An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Tom_Wescott]

By yourself. I call it a reason for doubting Overcoat Man was the murderer.



Roughly the distance from the gateway to the board school corner.

You think? I don't. But what about 50 yards? That's the distance other sources put the young couple...thirty minutes before the murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Herlock Sholmes]

At the moment Schwartz steps from the kerb, there is no public house doorway a few doors off. Combined with the fact that someone coming out of the Nelson long after it had closed for the night, is problematic itself, the conclusion must be that either the Star has made a mistake, or we do not have the right doorway in mind.

I can nitpick too. “Just as he stepped from the kerb..” so he may still have had one foot on the kerb! Basically, as he began to cross over the man was a few doors away. If the man was on the other side of the road the public house wouldn’t have been mentioned. It’s being mentioned isn’t problematic unless you’re creating a scenario.

a) Perhaps the guy worked at The Nelson and had been cleaning up after the customers had left.
b) Perhaps he had been offered a bit of after time drinking?
c) Perhaps it was just a case of Schwartz only seeing him when he was adjacent to, or just passed, the pub door so he got the incorrect impression that he had come from the pub.

All 3 are clearly more believable than Schwartz not realising that the guy was on the same side of the street as him or of him mistaking the Board School for a pub.

You're not understanding this. The redundant crossing refers to that normally supposed - away from the gateway, not toward it. If Schwartz reaches the gateway and then barely stops to watch the fracas, he is clear of the gateway by the time Stride is on the footway. So then, not only would his crossing be redundant if its purpose is to avoid the situation, but it would also be in conflict with his Ellen St destination. Yet he does cross.

It’s you that is wrong on this and I’m struggling to understand how you are managing it. It wasn’t a ‘redundant’ crossing. It was a crossing to avoid BS man. It can’t be simpler.

The next step is then to say, well let's agree with Abberline that he does stop to watch. The problem now - and this is the bit you do seem to understand - is that if Schwartz stops to watch, having himself reached the level of the gates, he would be in the gateway himself (or almost), if he had come down the street on the club side.

No. For Christ’s sake Andrew!!

I don’t think that he ‘stopped.’ He may have paused for a second but it’s unthinkable that he stood watching. Why do you give this suggestion even a seconds credence? BS man is at the gateway with the woman. Schwartz is on the same side but behind him (who knows how far - I’ll guess at 5 or 10 yards) As soon as he sees conflict he crosses over. He looks across as he passes. When Schwartz got in line with the gateway he was across the street.

The next step is then to see if it makes sense and does not contradict any evidence, if we suppose Schwartz actually came down on the opposite side of the street, eventually crossing to the club side.

Nothing that you are saying makes sense. You are quite deliberately trying to shape events to create mysteries as exactly as Michael used to do. We know what happened.

BS man was on the club side with Schwartz an unknown distant behind him but almost certainly a few yards.

As soon as the incident began Schwartz crossed over to avoid the conflict.

As he gets across the road he sees Pipeman who he assumes has just left the pub.

BS man called out “Lipski” as Schwartz is passing.

Schwartz crosses back over because that’s where he needs to be to get to his destination.


I can’t think why anyone would think that this was somehow far fetched?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

“..but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off” This can only be The Nelson and it can only mean that, whether Pipeman actually came out of the pub or not, he was on the club side of the road.

At the moment Schwartz steps from the kerb, there is no public house doorway a few doors off. Combined with the fact that someone coming out of the Nelson long after it had closed for the night, is problematic itself, the conclusion must be that either the Star has made a mistake, or we do not have the right doorway in mind.

Exactly. What gives? You are in one breath saying that Schwartz crossing the road from the opposite side back to the club side after passing the incident makes no sense but it only ‘makes no sense’ if we go with your suggestion that he was initially on the opposite side of the road.

You're not understanding this. The redundant crossing refers to that normally supposed - away from the gateway, not toward it. If Schwartz reaches the gateway and then barely stops to watch the fracas, he is clear of the gateway by the time Stride is on the footway. So then, not only would his crossing be redundant if its purpose is to avoid the situation, but it would also be in conflict with his Ellen St destination. Yet he does cross.

The next step is then to say, well let's agree with Abberline that he does stop to watch. The problem now - and this is the bit you do seem to understand - is that if Schwartz stops to watch, having himself reached the level of the gates, he would be in the gateway himself (or almost), if he had come down the street on the club side.

The next step is then to see if it makes sense and does not contradict any evidence, if we suppose Schwartz actually came down on the opposite side of the street, eventually crossing to the club side.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Good lord, you're not asking me to read through yet another winding Stride thread, are you? Anything interesting on a Stride thread was probably posted by me. LOL. In any event, I would not say I believe that Eagle was BS Man. I merely entertain the possibility because (according to those in the kitchen) he was the last to come in through the side door and his behavior upon seeing the dead body was worthy of comment.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

If Eagle was the last man in, presumably Lave was the second last. I wonder what he saw, from the gateway? If not a couple talking, then presumably they arrive after he returns inside. However, if Smith sees them before Eagle arrives, where have the gone by the time Morris is trying the front door?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That's called being misquoted.

By yourself. I call it a reason for doubting Overcoat Man was the murderer.

And are you aware how far 20 yards is?

Roughly the distance from the gateway to the board school corner.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In my model, all of those things are still true. Schwartz does initially walk behind the man; however, he has reached the gateway when the man stops, as per the police report. He does cross the street, which I argue the standard model cannot account for, unless it ignores the police in favour of the press account, which I believe is bad form. Thirdly, I do place Pipeman across the street from the gateway, and South of it, as opposed to the Nelson doorway. This again has me closer to the police account than the standard model which seems to be increasingly favouring the press account.

“..but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off” This can only be The Nelson and it can only mean that, whether Pipeman actually came out of the pub or not, he was on the club side of the road.

What people should consider is the implications of Schwartz having reached the gateway when the man stops to talk to the woman. If Schwartz himself does not stop to watch, by the time she is on the ground screaming, Schwartz would be clear of the gateway - that is, South of it. His crossing of the street would then be redundant, for the purpose of avoiding the fracas. Yet he does cross. His journey to 22 Ellen St does not require him to cross the street in the direction normally supposed - away from the gateway - so what gives?

.

Exactly. What gives? You are in one breath saying that Schwartz crossing the road from the opposite side back to the club side after passing the incident makes no sense but it only ‘makes no sense’ if we go with your suggestion that he was initially on the opposite side of the road.

It’s very, very simple. Schwartz crossed from the club side to the opposite side to avoid the incident which was occurring ahead of him on the same side. When he has passed the incidents he crossed back over because that was the side that he needed to be one to get to his destination. The very side that he was on initially until he had to avoid the incident.

Where is the problem? Oh, that’s right, there isn’t one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you, yes. Seven or eight years since I published the book and you're the first person to read and actually acknowledge this section. There is no mystery couple at 12:45. That's simply a tool used to discredit Brown.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I keep getting interrupted as I’m trying to re-read through it fully Tom. I’ll try again this evening.

[Tom_Wescott]

Surely not.
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...eagle-and-lave

Good lord, you're not asking me to read through yet another winding Stride thread, are you? Anything interesting on a Stride thread was probably posted by me. LOL. In any event, I would not say I believe that Eagle was BS Man. I merely entertain the possibility because (according to those in the kitchen) he was the last to come in through the side door and his behavior upon seeing the dead body was worthy of comment.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

That's called being misquoted. And are you aware how far 20 yards is?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because Eagle was BS Man?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Surely not.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/786449-a-closer-look-at-eagle-and-lave

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fanny talked to the young woman. Her beau had long gone. And this young couple walked along Commercial Road, not along Fairclough Street. Brown could not have mistaken Edward Spooner and his girl as Spooner was standing pretty much under Brown's window. Stride also had quite a distinctive face and her face is all Brown got a good look at.

She's saying what Mortimer said, which is that she and her man were on the opposite end of Berner Street from Fairclough Street, walking along Commercial. They separated long before Schwartz and Brown come along and were nowhere around when whatever happened happened.They're irrelvant to our discussions, in other words.

FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

[Tom_Wescott]

Also worth noting that Fanny says, "A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm...". This would seem to be Spooner. She does not seem to identify this man as being the male half of the couple she spoke to.

I'm impressed you made this observation, but I do have to point out that Fanny never saw the young couple herself nor did she speak to the young man. She spoke to the young woman only. However, it's likely she personally knew both parties involved, in which case, it IS worth noting that she didn't recognize Spooner.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NW,

Didn't Fanny talk to the couple at the murder scene? If so, then the only way that Spooner and his girlfriend could be Fanny's couple would be if the woman in the couple attended the murder scene.

Also worth noting that Fanny says, "A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm...". This would seem to be Spooner. She does not seem to identify this man as being the male half of the couple she spoke to.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

He wasn’t on the other side of the road.

“..he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him..”

“..On crossing to the opposite side of the street..”

“..The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road..”

In my model, all of those things are still true. Schwartz does initially walk behind the man; however, he has reached the gateway when the man stops, as per the police report. He does cross the street, which I argue the standard model cannot account for, unless it ignores the police in favour of the press account, which I believe is bad form. Thirdly, I do place Pipeman across the street from the gateway, and South of it, as opposed to the Nelson doorway. This again has me closer to the police account than the standard model which seems to be increasingly favouring the press account.

What people should consider is the implications of Schwartz having reached the gateway when the man stops to talk to the woman. If Schwartz himself does not stop to watch, by the time she is on the ground screaming, Schwartz would be clear of the gateway - that is, South of it. His crossing of the street would then be redundant, for the purpose of avoiding the fracas. Yet he does cross. His journey to 22 Ellen St does not require him to cross the street in the direction normally supposed - away from the gateway - so what gives?

And I stand 100% by my claim that you intentionally try to create mysteries and plots. You do this not because of the ‘evidence’ you do it for the sake of it. You must do.

My reason for putting forward the alternative crossing model was first put forward in #203. Nothing to do with mysteries and plots.

You won’t let this go will you?

I have an opinion on this which is not yours. Get over yourself.

[Tom_Wescott]

If the end of that 20 minutes marks the beginning of the commotion that Fanny was alerted by, the beginning of the period is around 12:45. That would mean the Schwartz stuff likely occurs before then, yet Eagle does not report seeing a woman standing in the gateway.

Because Eagle was BS Man?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott