An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

“..but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off” This can only be The Nelson and it can only mean that, whether Pipeman actually came out of the pub or not, he was on the club side of the road.

At the moment Schwartz steps from the kerb, there is no public house doorway a few doors off. Combined with the fact that someone coming out of the Nelson long after it had closed for the night, is problematic itself, the conclusion must be that either the Star has made a mistake, or we do not have the right doorway in mind.

Exactly. What gives? You are in one breath saying that Schwartz crossing the road from the opposite side back to the club side after passing the incident makes no sense but it only ‘makes no sense’ if we go with your suggestion that he was initially on the opposite side of the road.

You're not understanding this. The redundant crossing refers to that normally supposed - away from the gateway, not toward it. If Schwartz reaches the gateway and then barely stops to watch the fracas, he is clear of the gateway by the time Stride is on the footway. So then, not only would his crossing be redundant if its purpose is to avoid the situation, but it would also be in conflict with his Ellen St destination. Yet he does cross.

The next step is then to say, well let's agree with Abberline that he does stop to watch. The problem now - and this is the bit you do seem to understand - is that if Schwartz stops to watch, having himself reached the level of the gates, he would be in the gateway himself (or almost), if he had come down the street on the club side.

The next step is then to see if it makes sense and does not contradict any evidence, if we suppose Schwartz actually came down on the opposite side of the street, eventually crossing to the club side.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At the moment Schwartz steps from the kerb, there is no public house doorway a few doors off. Combined with the fact that someone coming out of the Nelson long after it had closed for the night, is problematic itself, the conclusion must be that either the Star has made a mistake, or we do not have the right doorway in mind.

I can nitpick too. “Just as he stepped from the kerb..” so he may still have had one foot on the kerb! Basically, as he began to cross over the man was a few doors away. If the man was on the other side of the road the public house wouldn’t have been mentioned. It’s being mentioned isn’t problematic unless you’re creating a scenario.

a) Perhaps the guy worked at The Nelson and had been cleaning up after the customers had left.
b) Perhaps he had been offered a bit of after time drinking?
c) Perhaps it was just a case of Schwartz only seeing him when he was adjacent to, or just passed, the pub door so he got the incorrect impression that he had come from the pub.

All 3 are clearly more believable than Schwartz not realising that the guy was on the same side of the street as him or of him mistaking the Board School for a pub.

You're not understanding this. The redundant crossing refers to that normally supposed - away from the gateway, not toward it. If Schwartz reaches the gateway and then barely stops to watch the fracas, he is clear of the gateway by the time Stride is on the footway. So then, not only would his crossing be redundant if its purpose is to avoid the situation, but it would also be in conflict with his Ellen St destination. Yet he does cross.

It’s you that is wrong on this and I’m struggling to understand how you are managing it. It wasn’t a ‘redundant’ crossing. It was a crossing to avoid BS man. It can’t be simpler.

The next step is then to say, well let's agree with Abberline that he does stop to watch. The problem now - and this is the bit you do seem to understand - is that if Schwartz stops to watch, having himself reached the level of the gates, he would be in the gateway himself (or almost), if he had come down the street on the club side.

No. For Christ’s sake Andrew!!

I don’t think that he ‘stopped.’ He may have paused for a second but it’s unthinkable that he stood watching. Why do you give this suggestion even a seconds credence? BS man is at the gateway with the woman. Schwartz is on the same side but behind him (who knows how far - I’ll guess at 5 or 10 yards) As soon as he sees conflict he crosses over. He looks across as he passes. When Schwartz got in line with the gateway he was across the street.

The next step is then to see if it makes sense and does not contradict any evidence, if we suppose Schwartz actually came down on the opposite side of the street, eventually crossing to the club side.

Nothing that you are saying makes sense. You are quite deliberately trying to shape events to create mysteries as exactly as Michael used to do. We know what happened.

BS man was on the club side with Schwartz an unknown distant behind him but almost certainly a few yards.

As soon as the incident began Schwartz crossed over to avoid the conflict.

As he gets across the road he sees Pipeman who he assumes has just left the pub.

BS man called out “Lipski” as Schwartz is passing.

Schwartz crosses back over because that’s where he needs to be to get to his destination.


I can’t think why anyone would think that this was somehow far fetched?