An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

If you would be so kind, could you apply your expertise to the whole damned "screamed" business? What is your take on it? Thanks.

c.d.

Hi CD, any expertise I may possess (and I claim none) doesn't appear to go very far on Stride threads. Nor do facts. But Schwartz said Stride cried out but not very loudly. If Schwartz's story is true, then so is this, and it doesn't stand to reason that anyone would have heard it or thought anything of it if they did. I'd wager BS Man's voice carried further and louder, but with the noise of the club I'd expect it all bled together in the ears of neighbors. Most neighbors didn't appear to hear Diemshitz and company crying out 'Murder!' and 'Police!'. That may be instructive.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fiver]

Thank you Abby and R.D. for your observations. I don't believe that anyone who spoke good English would ever say "She screamed, but not very loudly". It is a contradiction, as a scream is loud, and "not very loudly" means it was rather less than a scream. As I said previously, it is almost certainly the result of a translation by someone whose English vocabulary was limited. I see no reason for the club members to have particularly noticed a sound which wasn't very loud, and was probably fairly common around midnight in the East End in 1888.

We should also remember the scene was not silent.

[Coroner] Was there much noise in the club?
[Wess] Not exactly much noise; but I could hear the singing when I was in the yard.

Coroner] If there was dancing and singing in the club you would not hear the cry of a woman in the yard?
[Eagle] It would depend upon the cry.

[Coroner] Supposing a woman had screamed, would you have heard it?
]Krantz] They were singing in the club, so I might not have heard.

[Fiver]

So, the professional translator did not have the right word, and did not tell Abberline he did not have the right word?

What professional translator?

And saying screamed, but not very loudly clearly shows that the amateur translator did not have the right word. Abberline wouldn't have needed even average intelligence to realize that.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We are not considering the idea that Schwartz needed to qualify his wording with "not very loudly". We are suggesting that the concept of a scream which was not very loud was coming totally from the translator, who presumably didn't know an appropriate English word for what Schwarz described. Nobody with a good vocabulary range would say someone screamed but not very loudly. The key wording is "not very loudly", as this explains why nobody else heard anything, which is what the police needed to know. They seem to have understood, and were satisfied.

So, the professional translator did not have the right word, and did not tell Abberline he did not have the right word? Yet Abberline remained satisfied with what he was hearing, which, according to yourself was due to his own internal translation which he did not put to paper.

Perhaps the translator was not a professional but instead was Schwartz's friend, as the Star stated. Let's hope that friend took a neutral approach and did his best to express Schwartz's descriptions in English, in spite of a limited vocabulary in that language.

[Doctored Whatsit]

If Schwartz used a word that did not imply loudness, he would not have to qualify it with the phrase "not very loudly". Who asked a question of Schwartz that resulted in this qualification being offered, the translator or Abberline? If the translator, he is telling Abberline what we see in Swanson's report, and Abberline is fine with it. If it were Abberline himself, he is initially puzzled but is then satisfied when the qualification is provided. Had he not been, he could have kept probing, but it seems he was happy to move on. This is the issue that yourself and the sensible others have to grapple with. Just agreeing with each other is not enough.

We are not considering the idea that Schwartz needed to qualify his wording with "not very loudly". We are suggesting that the concept of a scream which was not very loud was coming totally from the translator, who presumably didn't know an appropriate English word for what Schwarz described. Nobody with a good vocabulary range would say someone screamed but not very loudly. The key wording is "not very loudly", as this explains why nobody else heard anything, which is what the police needed to know. They seem to have understood, and were satisfied.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How do you know that they didn’t speak to Schwartz again after The Star article appeared? Or…perhaps the police to the sensible approach that I and others are taking on this subject. That Schwartz spoke no English. That the interpreters English or Hungarian might have been imperfect. That no English speaker would have used that phrase. That the important part of the phrase was “..not very loudly.”

If a non-English speaker had given a statement which said “I was walking across the field until I came to a small brook on the far side. I jumped under it and continued on my journey.” Would you assume that something dodgy was going on or would you assume the obvious - that the man had used ‘under’ when he meant ‘over?’ I know which one I’d go for.

If Schwartz used a word that did not imply loudness, he would not have to qualify it with the phrase "not very loudly". Who asked a question of Schwartz that resulted in this qualification being offered, the translator or Abberline? If the translator, he is telling Abberline what we see in Swanson's report, and Abberline is fine with it. If it were Abberline himself, he is initially puzzled but is then satisfied when the qualification is provided. Had he not been, he could have kept probing, but it seems he was happy to move on. This is the issue that yourself and the sensible others have to grapple with. Just agreeing with each other is not enough.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We can’t assume that he intended to mutilate if he wasn’t the ripper but the fact is that we would have to consider the time between him calling out Lipski and the moment that he killed Stride. Not a huge length of time but it might have been a thirty seconds or a minute or even longer. If no one had come out of the club in response to someone shouting Lipski then he would have been confident that he was ok.

So, what is Stride doing all the while - standing there sucking cachous?

There’s no evidence that Fanny Mortimer spent any more than a minute or so on her doorstep but do you doubt that she did spend longer? We can assume that anyone might have been lying.

This is an apples and oranges comparison. We could have physical evidence for Stride being thrown down. Someone standing in a doorway doesn't leave a physical trace.

As I said, we can ‘suggest’ that any witness was lying but it gets us nowhere if there’s no evidence for it. I don’t have figures but I’d suggest that witnesses are generally truthful, if often mistaken. I’d also suggest (and I’ll happily consider any info to the contrary) that most of whatever percentage of witnesses lie usually lie for a reason. If Schwartz lied then, as far as we know, he’d have been lying for no reason. What if the two men showed up and backed each other up in that neither laid a hand on Stride? What if they found the killer and he looked nothing like BS man? What if some neighbour had been looking out of a window, unknown to Schwartz, and then came forward to prove him a liar to the police?

The police already allowed for the possibility of BS Man not being the killer. Your other options are time-based. What about all those lectures on the lack of clock and watch synchronisation? Specifically, regarding two men showing up or being arrested, we see arrests in the Star that seem to be related to a loss of confidence in Schwartz's story.

Yes.

I doubt such a scenario has ever occurred in world history.

It’s just how he was described but we have no proper description. He’d have had to have been a very stupid attention seeker. What if Mortimer was just a self-important busybody who only spent a couple of minutes on her doorstep? What if PC Smith wasn’t as observant as he himself might have assumed and that the woman that he’d seen wasn’t Stride? What if Eagle had asked someone at his girlfriend’s house what the time was and he’d misheard the answer?

Not sure what your point is regarding Smith or Eagle. If Mortimer only spent a couple of minutes on her doorstep, what justifies calling her a self-important busybody?

[The Rookie Detective]

Duplicate post, my apologies

[The Rookie Detective]

I know it's generally accepted that the Schwartz incident occurred after the Brown sighting, but what if it actually occurred the other way around?


Smith sees Stride on the opposite side of the road to the club, roughly level with the gateway.

But after Smith leaves and Parcelman either leaves OR is Lave/Eagle...then where does Stride go next?

It's assumed that she walks over to stand in the gateway and is then assaulted by BS man.

But what if she chooses to leave Berner Street, and instead of walking into the gateway, she heads south and walks around the corner of the board school, and is then seen by Brown with Overcoat man.

She then manages to fob him off and walks back around the corner to Berner Street and attempts to walk into the yard, and is then assaulted by BS man.

The assault then plays out.

Bs man then leaves.

All observed by Pipeman

Pipeman then walks over to Stride with the pretence of trying to help her, but he instead cuts her throat and casually walks off.


Pipeman being the same Overcoat man seen with Stride by Brown.


There's a clear height discrepancy, but considering that both men were seen with an overcoat, may suggest that they're the same man (as mentioned previously by Tom)



Of course, if the generally accepted view that the Brown sighting occurred AFTER the Schwartz account, then BS man couldn't have been the killer.


It's interesting that in both versions, there's a man with an overcoat relatively close to Stride; Overcoat man and Pipeman.

Also, if Stride did encounter Overcoat man after Bs man, then she would have walked from the gate after the assault, met overcoat man in Fairclough street, but then ended BACK in the gateway.

That doesn't make much sense

IMO, the Brown sighting occurred BEFORE the Schwartz assault.




The anomaly of course being Parcelman.

What happened to Parcelman?



Well, unless he was either BS man, Pipeman, or Overcoat man, then he can't have been the killer.


But what's odd, is that Parcelman was clearly considered the prime suspect when the story first broke in the press. The description given supported the idea that the man seen by PC Smith was the likely killer.


Now at first, this would make sense because PC Smith would have been able to tell his superiors almost immediately about the man he saw with Stride.


And so when Schwartz gave his statement, one would then expect the focus to switch from Parcelman to Bs man.


But it doesn't.


Why?


It's even more bizarre that Schwartz actually gave his account to the police very early on. This is evidenced by his story being referenced in the newspaper the day after the murder. His name isn't mentioned, but it's clear that Schwartz went to the police very soon after the murder, because in the paper it mentions there having been an incident where a man witnessed what he thought was a domestic and tried to steer clear.

On that basis, it seems odd that Schwartz's suspect didn't take priority over Parcelman, especially seeing as Bs man was seen with Stride AFTER Parcelman was.


Is that an indication that while the police believed that Schwartz was a credible witness; that his story wasn't as accurate as they initially thought it was?


Fascinating indeed

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm still not hearing a good explanation as to why the police accepted this apparent contradiction. Seemingly the Home Office did too, as there was no "please explain" marginal note in Swanson's report.

Hypothetically, if Stride had a sore throat that night due to infection, and as a result had bad breath which she was attempting to mask by consuming cachous, would it be conceivable that she did indeed scream three times, but not very loudly?

Supposing this explanation correct, would it be right to infer that Stride was feeling quite relaxed when she had the cachous in her hand in the passageway? Could the broad-shouldered man have made her feel that way? Unlikely, unless the ill-using described by Schwartz was fictitious.

How do you know that they didn’t speak to Schwartz again after The Star article appeared? Or…perhaps the police to the sensible approach that I and others are taking on this subject. That Schwartz spoke no English. That the interpreters English or Hungarian might have been imperfect. That no English speaker would have used that phrase. That the important part of the phrase was “..not very loudly.”

If a non-English speaker had given a statement which said “I was walking across the field until I came to a small brook on the far side. I jumped under it and continued on my journey.” Would you assume that something dodgy was going on or would you assume the obvious - that the man had used ‘under’ when he meant ‘over?’ I know which one I’d go for.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If we do know, then we have some reason to doubt Schwartz. We should also doubt that a man supposedly called out 'Lipski' just outside a mostly Jewish occupied club. Not a great way to avoid detection if his intent was to kill and mutilate.

We can’t assume that he intended to mutilate if he wasn’t the ripper but the fact is that we would have to consider the time between him calling out Lipski and the moment that he killed Stride. Not a huge length of time but it might have been a thirty seconds or a minute or even longer. If no one had come out of the club in response to someone shouting Lipski then he would have been confident that he was ok.

If the screams sounded like background talk, you might want to consider that that's what they really were.

But there is a difference between someone hearing background disembodied voices and one’s coming from a woman a few feet away.

There was no physical evidence for Stride having been thrown on the footway.

There’s no evidence that Fanny Mortimer spent any more than a minute or so on her doorstep but do you doubt that she did spend longer? We can assume that anyone might have been lying.

Perhaps Schwartz witnessed the victim and saw a couple of men on the street at the same time or nearly the same time, but there never was any shouting, throwing down the victim, screaming (of whatever intensity), and running. In other words, Schwartz was on the street at roughly the time he claimed, did see the victim, but most of the rest of his story was made up.

As I said, we can ‘suggest’ that any witness was lying but it gets us nowhere if there’s no evidence for it. I don’t have figures but I’d suggest that witnesses are generally truthful, if often mistaken. I’d also suggest (and I’ll happily consider any info to the contrary) that most of whatever percentage of witnesses lie usually lie for a reason. If Schwartz lied then, as far as we know, he’d have been lying for no reason. What if the two men showed up and backed each other up in that neither laid a hand on Stride? What if they found the killer and he looked nothing like BS man? What if some neighbour had been looking out of a window, unknown to Schwartz, and then came forward to prove him a liar to the police?

Can you really see two men running off in fear while Stride does not even make enough sound to alert the women in the kitchen?

Yes.

Perhaps Schwartz was an attention seeker. What's with "the appearance of being in the theatrical line"?

It’s just how he was described but we have no proper description. He’d have had to have been a very stupid attention seeker. What if Mortimer was just a self-important busybody who only spent a couple of minutes on her doorstep? What if PC Smith wasn’t as observant as he himself might have assumed and that the woman that he’d seen wasn’t Stride? What if Eagle had asked someone at his girlfriend’s house what the time was and he’d misheard the answer?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thank you Abby and R.D. for your observations. I don't believe that anyone who spoke good English would ever say "She screamed, but not very loudly". It is a contradiction, as a scream is loud, and "not very loudly" means it was rather less than a scream. As I said previously, it is almost certainly the result of a translation by someone whose English vocabulary was limited. I see no reason for the club members to have particularly noticed a sound which wasn't very loud, and was probably fairly common around midnight in the East End in 1888.

I'm still not hearing a good explanation as to why the police accepted this apparent contradiction. Seemingly the Home Office did too, as there was no "please explain" marginal note in Swanson's report.

Hypothetically, if Stride had a sore throat that night due to infection, and as a result had bad breath which she was attempting to mask by consuming cachous, would it be conceivable that she did indeed scream three times, but not very loudly?

Supposing this explanation correct, would it be right to infer that Stride was feeling quite relaxed when she had the cachous in her hand in the passageway? Could the broad-shouldered man have made her feel that way? Unlikely, unless the ill-using described by Schwartz was fictitious.

[Doctored Whatsit]

And there you have it. A contemporary source, either a hoaxer or the ripper, knowing exactly what "screamed, but not very loudly" meant, and having no problem with it.

End of debate. Good one RD! (and Doctored Whatsit)

Thank you Abby and R.D. for your observations. I don't believe that anyone who spoke good English would ever say "She screamed, but not very loudly". It is a contradiction, as a scream is loud, and "not very loudly" means it was rather less than a scream. As I said previously, it is almost certainly the result of a translation by someone whose English vocabulary was limited. I see no reason for the club members to have particularly noticed a sound which wasn't very loud, and was probably fairly common around midnight in the East End in 1888.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Egads, dissertations definitely count as published works, assuming they're published where people can read them. I honestly don't recall Gavin Bromley's piece arguing Schwartz as killer, but I must have read it at some point.

I stand corrected re publishing.

Bromley: There is also the possibility that Schwartz was lying to protect someone else.

What? Schwartz confronted Leon Goldstein?

I didn't use the word 'confronted'. Wess took Goldstein to the police late in the evening of the day (Tuesday) that the Star published police doubts over the Hungarian's story. In #573, you said "I don't believe much in coincidence ...".

Brown spent 3 or 4 minutes in the chandler shop. A lot may have happened in those minutes.

In that case, I'm going to keep the stopwatch on the 'Schwartz incident' running.

[Abby Normal]

According to the Saucy Jack postcard, number one (Stride) did just that.... "Squealed a bit"

And there you have it. A contemporary source, either a hoaxer or the ripper, knowing exactly what "screamed, but not very loudly" meant, and having no problem with it.

End of debate. Good one RD! (and Doctored Whatsit)