An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock. I would add that in one account of Fanny's statement, she said she was at her door nearly the whole time. In another, she said it was for about 10 minutes. If the 10 minutes account is the more accurate one, that would make it even easier to account for Fanny not seeing Schwartz.

Hi Lewis,

If we consider that she didn’t see Morris Eagle walking past her front door at around 12.40 then that’s a third of the ‘nearly the whole time’ gone in one go.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Herlock. I would add that in one account of Fanny's statement, she said she was at her door nearly the whole time. In another, she said it was for about 10 minutes. If the 10 minutes account is the more accurate one, that would make it even easier to account for Fanny not seeing Schwartz.

Mortimer never said she was at her door for about 10 minutes.

That particular statement appeared in the press in the 3rd person. The statement also included Mortimer hearing the measured footsteps pass her door.

However, in the actual statement that she made in the 1st person context, she clearly states that she stood at her door for nearly the whole time (between 12.30am -1am)

Now whether she was later re-interviewed and her words being taken down and submitted in the 3rd person by the reporter, then she may have indeed amended her statement. But that's mere conjecture and the idea that Fanny ever said that she was only at her door for 10 minutes, is not something that can override what she initially said.
It's more convenient for the likes of Schwartz of course, but if we look at what she said, then we must accept that she did spend much of the time at her door, or that she was exaggerating her involvement for the sake of getting in the press.

What we do know for certain is that she did spend some time at her door because she did observe Goldstein. Otherwise, he would of had no reason to have gone to the police.

If we look at what all of the witnesses actually said, then we are left with some alarming oddities, that can only be explained away; in part; by moving everyone's timings around, just so that Schwartz's account can fit into the nights events.

[Lewis C]

Mortimer never said she was at her door for about 10 minutes.

That particular statement appeared in the press in the 3rd person. The statement also included Mortimer hearing the measured footsteps pass her door.

However, in the actual statement that she made in the 1st person context, she clearly states that she stood at her door for nearly the whole time (between 12.30am -1am)

Now whether she was later re-interviewed and her words being taken down and submitted in the 3rd person by the reporter, then she may have indeed amended her statement. But that's mere conjecture and the idea that Fanny ever said that she was only at her door for 10 minutes, is not something that can override what she initially said.
It's more convenient for the likes of Schwartz of course, but if we look at what she said, then we must accept that she did spend much of the time at her door, or that she was exaggerating her involvement for the sake of getting in the press.

What we do know for certain is that she did spend some time at her door because she did observe Goldstein. Otherwise, he would of had no reason to have gone to the police.

If we look at what all of the witnesses actually said, then we are left with some alarming oddities, that can only be explained away; in part; by moving everyone's timings around, just so that Schwartz's account can fit into the nights events.

We don't know what she actually said. Both versions are press accounts. Neither overrides the other. Just because one writer phrases what he wrote in the first person and the other phrases it in the first person doesn't mean the former is more reliable. I don't think that matters much, but I also don't think we know which is the earlier account. Both are from October 1st, so they're virtually simultaneous.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Lewis,

If we consider that she didn’t see Morris Eagle walking past her front door at around 12.40 then that’s a third of the ‘nearly the whole time’ gone in one go.

Precisely.

The fact that Mortimer doesn't see Eagle, Lave, Pc Smith or Stride, means that she must have come to her door after 12.40am.

If she stood at her door for nearly the whole time, that could account for approximately 17 minutes between 12.41am to 12.58am.

17 minutes being the majority of the time (17 out of 30)

I accept that it's nowhere near the "whole" time, but as long as it was longer than 15 minutes, then technically it still works as the majority of time.

It's not what she said, but there's a distinct difference between 17 minutes and only 10 minutes. Only one is applicable to the majority of time covering a half an hour period.

I don't necessarily believe that Mortimer was speaking about duration of time, but rather that she was at her door for the majority of the time period relative to her going to her door initially, to the point she went back inside before hearing the commotion outside a few minutes later when the body had just been found. In other words, she perceived the time she spent the majority of the time at her door, relative to the nights events that unfolded.

On that basis, Mortimer could have been at her door anywhere up to a maximum of 17 to 18 minutes based on the timings of Eagle and Diemschitz respectively.

Regardless, her statement clashes directly with Schwartz's account, and so both of them can't be right or accurate in what they said.

I am sceptical of Mortimer, however, when we add to the mix that she later spoke to a couple who had stated they had been at the corner of the street, Brown having also seen a couple standing there, plus the fact that Diemschitz wife didn't hear anything from her location in the kitchen at the time of the alleged assault at 12.45am, then we begin to sway the balance towards Mortimer's word holding some grain of truth.

[The Rookie Detective]

We do have a scenario whereby the enigmatic Joseph Lave was the man who was seen assaulting Stride, and that he went back into the club after Morris Eagle.

Morris Eagle walks past them as they're talking and heads inside via the side door.

Nobody knows where Parcelman went or who he was, but it could be a case of him having been a club member.

Namely Joseph Lave.

After Pc Smith leaves the scene, Parcelman may have been the man who assaulted Stride by throwing her down onto the floor.

Schwartz may have indeed witnessed the assault at 12.42am, just after Eagle has gone inside.

But seeing as Schwartz is a local and Lave has seen him, Schwartz is threatened into giving a faux description of the alleged assailant so as to place the blame on a drunken gentile randomly assaulting Stride, rather than her having been attacked by Lave.

When we consider the "witness"...it may have indeed been Schwartz.

But Schwartz doesn't just witness an assault, he sees Lave cut her throat.

Schwartz is compelled to go to the police, but chooses to give a false statement through fear of reprisal.

The reason why Schwartz doesn't appear at the inquest, is because he becomes the police's prime witness, who is then shielded from the public inquest. The press initially report the story early on, but the name Schwartz appears later. Perhaps Schwartz is a name given to the man who came forward and his identity is protected by being given a false name.


So the murder is witnessed by Schwartz

Stride is murdered before Mortimer comes to her door just moments after it's reported that she hears footsteps pass her door. The footsteps being the killer leaving the scene.

We then have Mortimer at her door from 12.44am.

Stride is already dead in the yard.

Pipeman is an invention to again divert attention from the fact that Schwartz witnesses a Jew from the club cut Stride's throat.

The idea of the assault, which clearly doesn't take place because it's not witnessed, seen, or heard, is a cover story for the truth that Lave dispatched Stride quickly and silently in the dark just at the moment that Schwartz walks past and sees it all.


I mean...it's pretty thin...but not impossible.

haha!

[JeffHamm]

Mortimer never said she was at her door for about 10 minutes.

That particular statement appeared in the press in the 3rd person. The statement also included Mortimer hearing the measured footsteps pass her door.

So you're saying the reporter just made it up? Are you suggesting then that entire news report should be ignored because the reporter conveniently chose to report on what she said in the 3rd person (as one generally does when reporting on what another person says).

However, in the actual statement that she made in the 1st person context, she clearly states that she stood at her door for nearly the whole time (between 12.30am -1am)

Ok, that pretty much demonstrates that Mortimer is lying, since Stride was murdered somewhere between 12:30 and 1:00, and Fanny never sees her, she only sees Goldstein in Berner Street and he's by himself, so he couldn't have murdered Stride.

Given Fanny has view of the street from 12:30-1:00, never sees Stride and a man together, then presumably you have Stride dead before 12:30, which means her body is there when PC Smith does his patrol. Conveniently he seems to have missed seeing her, and conveniently Fanny must have popped in side when club members returned as she did see them (but conveniently she couldn't have popped in to miss Schwartz, because she was on her doorstep from 12:30 - 1:00).

Now whether she was later re-interviewed and her words being taken down and submitted in the 3rd person by the reporter, then she may have indeed amended her statement. But that's mere conjecture and the idea that Fanny ever said that she was only at her door for 10 minutes, is not something that can override what she initially said.
It's more convenient for the likes of Schwartz of course, but if we look at what she said, then we must accept that she did spend much of the time at her door, or that she was exaggerating her involvement for the sake of getting in the press.

What we do know for certain is that she did spend some time at her door because she did observe Goldstein. Otherwise, he would of had no reason to have gone to the police.

If we look at what all of the witnesses actually said, then we are left with some alarming oddities, that can only be explained away; in part; by moving everyone's timings around, just so that Schwartz's account can fit into the nights events.

Sigh, the "moving around" thing again. Times as stated by a witness are not carved in stone reality, they are estimates given from memory by a person who had no reason to specifically encode the time when things were happening. Clocks did not hook up to the internet and automatically sync to a common time, so two witnesses are in all likelihood basing their memories on clocks that didn't even read the same time in the first place! The times and durations witnesses state are starting points of information. To put together the events surrounding the case you have to try and chain together the sequence of events in order. You can then try and get an objective measure of how long different events would take (i.e. how long would it take someone to walk down Berner Street? You use an average walking speed and work it out based upon the distance. For a more thorough evaluation, you select a range of speeds covering slower and faster walkers). If you are able to string together a chain of events for which you have objective measures for their durations, taking into account the tendency for people to overestimate short time intervals, you can then pick one of the witness statements of actual time that you trust, and from there calculate the times of the whole chain of events. You can even test your sequence by comparing the times you calculate with the witness statements to see if the estimation and the statement are within the sort of error range typically associated with witness statements.

There's no "convenient" moving about of anything, there is simply the recognition that witness statements are not the equivalent of CCTV footage and so the actual events are in all probability going to differ in some ways from the statements.

What is convenient is the fact that witnesses do make errors as it allows one to dismiss a witness that interferes with their theory by selecting some other witness (or in this case, a different version of what the witness says) and claiming the version chosen is the right one - even though it conflicts with almost everything.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

So you're saying the reporter just made it up? Are you suggesting then that entire news report should be ignored because the reporter conveniently chose to report on what she said in the 3rd person (as one generally does when reporting on what another person says).

Ok, that pretty much demonstrates that Mortimer is lying, since Stride was murdered somewhere between 12:30 and 1:00, and Fanny never sees her, she only sees Goldstein in Berner Street and he's by himself, so he couldn't have murdered Stride.

Given Fanny has view of the street from 12:30-1:00, never sees Stride and a man together, then presumably you have Stride dead before 12:30, which means her body is there when PC Smith does his patrol. Conveniently he seems to have missed seeing her, and conveniently Fanny must have popped in side when club members returned as she did see them (but conveniently she couldn't have popped in to miss Schwartz, because she was on her doorstep from 12:30 - 1:00).



Sigh, the "moving around" thing again. Times as stated by a witness are not carved in stone reality, they are estimates given from memory by a person who had no reason to specifically encode the time when things were happening. Clocks did not hook up to the internet and automatically sync to a common time, so two witnesses are in all likelihood basing their memories on clocks that didn't even read the same time in the first place! The times and durations witnesses state are starting points of information. To put together the events surrounding the case you have to try and chain together the sequence of events in order. You can then try and get an objective measure of how long different events would take (i.e. how long would it take someone to walk down Berner Street? You use an average walking speed and work it out based upon the distance. For a more thorough evaluation, you select a range of speeds covering slower and faster walkers). If you are able to string together a chain of events for which you have objective measures for their durations, taking into account the tendency for people to overestimate short time intervals, you can then pick one of the witness statements of actual time that you trust, and from there calculate the times of the whole chain of events. You can even test your sequence by comparing the times you calculate with the witness statements to see if the estimation and the statement are within the sort of error range typically associated with witness statements.

There's no "convenient" moving about of anything, there is simply the recognition that witness statements are not the equivalent of CCTV footage and so the actual events are in all probability going to differ in some ways from the statements.

What is convenient is the fact that witnesses do make errors as it allows one to dismiss a witness that interferes with their theory by selecting some other witness (or in this case, a different version of what the witness says) and claiming the version chosen is the right one - even though it conflicts with almost everything.

- Jeff

Some nice points Jeff and i appreciate your feedback.

There is no doubt that Mortimer was exaggerating the time she says she was at her door.

Her claim that she stood there for nearly all of the time simply doesn't work, but not because of Schwartz. There is no way that she would have stood at her door for nearly half an hour considering the weather conditions and the fact she only saw one man pass by.

I don't believe she was deliberately lying, but she certainly appears to have inflated her importance as a witness so to speak.

There's no way she could have been standing there before Eagle returned, or before PC Smith had passed through. Mortimer never saw anyone enter the yard, but we know that Lave, Eagle and Stride must have gone through that gateway at some point.

In terms of timings; I do understand why there are sighs of frustration from those who want to put the thing to bed, as it must be frustrating when someone likes me comes along to challenge established biases towards the double event.
I just feel that moving everything around so as to try and make sense of all the inconsistencies, is not the best way to search for the truth in all this.

But okay, I am willing to go with it.

I mean, why not?

...

So let's go with the sequence as based on not moving anything around and expanding the times to cover the perception that most people at the time were unable to understand how to accurately tell the time within the nearest 5 minutes.
...an abbreviated version of course...


Circa 11pm - John Best and John Gardener see Stride at the Bricklayers Arms. They observe Stride and her male companion head south (towards Batty Street/Christian Street) Nothing going on except lots of smooching

Circa 11.35pm - 11.50am - Morris Eagle leaves the club to escort his female companion home.

Circa 11.45pm- 11.50am - William Marshall sees Stride with "Anything but your prayers" man. They walk south directly past Marshall and head towards Ellen Street; away from the club. Nothing going on except some smooching. Sounds familiar.

Circa Midnight - Marshall goes back inside his house.

Circa Midnight- 12.10am - PC Smith walks along Berner Street as per his regular beat.

Circa 11.30pm - Midnight - The majority of the club members leave the building by exiting through the front entrance.

Circa 12.05am - 12.30am - Stride walks back up the street past Marshall's house and across the junction of Faircloth and Berner Street, or up Backchurch Lane, or Christian Street.

Circa 12.15am - Wess leaves the club via the front door, along with his brother and another man. Just before leaving Wess checks the printers in the yard and notices someone reading inside. As he walks back towards the gate and into the side door he glimpses at the gateway but sees nothing unusual.

Circa !2.30am, Charles Letchford of number 30 walks along Berner street,nothing much happening in the way of drama.

Circa 12.30am-12-38am PC Smith walks along Berner Street and sees Stride talking with a man by the gateway; Parcelman. Nothing dodgy going on so far.

Circa 12.30am-12.40am - Joseph Lave comes out the side door of the club to get some fresh air in the wind and rain. He goes as far as the street and then goes back inside. he notices nothing suspicious

Circa 12.35am- 12.40am - Morris Eagle returns to the club, tries the front door which was locked at 12.30am, and so tries the side door instead. He notices nothing dodgy going on but eludes to there having been others in the street whom he paid no attention to.

Circa 12.45am - Schwartz walks down Berner Street and sees BS Man walking ahead of him. He witnesses BS Man then attack Stride by trying to initially pull her away from the gate before throwing her down on the pathway by the gates. Stride screams 3 times (but not very loudly) Schwartz goes to cross the road when the assailant spots him and shouts "LIPSKI!" Another man approaches and Schwartz notices he has a pipe. Schwartz runs away, with Pipeman following briefly before turning back. According to Swanson, Schwartz runs as far as the railway line, meaning that Schwartz ran south towards Ellen Street, but then continues to run past his home address and instead continue running all the way to the railway line (either by running down Backchurch Lane or running south down Christian Street.

Circa 12.40am - James Brown (get on up) walks to the Chandler's Shop at the corner of Berner and Fairclough Street. He is in there no more than 5 minutes before heading home again.

Circa 12.40am - 12.44am - A man and a woman (later identified as Stride by Brown), arrive at the corner of the board school.

Circa 12.45am - As he walks back east, he looks to his left and sees a man talking with a woman that he is almost certain is Stride, at the corner of the board school. he hears her say to the man "no, not tonight, some other night" as he walks past. He goes home.

Circa 12.50am - Miss Letchford is at her door at 30 Berner Street, on the corner of the alleyway leading west through into Backchurch Lane. She notices nothing unusual.

Circa 12.41am - 12,44am or 12.46am - 12.58am - Mortimer witnesses a man walk down the street with a black bag. This man is Goldstein.

Circa 1am - Stride is found by Diemschitz.


Circa 12.30am - 1am - Mortimer is at her door, but only sees 1 man the entire time

Circa 12.40am - after 1am - A young man and his female companion are at the corner of the Board school. They hear nothing and see nothing dodgy the entire time they're there.

Circa 11.30 - 12.59am - Packer serves Grapes to a couple who then go and stand almost opposite him, across the road, in the rain and wind for over half an hour, before they walk towards the club and out of his view.



Circa 12.36am - 12.59am - Stride is murdered by a person unknown.


Note that anything that occurred after Stride is found, is not contextually relevant when discussing the timeline up to the moment of her being found by Dipschitz.



We only need to account for Parcelman, Bs Man, Pipeman, Marshall's man and Brown's man.

Oh and Bricklayer's Arms man.




But anyway, now that we have a timeline, we can agree that it works without any questions or irregularities, and we can put it to bed once and for all?



Hmmm...


Really?!

[New Waterloo]

I do believe we are moving forward with this. Many of us including myself may have to change their own theories a bit. Accept what we find.

Lots of things we will never completely confirm or reject but common sense must prevail.

For example 4 witnesses that night describe the man with Stride as wearing either a Morning Coat or Cutaway Coat, being Best and Gardiner, PC Smith and Marshall. I believe these coats are very similar and a little more expensive.

Brown suggests the man he saw with the female outside the Board School was wearing a long overcoat.

Considering Brown lives in the house connected to the Beehive pub and sees nothing of Spooner and his girlfriend on his walk out and back that the couple he sees is Spooner and a woman. That appears to be what the evidence in the statements is telling us.

In fact there is no evidence or statements from anybody saying that they saw Spooner and his girlfriend, including from the people who see Spooner and he goes with them back to the yard.

Just an example of where the evidence leads us

NW

[The Rookie Detective]

I do believe we are moving forward with this. Many of us including myself may have to change their own theories a bit. Accept what we find.

Lots of things we will never completely confirm or reject but common sense must prevail.

For example 4 witnesses that night describe the man with Stride as wearing either a Morning Coat or Cutaway Coat, being Best and Gardiner, PC Smith and Marshall. I believe these coats are very similar and a little more expensive.

Brown suggests the man he saw with the female outside the Board School was wearing a long overcoat.

Considering Brown lives in the house connected to the Beehive pub and sees nothing of Spooner and his girlfriend on his walk out and back that the couple he sees is Spooner and a woman. That appears to be what the evidence in the statements is telling us.

In fact there is no evidence or statements from anybody saying that they saw Spooner and his girlfriend, including from the people who see Spooner and he goes with them back to the yard.

Just an example of where the evidence leads us

NW

Spooner is also a suspect because nothing he says up to the point he is standing outside the Beehive can be verified. He claims that around 12.30am seeing 2 Jews running towards him, shortly after Stride is found. He then goes with them back to the scene.
He says he is in the yard around 12.35am; which is clearly wrong based on all the other witness accounts.

In reality, he would have seen the 2 Jews sometime between 1.02am - 1.05am and got back to the scene with them a minute or so later.

And so, rather than standing outside the Beehive at 12.30am and therefore seemingly ruling him out as a suspect, he is instead standing outside the Beehive around 1am.

His whereabouts prior to 1am are unknown despite him stating he was with a female.

What's particularly odd, is that Goldstein should have seen Spooner as he turned left into Fairclough Street and headed east. Spooner should have been standing on the same side of the road and directly in front of him as Goldstein continued east.

Where was Spooner at the time Stride was murdered?

His inquest testimony would appear to rule him out, but he gets his timings wrong.

Why was this never addressed at the inquest?

Furthermore, Goldstein should have also seen the couple on the corner of the board school, or at least the couple seen by James Brown.

Goldstein never saw either couple
Brown never saw Goldstein
goldstein never saw Brown
Spooner could have been anywhere before being seen by the 2 Jews in Fairclough Street


So, as we can see... the respective timelines and locations of every individual based on all the witness testimonies....simply does NOT fit.


It's unpopular and uncomfortable of course, but the truth usually always is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s throw a temporary spanner into the works with a suggested alternative scenario bearing in mind that the descriptions given by Packer, Schwartz and Smith aren’t massively different. The main difference being the small brown moustache described by Schwartz but as he was in the act of scurrying past it can’t be impossible that he mistook stubble or shadows for a light moustache. PC Smith said that his man had no whiskers but he was quick to add “..but I did not notice him much.” It’s not impossible, given what we know about eyewitness reliability that these three might have been describing the same man. So…


Israel Schwartz walks along Berner Street at around 12.20. He sees the incident and leaves the street. Stride knows her ‘assailant’ and these rough arguments weren’t new to her explaining why she didn’t call out loudly. She wasn’t in fear of her life. BS man apologises (probably as he always did) and to get back into her good books he offers to buy her some grapes from Packer. They take the grapes and stand across the street eating them where they are seen by PC Smith. After Smith passes they move on.

Fanny spends whatever time on her doorstep and sees nothing. When she goes back inside Stride returns alone and waits at the gates. Someone turns up, they argue and he kills her

Next day Schwartz hears of the murder and that it must have occurred not long before Diemschitz returned. He can’t recall the exact time that he walked along Berner Street but, as he’d seen an incident and assumed that it had to have been connected to the murder, he had no problem with any suggestion that he must have seen the incident at around 12.45.

[JeffHamm]

Spooner is also a suspect because nothing he says up to the point he is standing outside the Beehive can be verified. He claims that around 12.30am seeing 2 Jews running towards him, shortly after Stride is found. He then goes with them back to the scene.
He says he is in the yard around 12.35am; which is clearly wrong based on all the other witness accounts.

In reality, he would have seen the 2 Jews sometime between 1.02am - 1.05am and got back to the scene with them a minute or so later.

And so, rather than standing outside the Beehive at 12.30am and therefore seemingly ruling him out as a suspect, he is instead standing outside the Beehive around 1am.

His whereabouts prior to 1am are unknown despite him stating he was with a female.

What's particularly odd, is that Goldstein should have seen Spooner as he turned left into Fairclough Street and headed east. Spooner should have been standing on the same side of the road and directly in front of him as Goldstein continued east.

Where was Spooner at the time Stride was murdered?

His inquest testimony would appear to rule him out, but he gets his timings wrong.

Why was this never addressed at the inquest?

Furthermore, Goldstein should have also seen the couple on the corner of the board school, or at least the couple seen by James Brown.

Goldstein never saw either couple
Brown never saw Goldstein
goldstein never saw Brown
Spooner could have been anywhere before being seen by the 2 Jews in Fairclough Street


So, as we can see... the respective timelines and locations of every individual based on all the witness testimonies....simply does NOT fit.


It's unpopular and uncomfortable of course, but the truth usually always is.

While I in no way suggest the simulations I put together are the source of all truth and knowledge, they do demonstrate that the events can all unfold as described. The "times" in the simulations are all in reference to Dr. Blackwell's watch, so will deviate from the statements where witnesses estimated times based on different clocks, but the deviations are all minor.

So while I do not claim the simulations should be viewed without caution, they do demonstrate that the claim the statements do not fit together is false. All you have shown is that how you presented them doesn't work, you haven't shown they can't work. And even if some of the assumptions I had to make to put together the simulations are debatable (and of course they are), the fact that the simulations can be made demonstrate the statements do not inherently create problems.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It's a good question that George asks, but is he right to say there is nothing to back up his suspicion? What are we to make of the following?

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.

Are we sure, really, really, 100% sure that Israel Schwartz did not attend the inquest?

Swanson's report states:

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

So, from where or how did Anderson get the notion of "the supposed accomplice"? Who is doing the supposing - Schwartz, the police, or both? If Schwartz, then it seems he may have changed his story somewhat or at least given a different impression. In what context, though? Did Schwartz attend the inquest or was he requestioned by the police?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Mortimer sees a man with a black shiny bag. I think this can be accepted as fact as there would be no reason to suggest she would make it up.

Mortimer does not know the person. He is walking ver fast on the opposite side of the road to her house and looks at the club when walking by fast.

Wess and Leon Goldsmith SUGGEST to the police and Press that the person is Leon Goldsttein a member of the club.

According to Swanson, this occurred at about 1am. We can presume that this estimate is based on Goldstein's police statement. It's interesting that Mortimer does not give even an approximate time for her sighting.

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road.

Let's assume the ~1am estimate is correct, though.

FM: There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates.

So, presumably the murderer and victim entered the gates, several minutes earlier than Goldstein's traversal of the street, when Fanny was inside. Perhaps around 12:50. This timing makes sense when considering the extent of blood flow noted by the earliest witnesses of the deceased.

If the broad-shouldered man story is true, then it would seem there is not enough time for another man to come along. He must already be there. We are left with a few anomalies. Here's one:

... he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ...

PC Lamb: I scarcely could see her boots. She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.

Something is not right.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Israel Schwartz was interviewed by Abberline. Therefore he existed. Every second discussing whether he existed or not is a second wasted.

Would the real Israel Schwartz please stand up?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don’t consider anyone as ‘having a connection’ just because they might have spoken on one occasion. And in this case they might not even have communicated directly.

That one occasion being between the time Wess left home to return to the club (later in the morning), and him speaking to the Echo reporter that afternoon, when the club was paywalled. What a coincidence.