An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, George, the critical question is, what category does a man with a black bag, walking north, fall into?

He falls into the ‘Leon Goldstein-innocent-passer-by-exonerated-by-the-police’ category that Andrew wants to turn into the Bogeyman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The point being made has nothing to do with suspicion, either.

There is no ‘point.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

I will once again quote Abberline.

I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

Schwartz stopped to look - stated unambiguously by the man who interviewed him.

So, why all the denial? It is obviously due to a desire to make the timespan of the 'Schwartz incident' as small as possible.

Does Schwartz himself mention stopping? No. Are you we expected to believe that the timid sounding Schwartz, who scarpered because someone shouted at him, actually stood there watching the incident. ‘Stopping’ was just a phrase used by Abberline. Like when someone is given ‘pause to think.’

You are determined to invent some kind of mystery. What is it about Berner Street that attracts this kind of thinking? All because you think that something can’t happen unseen or heard.

[New Waterloo]

The witness Brown tells us a lot. He is a good witness in that he walks over the same part of Fairclough Street twice. When he walks from his house next to the Beehive pub to the shop at the junction with Berners Street. Then he walks back to his house repeating the same journey. It is only a few minutes around the time of 1245. During that journey he only mentions seeing one couple he describes being near the Board School. So far I see no reason to doubt what he says.
Regarding the couple he is ‘almost certain’ the woman is Stride. The man is wearing a long overcoat. Brown is sure of that. This is not the man who has been deen earlier with Stride.

I suppose I am being repetitive about this but Spooner and his female companion are not in Fairclough Street unless its the couple Brown sees. I accept they could be round the corner of the Beehive in Christian Street but nevertheless Browns statement is important.

Spooner suggests he's in the area with his girlfriend throughout the crucial period but nobody sees the girlfriend.
Could Spooner be BSman. Not sure to be honest but I think it may be possible.
NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because there is no point there. There is nothing suspicious about Schwartz.

The point being made has nothing to do with suspicion, either.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I agree Andrew. Witnesses have no idea that they are to be witnesses, so they tend to remember only things out of the ordinary. Couples talking in the street do not fall into that category.

So, George, the critical question is, what category does a man with a black bag, walking north, fall into?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You don't seem to understand the point being made, which has nothing to do with the use of the word 'Lipski'.

No one else has picked up on the issue, so I will let it go.

Because there is no point there. There is nothing suspicious about Schwartz.

[GBinOz]

We can't be certain that Fanny is the subject of the 3rd-person report. Taken literally, had Fanny gone to her doorstep immediately on hearing the plod of a passing bobby, she would have seen Stride with Parcelman. Consider an alternate scenario - that the subject of that interview is the woman I hypothesised in the opening posts of this thread. She lives across the street, somewhere between the board school and Commercial Rd. Now if she comes to her doorstep at around 12:45, what would she see?

PC Smith was able to see Stride's flower(s), when walking up (North on) the street. So, Stride was probably facing South. Had a woman come to her door on that (East) side of the street, but further to the North, what would she see? From the Interview with a Neighbour:

Was the street quiet at the time?

Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club.

So, did this woman actually see the back of Stride, as she spoke to Parcelman, and just didn't realise that the woman lying in the dark of Dutfield's Yard was the woman previously witnessed?

I agree Andrew. Witnesses have no idea that they are to be witnesses, so they tend to remember only things out of the ordinary. Couples talking in the street do not fall into that category.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You are investing significance into some initial confusion as to who BS man shouted at. They may even have considered the possibility that Schwartz might have been mistaken. Basically they had to cover all angles. No mystery.

You don't seem to understand the point being made, which has nothing to do with the use of the word 'Lipski'.

No one else has picked up on the issue, so I will let it go.

[GBinOz]

I am not as shocked as one might expect. Quite often we agree to a large extent, and where we differ tend to be to fall on either side of a point where neither of us is fully convinced of our own position. It is hardly surprising to find different views at those unclear junctions, but that is often where the most interesting discussions are held.

- Jeff

Thank you Jeff. You are very kind. I consider it my privilege to be able to amicably discuss issues with a person possessed of a mind of your calibre.

Warmest regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apparently, they did not think that ...

Robert Anderson: I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.

This means that the apparent association of the first and second man, implied by Anderson and supported by the press account, is left unexplained.

You are investing significance into some initial confusion as to who BS man shouted at. They may even have considered the possibility that Schwartz might have been mistaken. Basically they had to cover all angles. No mystery.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Now from Schwartz's statement, he would appear to imply that BS man was walking ahead of him. On that basis it would seem that BS man had also come form the same direction as Schwartz; ergo, from the Commercial road. But what's interesting is that Schwartz eludes to the idea that he only notices or sees Bs man as he's almost at the gateway itself.

So why didn't he observe Bs man earlier?

There's a distinct downward gradient as you walk down Berner Street, and so anyone coming from the Commerical road, should have a clear view of anyone ahead of them.
That said, the weather wasn't great, although it wasn't foggy. And we know the street lighting in general was particularly poor in those days. So maybe Schwartz just didn't see or notice Bs man until he was made aware of him approaching the woman a standing in the gateway.

Based on when Schwartz should have seen Bs man (based on hi statement) it is apparent that he first takes notice of him within mere yards of the gateway; virtually outside Mortimer's residence.

You make a good point here. We have the impression that BS Man also came from Commercial Rd, but that is far from certain. For all we know, he may have already spoken to Stride, walked away (to the north) disgruntled, and then turned around and walked back - when spotted by Schwartz. That might sound farfetched, but everyone except me believes the second man to have come out of the doorway of the Nelson. We get that 'knowledge' from the press account, from which we also get the 'knowledge' that the second man called a warning to the first man. So, did the first man also initially come from the Nelson?

If yes, the 'Schwartz incident' has a long prelude. If no, then the apparent association of the two men seems random, or the Nelson doorway was not the location from which the second man emerged.

Interestingly, when we apply what Mortimer appears to have claimed; it's said that she heard someone walk past her door with a measured pace.

We can be fairly certain that Mortimer didn't hear Bs man walk past her door for 2 reasons...

1) He doesn't appear to have been walking in a measured and controlled way
2) Schwartz walks past Mortimer's door just after Bs man.

In other words, Mortimer didn't hear 2 people, so either she wasn't near or at her door when Bs man and Schwartz walked past, or she heard Schwartz and Bs man had instead been walking AWAY from the yard BEFORE Schwartz had turned the corner of Berner Street.

On that basis, this is a potential scenario that may work...

Pipeman and Bs man are comrades.

They have been in the pub earlier.
They are either; walking west along Fairclough Street, or walking north up from the southern section of Berner Street....when they notice Stride standing by the gateway. Pipeman goes to light his pipe under the shelter of a doorway, while Bs man walks towards Stride and approaches her. He engages with her but she tells him she's not soliciting and waiting for someone. He is aggrieved and because he's been drinking, he's even more angered by her dismissing him. Bs man wants to teach her a lesson and so turns around to go back to her.

This occurs at the precise moment that Schwartz turns the corner of Berner Street. As Schwartz walks south, he then sees Bs man approach Stride and try and talk to her.

His observation then plays out as he claims.

It is an interesting scenario. However, how could all this go unnoticed by anyone else in the vicinity?

Going back briefly to Mortimer; she couldn't have heard Schwartz pass her door either. as she must have been positioned close to the door/front of the house when she heard the measured tramping of footsteps, and considering the assault on Stride occurred just moments after Schwartz walked past her door, then we can be sure that Mortimer would have heard the commotion witness by Schwartz.

In other words, Mortimer wasn't at her door when Schwartz walked past.

That also means that Bs man may have come from the same direction as Schwartz, but based on the fact that Schwartz only notices BS man when he his almost as the gateway itself, perhaps suggests that Bs man had never walked more than a few yards NORTH of Stride's static position at the gate.

The idea that Bs man had already tried to engage with Stride BEFORE Schwartz saw him, fits better into trying to explain where, when and where he came from prior to Schwartz seeing him.
It then becomes a matter of Bs man not taking "NO!" for an answer.

We can't be certain that Fanny is the subject of the 3rd-person report. Taken literally, had Fanny gone to her doorstep immediately on hearing the plod of a passing bobby, she would have seen Stride with Parcelman. Consider an alternate scenario - that the subject of that interview is the woman I hypothesised in the opening posts of this thread. She lives across the street, somewhere between the board school and Commercial Rd. Now if she comes to her doorstep at around 12:45, what would she see?

PC Smith was able to see Stride's flower(s), when walking up (North on) the street. So, Stride was probably facing South. Had a woman come to her door on that (East) side of the street, but further to the North, what would she see? From the Interview with a Neighbour:

Was the street quiet at the time?

Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club.

So, did this woman actually see the back of Stride, as she spoke to Parcelman, and just didn't realise that the woman lying in the dark of Dutfield's Yard was the woman previously witnessed?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It’s not an ‘insurance police’ I’ve have said numerous times in the past that we cannot assume that Schwartz got his time right.

So, where would that leave Fanny Mortimer at 12:45? At her doorstep?

He probably found out that the body was discovered at 1.00 and so put his passing at not long before that.

What's his motive for doing that?

Why do you bring Wess into this? He is unconnected to events in Berner Street and nothing that he says is important.

So, are you now retracting your hypothesis that Wess learnt of the incident through Schwartz? If yes, the Echo report remains unexplained.

All that you need to do is read what Schwartz said…that is what happened.

All I need to do is accept Schwartz's story, uncritically.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

As the police initially looked for someone called Lipski it’s not surprising that the use of the name made them think that he called to Pipeman and knew his name. They were covering all options. Israel Lipski wasn’t the only person ever to have that name.

Apparently, they did not think that ...

Robert Anderson: I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.

This means that the apparent association of the first and second man, implied by Anderson and supported by the press account, is left unexplained.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It is called watching. B.S. is ahead of him, the quarrel starts quickly. He may even if you can believe it, turned his head as he walked by.

It is really quite simple.

I will once again quote Abberline.

I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

Schwartz stopped to look - stated unambiguously by the man who interviewed him.

So, why all the denial? It is obviously due to a desire to make the timespan of the 'Schwartz incident' as small as possible.