that Schwartz himself hadn’t attacked and murdered Stride.

- It is one thing to think ‘outside the box’ and another to think ‘on another planet.’

Is it at all possible that a man (Schwartz) who according to some had never been in Berner Street couldn’t have been aware of the possibility that some Berner Street witness might come forward to prove him a liar to a very angry police force? Someone like Fanny Mortimer or some neighbour looking out of the window for example. Would he really have relied totally on good fortune?

- It’s difficult (if not impossible) to image anyone but idiot being unaware if this obvious possibility. Why would anyone risk something like this?

How likely would it be that a police force who were desperately under pressure to bring the killer to justice would have checked out Schwartz story? He would have been able to tell them where he had been and who he had been with and also where he was heading and why?

- Can we really assume that they didn’t? Should we assume this level of incompetence? I wouldn’t feel confident in pushing such a suggestion.

Are we to believe that the police, faced with a potential conflict between Schwartz and Mortimer, were just too stupid to notice or is it the case that they just knew more than we did after closely questioning both parties?

- Obviously no interview transcript exists between the police and Schwartz and Mortimer which means that we are working from edited highlights. Clearly the police saw no issue with the incident occurring unseen and unheard by anyone but Schwartz and Pipeman as they continued to consider Schwartz as an important witness and not a man who could have been there. Isn’t there a reasonable chance that during close questioning the police found that Fanny had spent more time indoors than she had initially claimed? Maybe she’d said “well yes I did nip indoors for a minute or so to do something” and we all know (as would the police) that an estimate of a minute or so might easily have been 2 or 3.

Why is Schwartz constantly questioned and doubted and yet Fanny Mortimer appears to get a free pass.

- A simple but valid question. How good was her judgment? How do we know that she wasn’t just a busybody? Why is Schwartz judged against Mortimer but not the other way around?

How long was the duration of the incident and is it possible that it might have been unseen or unheard by anyone but Schwartz (and the unidentified Pipeman)

- We just can’t put an exact time on the incident but we also have the question of when we start the stopwatch and when we stop it. Jeff, I believe, gave a total estimate (including walking along Berner Street) of around one and a half minutes and I’m fine with that. But, in terms of the actual incident we are talking of a very few seconds. Little noise was made (for whatever reason) and we have no reason to doubt this fact. The ‘noise’ part of the incident could have taken as little as 10 seconds, we don’t know, but the notion that this incident couldn’t have occurred unheard is nothing short of preposterous. And yet this very suggestion is the catalyst for all manner of theories.


Schwartz might have been inaccurate in the time that he gave and, who knows, due o his lack of English he might have mistaken a domestic or even a piece of drunken horseplay for a more serious attack but we have absolutely no reason, based on evidence, to doubt his presence. So why does the suggestion go on and on. I think that the answer lies in the fact that there is nothing knew to discuss in the case. So the idea of getting a theory accepted is an attractive prospect. What we can’t fail to notice is how much heavy lifting is required. Too many claims to know what we can’t know. Too much evidence twisting. Too many strange interpretations. Too many assumptions of stupidity (Schwartz, the Police etc)

[The Rookie Detective]

There’s no need for another approach RD. We know what happened. That should be an end of it.

But with the greatest of respect; we don't know what happened, and that's the fundamental reason that underpins why we all choose to openly discuss our views, hypotheses and theories on this wonderful forum, and thus share our respective opinions and insights into the many mysteries of the case that still remain elusive and unsolved.

If an individual is shot down for going against the grain and challenging preconceived ideas or data that remains subjective; and therefore up for scrutiny, then it would be grossly unfair if that individual then feels they can't share their thoughts and views through mutual discussion and reciprocation just because someone else doesn't agree.

Otherwise, it's just suppression; for the sake of not rocking the boat and making waves.

It's perfectly okay and normal to have different opinions on what happened in any given scenario across the series of murders, as long as the discussion always remains mutually respectful and doesn't descend into the realms of chaos; driven in part by the frustration of uncompromising minds and egos; that we all have to some degree.

There is always room for a new approach and there will never be an end to it while the case remains subjective and open to discussion.


Kind regards


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

But with the greatest of respect; we don't know what happened, and that's the fundamental reason that underpins why we all choose to openly discuss our views, hypotheses and theories on this wonderful forum, and thus share our respective opinions and insights into the many mysteries of the case that still remain elusive and unsolved.

If an individual is shot down for going against the grain and challenging preconceived ideas or data that remains subjective; and therefore up for scrutiny, then it would be grossly unfair if that individual then feels they can't share their thoughts and views through mutual discussion and reciprocation just because someone else doesn't agree.

Otherwise, it's just suppression; for the sake of not rocking the boat and making waves.

It's perfectly okay and normal to have different opinions on what happened in any given scenario across the series of murders, as long as the discussion always remains mutually respectful and doesn't descend into the realms of chaos; driven in part by the frustration of uncompromising minds and egos; that we all have to some degree.

There is always room for a new approach and there will never be an end to it while the case remains subjective and open to discussion.


Kind regards


RD

Of course that’s the case RD. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t ever discuss but we keep seeing the same effort being made and it does smack to me of an effort at creating a scenario/theory just for the sake of it. The source of any perceived discrepancy in Berner Street is the false suggestion that the incident couldn’t have occurred without it being seen or heard by someone else which just can’t be true. Things occur without being seen or heard all of the time. Series of events occur where x just misses seeing y and y just misses seeing z all the time and yet we get Andrew constantly posting as if we’re discussing a spaceship landing or a heavy metal band rehearsing a song. Nothing is mysterious about the fact that this short incident wasn’t seen or heard. The police would also have realised this and they would have interviewed both Schwartz and Mortimer. So there was clearly no issue with this incident occurring unseen or heard. So, if there is no issue what reason can we have, based on evidence, to doubt what Schwartz told the police?

Then we get this unfounded suggestion that Schwartz was on the other side of the road which just wasn’t the case. Then we get the unfounded suggestion that Schwartz wouldn’t have been able to see the woman in the gateway when we don’t know how far back Schwartz was, how light it was or the exact spot where the woman was standing. So how can we make these assumptions?

We are missing so much written evidence but it’s apparent that Abberline and the police didn’t feel that Schwartz was lying. So did they believe this on a hunch or did his story all add up after they had looked into it?

Im not for suppressing discussion RD but I’m against someone coming up with a theory and then going to any lengths to support and advance it.

[Abby Normal]

For years the suggestion has been made by some that Israel Schwartz was never in Berner Street and that something shady was going on. Actually there is no aspect of this case we some kind of chicanery isn’t suggested by someone. Some appear to be averse to any explanation which couldn’t have been created by Dan Brown but at some point we surely have to take in a dose of common sense. So we have to ask some (mostly fairly obvious questions)


Do we have any evidence-based suggestion as to why Schwartz might have lied about being in Berner Street (aside from the usual ‘15 minutes of fame’ point?)

- The only answer to this can be a resounding ‘no.’

How likely would it be that, during a series gruesome murders by throat-cutting that were all over the news, a man would lie to place himself right at the scene. Not only that he places himself there alone so that he has no bystanders or confederate to confirm that Schwartz himself hadn’t attacked and murdered Stride.

- It is one thing to think ‘outside the box’ and another to think ‘on another planet.’

Is it at all possible that a man (Schwartz) who according to some had never been in Berner Street couldn’t have been aware of the possibility that some Berner Street witness might come forward to prove him a liar to a very angry police force? Someone like Fanny Mortimer or some neighbour looking out of the window for example. Would he really have relied totally on good fortune?

- It’s difficult (if not impossible) to image anyone but idiot being unaware if this obvious possibility. Why would anyone risk something like this?

How likely would it be that a police force who were desperately under pressure to bring the killer to justice would have checked out Schwartz story? He would have been able to tell them where he had been and who he had been with and also where he was heading and why?

- Can we really assume that they didn’t? Should we assume this level of incompetence? I wouldn’t feel confident in pushing such a suggestion.

Are we to believe that the police, faced with a potential conflict between Schwartz and Mortimer, were just too stupid to notice or is it the case that they just knew more than we did after closely questioning both parties?

- Obviously no interview transcript exists between the police and Schwartz and Mortimer which means that we are working from edited highlights. Clearly the police saw no issue with the incident occurring unseen and unheard by anyone but Schwartz and Pipeman as they continued to consider Schwartz as an important witness and not a man who could have been there. Isn’t there a reasonable chance that during close questioning the police found that Fanny had spent more time indoors than she had initially claimed? Maybe she’d said “well yes I did nip indoors for a minute or so to do something” and we all know (as would the police) that an estimate of a minute or so might easily have been 2 or 3.

Why is Schwartz constantly questioned and doubted and yet Fanny Mortimer appears to get a free pass.

- A simple but valid question. How good was her judgment? How do we know that she wasn’t just a busybody? Why is Schwartz judged against Mortimer but not the other way around?

How long was the duration of the incident and is it possible that it might have been unseen or unheard by anyone but Schwartz (and the unidentified Pipeman)

- We just can’t put an exact time on the incident but we also have the question of when we start the stopwatch and when we stop it. Jeff, I believe, gave a total estimate (including walking along Berner Street) of around one and a half minutes and I’m fine with that. But, in terms of the actual incident we are talking of a very few seconds. Little noise was made (for whatever reason) and we have no reason to doubt this fact. The ‘noise’ part of the incident could have taken as little as 10 seconds, we don’t know, but the notion that this incident couldn’t have occurred unheard is nothing short of preposterous. And yet this very suggestion is the catalyst for all manner of theories.


Schwartz might have been inaccurate in the time that he gave and, who knows, due o his lack of English he might have mistaken a domestic or even a piece of drunken horseplay for a more serious attack but we have absolutely no reason, based on evidence, to doubt his presence. So why does the suggestion go on and on. I think that the answer lies in the fact that there is nothing knew to discuss in the case. So the idea of getting a theory accepted is an attractive prospect. What we can’t fail to notice is how much heavy lifting is required. Too many claims to know what we can’t know. Too much evidence twisting. Too many strange interpretations. Too many assumptions of stupidity (Schwartz, the Police etc)

bingo herlock. here we have an apparently religious jew, new to the country, cant speak english and hes going to lie to the police in a major murder investigation, putting him and his family in legal danger. yeah right.

and then of course theres the fact that he pretty much describes a suspect that matches the man that all the other witnesses saw.

[Herlock Sholmes]

bingo herlock. here we have an apparently religious jew, new to the country, cant speak english and hes going to lie to the police in a major murder investigation, putting him and his family in legal danger. yeah right.

and then of course theres the fact that he pretty much describes a suspect that matches the man that all the other witnesses saw.

I just can’t see anything that indicates that he was lying Abby. No one else heard or saw a short not very loud incident which occurred in an empty street…where is the problem? A couple of years ago a motorbike crashed into my friends car which was parked outside his house. Neither he, his family or any of the neighbours knew it had happened until an hour later when his son got home. Things happen.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz never reached the gateway. He crossed the road before reaching there because the incident began.

This is based on the press account, which as I explained in #305, paints an incoherent picture of the incident.

Can someone tell me why the primary defender of the standard model has rather suddenly felt the need to downplay the police reports in favour of a questionable newspaper report? If the confidence in Schwartz is as high as it is made out to be, that should not be necessary.

Your suggestion that he began on the other side of the road is nonsense of course.

This is not an argument.

Can someone tell me why the primary defender of the standard model believes it appropriate to reply to posts in this manner?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

bingo herlock. here we have an apparently religious jew, new to the country, cant speak english and hes going to lie to the police in a major murder investigation, putting him and his family in legal danger. yeah right.

Perhaps you could quantify the risk?

If a report in the Star is now going to be the basis for the standard model of Berner St, let's be consistent about it.

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Here we have an anomaly. The police received a description from another source. How could that be?

Abberline: There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

Who is this other source? Do we have the full story? Would Pipeman's story have confirmed or contradicted Schwartz?

These questions will never go away, no matter how many times faith in Schwartz is exclaimed.

and then of course theres the fact that he pretty much describes a suspect that matches the man that all the other witnesses saw.

Peaked cap match. Wonderful.

[GBinOz]

Perhaps you could quantify the risk?

If a report in the Star is now going to be the basis for the standard model of Berner St, let's be consistent about it.

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Here we have an anomaly. The police received a description from another source. How could that be?

Abberline: There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

Who is this other source? Do we have the full story? Would Pipeman's story have confirmed or contradicted Schwartz?

You make some very good points here Andrew.

IF we accept accept the validity of the Star's story, we have to consider whether the Leman St police doubted that the incident happened, or doubted what Schwartz reported happened was actually what happened. I strongly suspect the latter - that Schwartz's impressions combined with losses in translation were judged to be mistaken, or could not be pursued.

The man arrested "on the description thus obtained" can only have been BSMan or Pipeman, as they are the only descriptions supplied by Schwartz. Suppose it was Pipeman, and he said that he had either seen Schwartz off and quickly returned, or was actually calling to BSMan to cease and desist, and then approached the couple to be told by Stride that it was just a dispute and that she fell rather than being thrown down, and this was followed by the departure of BSMan.

Alternatively, maybe Kosminski was arrested on the basis of Schwartz's description, but then Schwartz refused to identify him because he was Jewish, thus bringing any further action to a halt unless further evidence was obtained.

As far as the other source, I can only speculate that maybe The Star mixed up arrests and reports, and the reference is to Mortimer's sighting of the man with the black bag, which the police also decided not to pursue any further.

Unless further evidence is obtained, our discussions can only involve speculation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You make some very good points here Andrew.

Thanks George. Let me take this opportunity to say that I appreciate your posts. Always thought provoking. I know I ask a lot of questions in reply, but I think the Echo man pursued story, for example, is very important. We have to get that right, as far as possible.

IF we accept accept the validity of the Star's story, we have to consider whether the Leman St police doubted that the incident happened, or doubted what Schwartz reported happened was actually what happened. I strongly suspect the latter - that Schwartz's impressions combined with losses in translation were judged to be mistaken, or could not be pursued.

Most of what Schwartz described was activity. What were his impressions? Who 'Lipski' was shouted at? He didn't claim to be certain. Were the two men together or known to each other? Schwartz couldn't tell (although there is evidence that his position on this may have changed). Would these uncertainties, which existed from the start, result in the police stating they had come to doubt the story? It sounds to me like the doubts are of a more fundamental nature than just inaccurate impressions. Would they drop the investigation, pending further evidence, due to these uncertainties? I don't think they would, and who is supposed to supply this extra evidence, anyway?

Furthermore, we have to contend with context of this doubt. It seems to have occurred after two men were arrested. How could related arrests result in doubts arising, unless someone has been interviewed and found to be both credible and who contradicts Schwartz in more than a superficial way?

The man arrested "on the description thus obtained" can only have been BSMan or Pipeman, as they are the only descriptions supplied by Schwartz. Suppose it was Pipeman, and he said that he had either seen Schwartz off and quickly returned, or was actually calling to BSMan to cease and desist, and then approached the couple to be told by Stride that it was just a dispute and that she fell rather than being thrown down, and this was followed by the departure of BSMan.

Supposing that Pipeman admitted to seeing Schwartz off, is opening a Pandoras Box. It's worth noting that we have evidence that the police did not suspect the second man. Seeing Schwartz off implies he is an accomplice. If Pipeman made verbal contact with Stride just before she was murdered, it would be a huge deal. We hear nothing of this contact from any source. Why wouldn't Swanson have mentioned this?

Alternatively, maybe Kosminski was arrested on the basis of Schwartz's description, but then Schwartz refused to identify him because he was Jewish, thus bringing any further action to a halt unless further evidence was obtained.

I think if a credible suspect had been arrested and questioned, we would see this mentioned somewhere.

As far as the other source, I can only speculate that maybe The Star mixed up arrests and reports, and the reference is to Mortimer's sighting of the man with the black bag, which the police also decided not to pursue any further.

Unless further evidence is obtained, our discussions can only involve speculation.

Regarding black bag man, I should note that this thread was created with you in mind. I've thought a lot about the identity of the interviewed neighbour, particularly since you argued that she could not have been Fanny Mortimer. Initially I thought you were wrong - that the neighbour was Fanny. Now I'm more inclined to think that you were right, and I was wrong.