An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why aren’t you seeing this Andrew? The evidence is that Schwartz said that her cries weren’t very loud. That’s what the witness said. “Not very loudly.” It couldn’t be clearer but you are the one implying that “not very loudly” must have meant “loudly” hence your belief that someone should have heard it. It’s you that is trying to alter the evidence. Not me.

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.

[Doctored Whatsit]

An irritated squeal would consist of words, expressed louder and with a higher tone than normal speech. Had Stride squealed 3 words, Schwartz would have said something to that effect; to indicate she had raised her voice in protest. I don't think we have a translation issue, because Abberline could have asked for clarification had he felt it necessary. Even without the right words, Schwartz could have acted it. How would you act irritated squeals that are not words but just noises?

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Why aren’t you seeing this Andrew? The evidence is that Schwartz said that her cries weren’t very loud. That’s what the witness said. “Not very loudly.” It couldn’t be clearer but you are the one implying that “not very loudly” must have meant “loudly” hence your belief that someone should have heard it. It’s you that is trying to alter the evidence. Not me.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Exactly Doc. And yet a mystery is created from this. It came from a non-English speaker via a interpreter for whom English probably wasn’t his first language.

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

[GBinOz]

You're way, way behind in the discussion of Mortimer's couple.

Yours truly,

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I have always regarded the quote "she screamed three times, but not very loudly", as a problematic translation into English by someone whose range of English vocabulary is rather limited. Quite simply, a scream is loud, and you cannot scream even relatively quietly. I am therefore of the opinion that in Schwartz' native tongue he said that Stride made some sort of irritated squeal at being pushed around, and the translator simply didn't have the right words to describe exactly what was said by Schwartz, and so added "not very loudly" to illustrate that it wasn't really a scream at all.

An irritated squeal would consist of words, expressed louder and with a higher tone than normal speech. Had Stride squealed 3 words, Schwartz would have said something to that effect; to indicate she had raised her voice in protest. I don't think we have a translation issue, because Abberline could have asked for clarification had he felt it necessary. Even without the right words, Schwartz could have acted it. How would you act irritated squeals that are not words but just noises?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'm possibly the only writer who's ever published anything pursuing the thought that Schwartz was the actual killer. But no, there's really no supporting that at all. I still hold it's possible his entire story was fabricated. I've looked to prove that's the case but could not. What evidence there is does not refute his story and actually goes some small way to confirm it.

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

Just 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?

Stride had a deformed leg. That probably played a part in her fall when BS Man pulled her from the yard into the street. But her legs still worked, so I'm willing to wager she didn't just stand in the gateway waiting for a man to tell her in which direction to move. She went towards Fairclough Street where Overcoat Man approached for their rendezvous on the School Board side. I only suggest Overcoat Man was Pipeman because a) they both wore long overcoats and b) were both seen around the same place at around the same time. On a balance of probabilities, it's more likely they were the same man than different men. But I will say this - 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'm 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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have always regarded the quote "she screamed three times, but not very loudly", as a problematic translation into English by someone whose range of English vocabulary is rather limited. Quite simply, a scream is loud, and you cannot scream even relatively quietly. I am therefore of the opinion that in Schwartz' native tongue he said that Stride made some sort of irritated squeal at being pushed around, and the translator simply didn't have the right words to describe exactly what was said by Schwartz, and so added "not very loudly" to illustrate that it wasn't really a scream at all.

Exactly Doc. And yet a mystery is created from this. It came from a non-English speaker via a interpreter for whom English probably wasn’t his first language.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whatever loudness you attribute to the screams, they were still screams. Not accepting this amounts to changing the evidence. Abberline accepted Schwartz in stating the woman screamed three times, so if you believe Schwartz because the police believed him, you have to accept the evidence as it is.

I do accept the evidence as it it. They were done ‘not very loudly.’ That is the evidence. It’s what Schwartz said. Screamed is just a word. Can you distinguish any kind of difference in ‘screamed’ or ‘yelled’ or ‘squealed’ or ‘howled’ or ‘cried’ or ‘called out?’

[Doctored Whatsit]

Whatever loudness you attribute to the screams, they were still screams. Not accepting this amounts to changing the evidence. Abberline accepted Schwartz in stating the woman screamed three times, so if you believe Schwartz because the police believed him, you have to accept the evidence as it is.

I have always regarded the quote "she screamed three times, but not very loudly", as a problematic translation into English by someone whose range of English vocabulary is rather limited. Quite simply, a scream is loud, and you cannot scream even relatively quietly. I am therefore of the opinion that in Schwartz' native tongue he said that Stride made some sort of irritated squeal at being pushed around, and the translator simply didn't have the right words to describe exactly what was said by Schwartz, and so added "not very loudly" to illustrate that it wasn't really a scream at all.

[The Rookie Detective]

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

The term "sweetheart" is used in the press in reference to Eagle when referring to his GF. Is it possible that Eagle and his GF were standing around for longer than he cliamed and that the couple seen was Eagle and the woman he then took home.

If the couple were around the previous hour and had long gone by the time of the murder, and Mortimer was mistaken, then there's a chance that the man and his sweetheart were actually Eagle and his GF.

In other words; the woman who spoke to Mortimer and said she and her man had been 20 yards away, may have been Eagle's GF who became alerted to the murder.

If that's the case; did Eagle's GF effectively give him an alibi that was never used or picked up on at the time, and the discussion with Mortimer acted as some sort of leverage that could be used if necessary?


What really makes things interesting and rather complicated, is that it was stated that the woman who was with her sweetheart on the corner, closely resembled the victim in terms of her attire and general appearance.

If that is indeed true, then it adds into the mix the possibility that nobody saw Stride at all, and the woman seen was not Stride.

It's random, but there seems to be no concrete proof that any of the witnesses actually saw the victim, and that there was another woman present who just happened to resemble the victim.

That may be incorrect of course, but I am sure I have seen a source that states the victim closely resembled the woman who was with her BF and who was around after the murder to talk to Mortimer.

If that's the case, could the murder of Stride have not been a Ripper killing and possibly a case of mistaken identity?

Random, but thought I'd ask.

[Tom_Wescott]

So, compared to my cleaning up a mess of the club's own making theory - which might also explain modern researchers' difficulty in identifying the individual named Israel Schwartz - you're happy with the incident being real, and even extending it to link Pipeman with Overcoat Man. I'm fine with that and think you're within the bounds of possibility, which is why I've posted on my own interpretation of the event. Where I think you could do better, is in regard to what Wess actually knew. He claims to have been told the name of the pursuer, and hints that onlookers were under the impression the pursued man was the murderer. Schwartz, that is. Describing Wess's account as garbled is not enough, in my opinion. At the very least, the Echo report suggests that Schwartz was more involved in the incident than he claimed. Less specifically, those who take Schwartz at his word might be wise to remember that there are two or more sides to every story, and in this case, we have only heard one.

I'm possibly the only writer who's ever published anything pursuing the thought that Schwartz was the actual killer. But no, there's really no supporting that at all. I still hold it's possible his entire story was fabricated. I've looked to prove that's the case but could not. What evidence there is does not refute his story and actually goes some small way to confirm it.

In other words, he circled back, retrieved Stride from the gateway, chatted to her around the corner for a while, and then coaxed her to go back to the yard where he kills her. Have I got that right?

Stride had a deformed leg. That probably played a part in her fall when BS Man pulled her from the yard into the street. But her legs still worked, so I'm willing to wager she didn't just stand in the gateway waiting for a man to tell her in which direction to move. She went towards Fairclough Street where Overcoat Man approached for their rendezvous on the School Board side. I only suggest Overcoat Man was Pipeman because a) they both wore long overcoats and b) were both seen around the same place at around the same time. On a balance of probabilities, it's more likely they were the same man than different men. But I will say this - 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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NotBlamedForNothing]

“Not very loudly” tends to mean “not very loudly.” Why some people find this problematic I’ll never know? “Of low volume,” “not piercing,” “lacking in loud noise.” It’s why no one heard the incident.

Whatever loudness you attribute to the screams, they were still screams. Not accepting this amounts to changing the evidence. Abberline accepted Schwartz in stating the woman screamed three times, so if you believe Schwartz because the police believed him, you have to accept the evidence as it is.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You're way, way behind in the discussion of Mortimer's couple.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

What got me with Mortimer's couple, is both the distance - "20 yards" - and the coincidence of the young woman's timing - "about twenty minutes" - with that of James Brown. However, after taking other things into account, my perception has flipped - the man is looking in a different direction...



The 20 yards is Fanny's mistake - the pub around the corner the young woman referred to, was the Beehive, not the Nelson. The about 20 minutes is Spooner's about 25. The woman is the subject of the report because she spoke to Mortimer while Edward was attending to matters in the yard. The woman is neither named nor quoted because she did not speak to the press - only to Fanny, who gave her story to the press, second-hand. Mortimer's couple was Spooner and his girlfriend. The board school couple was Stride and Overcoat Man - as Brown supposed. There was no other couple, other than the couple who said their goodnights at 12:30, at the top of Berner St. Had the board school couple been yet another pair, they would have become crucial to the police investigation, but the police make no reference to them as separate identities, nor were they called to the inquest. They didn't exist.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You're misunderstanding. My point is that because the police, at least initially, took Schwartz seriously, and because the contemporary sources do not give us a factual base for discounting Schwartz, we're rather forced to take his evidence on board. I don't believe much in coincidence, so I don't see Brown's man as any sort of coincidence. He is the last man seen with Stride before she's found dead. Full stop. Bern suggests he's BS Man, I've suggested he's Pipeman. He may be a third man, but that's less likely. Frustratingly, if Schwartz was a liar, then BS Man and Pipeman are mere figments. But it's not possible to conclude that Schwartz was a liar, so we have to conclude based on the available evidence that what he described happened just before Brown came on the scene.

So, compared to my cleaning up a mess of the club's own making theory - which might also explain modern researchers' difficulty in identifying the individual named Israel Schwartz - you're happy with the incident being real, and even extending it to link Pipeman with Overcoat Man. I'm fine with that and think you're within the bounds of possibility, which is why I've posted on my own interpretation of the event. Where I think you could do better, is in regard to what Wess actually knew. He claims to have been told the name of the pursuer, and hints that onlookers were under the impression the pursued man was the murderer. Schwartz, that is. Describing Wess's account as garbled is not enough, in my opinion. At the very least, the Echo report suggests that Schwartz was more involved in the incident than he claimed. Less specifically, those who take Schwartz at his word might be wise to remember that there are two or more sides to every story, and in this case, we have only heard one.

Schwartz ran off. And kept running. Pipeman stopped at some point. Where did he go once he stopped?

In other words, he circled back, retrieved Stride from the gateway, chatted to her around the corner for a while, and then coaxed her to go back to the yard where he kills her. Have I got that right?