An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the point is 100% wrong.

[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]

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.’

[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]

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.

[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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Did he run or walk? There was an incident going on. Is it such strange behaviour for a human being to go elsewhere? Maybe in your world but not in the real one.

Did you read #303?

Don’t know. Don’t care. They aren’t important.

They appear to arrive on the scene just when Brown is returning home from the chandler's shop. He didn't spot the couple on his outward journey. Brown's timing and their 20-minute estimate seem a good match.

Not a knockout blow for Schwartz, but a strong uppercut all the same.

[Fiver]

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

It's implied that Cross was walking on the north pavement until he saw Nichols body.

"Passing through Buck’s-row he saw something dark lying on the pavement, and, going to the centre of the road, saw that it was the figure of a woman." - 3 September 1888 Evening Post

It is clear that Paul was walking on the north pavement until Cross approached him.

"He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him." - 18 September 1888 Times

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We cannot know what is or isn’t true on this particular aspect but I suspect that the version reported by Swanson is the likeliest to have been true. The part about Pipeman’s appearance has no real mystery. As Schwartz first noticed him he’d possibly just come round the corner and had stopped to light his pipe near to the doorway of the beer shop. An assumption was then made by someone that he had come out of the beer shop. It’s not impossible that he had come out of the beer shop door even though the place was closed. Someone living on the premises might just have wanted a breath of air whilst having a smoke.

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.

The knife/pipe can be put down to translation. When The Star went to see Schwartz would they have taken a proper interpreter or might they have found someone that spoke ‘some’ Hungarian. Or might they have used a family member that spoke ‘some’ English. Is Schwartz likely to have told the police ‘pipe’ and The Star ‘knife’? No. We also have to factor in the obvious and common sense (something that might go against the grain for you) in that reporters are in search of a juicy story to sell papers. The police wanted to catch the killer so they needed accurate as possible information.

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.

What are you talking about? Where else would they have been walking? I’m convinced that you aren’t posting seriously now.

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It’s perfectly simple. You cannot, under any circumstances, claim to know that Schwartz couldn’t have seen the woman from his position behind BS man. You want this to be the case because you have an obsessive belief that nothing is ever as it appears. Everything is some kind of plot or mystery. You are wrong.

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.

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.

Only you are suggesting these things because only you are seeking to write your own Berner Street script. I don’t know how you can keep posting this kind of stuff. Swanson said:

“…had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.”

Which aligns well with what we see in the Star.

I assume that English is your first language? If that’s the case why can’t you understand what is being said here?“Got as far as the gateway” does not mean that he was in the gateway. To say that he had ‘reached’ could have meant being 10, 15, 20 feet away. Why can’t you understand this. The gateway wasn’t wide. You appear to be claiming that all three were in it. We don’t know how far behind BS man Schwartz was. We can’t ‘deduce’ it, or ‘assume’ it, or ‘calculate’ it, or ‘infer’ it. Why can’t you accept this? We don’t know and can never know how far behind BS man Schwartz was so please stop making things up.

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?

Abberline used the word stopped but you won’t accept the possibility, the absolute likelihood that even if he had stopped it was for a second. This is a man who immediately crossed the road to avoid a quarrel and then ran away when a man shouted at him. This isn’t Dirty Harry. He’s hardly going to stand a few feet across the road watching events unfold. Neither the Swanson synthesis nor The Star version mention him ‘stopping’ but you seize on this one word because you spot a chance of furthering your agenda.

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.

If you are so keen to go with Abberline on this trivial piece of nitpicking then can we assume that you agree with him in considering Schwartz a genuine witness or would that be the wrong type of cherrypicking?

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.

[The Rookie Detective]

Don’t know. Don’t care. They aren’t important.

Despite the couple who Mortimer said spoke to her after the murder, and the couple Brown saw, were standing virtually in the same place at around the same time.

More a couple of inconvenience, than a couple of unimportance.

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, what prompted Pipeman's fear? He ran too.

Did he run or walk? There was an incident going on. Is it such strange behaviour for a human being to go elsewhere? Maybe in your world but not in the real one.

Is the couple Fanny Mortimer referred to, the same couple that James Brown witnessed?

Don’t know. Don’t care. They aren’t important.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In #33, the screams are screamed words ... which weren't screamed. That is going beyond translation error. It's really just changing the evidence to something more palatable.

Absolute nonsense. No English speaker would use that phrase under any circumstances. But guess what? Schwartz didn’t speak English. That is the explanation. No other is required. So there is no need to ever mention this particular aspect of the case ever again. But you will of course because you have a plot to try and flesh out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We cannot claim to know that either man was walking on the pavement.

The man tried to pull the woman into the street ...

Where he had been walking?

What are you talking about? Where else would they have been walking? I’m convinced that you aren’t posting seriously now.

So then, what is your point?

If Schwartz reaches the gateway and stops to watch the man and woman, he would be right next to them. If Schwartz had walked on the club-side footway, he would literally be able to reach out and touch either of them. While he is there, all the talking, pushing, pulling, throwing, and screaming occurs. Really?

He didn’t stop. And again - we don’t know how far behind them he was?! What are you waffling about? What point are you trying to make? This is sooooooooooo simple. Read the bloody evidence!

Schwartz walked along the street at an unstated distance behind BS man. The incident began so he crossed the road to avoid getting caught up in it. As he was passing - on the opposite side of the street - the shout of “Lipski” goes out. Schwartz sees Pipeman but carries on walking and leaves the scene.

THAT is what happened. I really am losing patience with your blatant attempt to impose your own agenda on this. Why don’t you change the record!