An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[c.d.]

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.

[Tom_Wescott]

[QUOTE=NotBlamedForNothing;n853390]

don't count as published works, but Gavin Bromley has had thoughts on Schwartz as killer.

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.

to be clear on Wess's comments to the Echo, I think he was hinting that although it had been perceived the pursued man was the killer, he knew that wasn't the case. He seemed to know rather a lot about the incident. I'm sure you know of the misinterpreted police search theory. I doubt very much Wess was dumb enough to get that confused but had Wess used the search as a basis for his man pursued story, he might have thought that alone was worth the price of admission into the club. Without Schwartz's visit to Leman St station, Wess might have been left holding the bag. The metaphorical bag, that is, not Goldstein's shiny black one. Having said that, he did front Goldstein at the same station, after the Star reported doubts about Schwartz's story. Coincidence?

What? Schwartz confronted Leon Goldstein?

trying to picture this scenario. Brown makes his way to the chandler's shop but does not see Schwartz running with another man trailing him. According to Wess, the pursuit went along Fairclough St. So presumably, Brown just missed seeing this. Where then, is Stride when Brown is between his home and the shop? If she didn't wait long to get moving, she could be on her way to Fairclough St, and even with her deformed leg it won't take her long to get there. I suspect Brown should have seen Stride on his outward leg.

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

WADR, I do not have the slightest concern about being "way behind in the discussion of Mortimer's couple". Discuss as you may, Mortimer's comments are recorded by the press as one who was there at the time. Speculation and conjecture can be applied as to what may have really been meant, but the evidence still stands in the face of post mortem "discussions".

Regards, George

It certainly does.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't doubt Brown was a credible witness, but he didn't notice the flower that every other witness noticed, so there must be some reasonable doubt that Brown saw Stride.
I might add, you can only arrive at the conclusion you have if you dismiss the more certain witness who did notice the flower - Packer.
He saw who she arrived with, from which direction she came, and who she remained with after he spoke to them.
PC Smith confirmed Packer by describing Stride was with a man carrying a parcel, at the same place, at the same time as Packer described.
Your somewhat 'engineered' rejection of Packer entirely, has led you down the wrong path.

I'm not going to discuss the discredited Packer who never saw a flower but like everyone else in London knew about it the next day. Brown explained that he couldn't have seen the flower because the man's arm was in the way. Did PC Smith notice the flower?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't doubt Brown was a credible witness, but he didn't notice the flower that every other witness noticed, so there must be some reasonable doubt that Brown saw Stride.

Brown: As I was going across the road I saw a man and woman standing by the Board School in Fairclough-street. They were standing against the wall. As I passed them I heard the woman say, "No, not to-night, some other night." That made me turn round, and I looked at them. I am certain the woman was the deceased. I did not notice any flowers in her dress. The man had his arm up against the wall, and the woman had her back to the wall facing him.

Brown states that he heard the woman say those words as he passed them, and that made him turn around to look. It would seem that he heard those words when roughly level with the man and woman, relative to his path along the street. Given Brown was almost certain that he witnessed the deceased, can we suppose that the man had his left arm against the wall? Had it been his right, her face would have been obscured. If the flower was on the right side of Stride's chest, it could have been obscured from Brown's point of view.

We should also consider the proximity of the man and woman. With his arm against the wall and her back to it and facing him, their faces may have been very close to each other, and the woman does not sound like she was distressed. Is this a woman turning down a willing client? I don't think so. It's interesting that Brown heard the woman's response to a question, but not the question itself. It seems the man was keeping his voice down. This wasn't some horrid, rambunctious drunkard, so what was the woman rejecting?

[The Rookie Detective]

Sorry, but to scream "not very loudly" is not to scream at all, but to make some sort of noise similar to a scream but significantly quieter. A squeal need not consist of actual words, as you suggest, but even if it did, Schwartz wouldn't have understood them. Abberline has just accepted the translation, and not put it into his own words. We understand what Schwartz was trying to say.

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But we do know. They were heard by Schwartz but no one else. Or they sounded like background talk. Someone inside the club might have heard a distant sounding voice but assumed that it came from the members in another room.

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.

If the screams sounded like background talk, you might want to consider that that's what they really were. There was no physical evidence for Stride having been thrown on the footway. 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. 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?

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Sorry, but to scream "not very loudly" is not to scream at all, but to make some sort of noise similar to a scream but significantly quieter. A squeal need not consist of actual words, as you suggest, but even if it did, Schwartz wouldn't have understood them. Abberline has just accepted the translation, and not put it into his own words. We understand what Schwartz was trying to say.

What this would mean is that Abberline knew the screams weren't really screams and wrote 'screams' in his report without asking for clarifying terminology, on the basis that readers would "understand what Schwartz was trying to say". Supposedly Swanson did not translate 'screams' into what he knew Aberline knew Schwartz really meant, either.

We have to be clear on what Abberline was doing - was he just taking a statement or was he actively interviewing Schwartz?

Abberline: I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

Had Abberline wanted clarification on the nature of these screams, he would have asked for it. The "not very loudly" possibly was the clarification.

Regarding squealing, I am suggesting that humans only squeal in words. We use that word metaphorically for people and literally for some animals and birds. If Stride squealed, she spoke with a certain loudness and pitch. Why would that have been difficult to translate?

[Abby Normal]

Unlike yourself, I accept the police evidence as is. Am I trying to create a mystery, or are you trying to hide one?

There is no mystery and the eye witness evidence was ... she screamed but not very loudly. kind of like..

He ran, but not very fast.
She slept, but not very soundly.
He jumped, but not very high.
They whispered, but not very soft.
He listened, but not very well.
etc.

no mystery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or they sounded like background talk. Someone inside the club might have heard a distant sounding voice but assumed that it came from the members in another room.

A very good point, Herlock. If somebody says I didn't hear anything are they literally saying they heard no sound at all or are they essentially saying I didn't hear anything of which I took notice and felt I needed to respond to?

c.d.

It reminds me of another point c.d. We all say things like “Eagle didn’t see anyone in Berner Street,” but what he actually said when asked the question was: “I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.” It’s a potentially significant difference.

And Lave, whose time outdoors is impossible to judge due to the differing versions of what his did said: “I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual.”

Obviously I’m not talking about the Schwartz incident or a lone woman standing anywhere near the club or indeed a couple but there could have been someone in the street that they didn’t pay attention to. So maybe one of them might have seen Goldstein for example. Maybe Mortimer saw Brown but because he wasn’t anywhere near the club she just didn’t bother mentioning him?

[New Waterloo]

I am not sure if Spooner ever speaks with the press and is quoted by them. I can see his inquest testimony reported but not any press interview. I am probably wrong (help anyone)
It is feasible that the girl who says she was in a 'bisecting thoroughfare' with her sweetheart was Spooner's girlfriend and indeed was with Spooner.

I am trying to get across the fact that Spooner and his girlfriend made their way from the pub on Commercial Road and for a period stood by the Beehive. But they are in the area for more than an hour before Spooner goes to the yard.

If she was Spooner's girlfriend she probably thought the time was as Spooner suggests a lot earlier. So if on their travels they stopped in a passageway looking out onto Berners Street she would say that she heard nothing unusual for the twenty minutes she was there.

She may have been on her own when speaking to the press. I see this as quite feasible.

I don't suppose the press had Spooner's name until he gave evidence at the inquest so wouldn't link the two. So she ends up an anonymous witness.

An idea

NW

[c.d.]

Or they sounded like background talk. Someone inside the club might have heard a distant sounding voice but assumed that it came from the members in another room.

A very good point, Herlock. If somebody says I didn't hear anything are they literally saying they heard no sound at all or are they essentially saying I didn't hear anything of which I took notice and felt I needed to respond to?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Rather than Spooner and his GF being the young couple, is there any chance it may have been Eagle and his GF?

Neither, Chris.
Eagle was back at the club around 12:40, besides, the press knew of both Eagle & Spooner, yet the girl that was interviewed makes no mention of being with either one, from the London Evening News:

When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

Which also emphasizes the female was not Stride either.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not very loud screams could still be quite loud. Assuming the truth of the claim, would these screams have been heard by at least one person? Probably, but we can never know for sure.

But we do know. They were heard by Schwartz but no one else. Or they sounded like background talk. Someone inside the club might have heard a distant sounding voice but assumed that it came from the members in another room.

[Wickerman]

. . . I feel certain that Brown was a credible witness and that Overcoat Man actually existed. I'm not as certain about Schwartz. I accept his evidence because I cannot discount his evidence. It's as simple as that.

I don't doubt Brown was a credible witness, but he didn't notice the flower that every other witness noticed, so there must be some reasonable doubt that Brown saw Stride.
I might add, you can only arrive at the conclusion you have if you dismiss the more certain witness who did notice the flower - Packer.
He saw who she arrived with, from which direction she came, and who she remained with after he spoke to them.
PC Smith confirmed Packer by describing Stride was with a man carrying a parcel, at the same place, at the same time as Packer described.
Your somewhat 'engineered' rejection of Packer entirely, has led you down the wrong path.