An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’ve read your point. I understand your point. Please stop insinuating that I don’t get it because I haven’t read it properly. I have read it and entirely reject your suggestion that Schwartz was on the opposite side of the road to begin with.

This is totally contradicted by the following.

I can’t understand why you would suggest that Schwartz pretty much ‘walked into’ BS man.

He wouldn't walk into him if on the other side of the road. This is not a difficult concept, yet you keep making the same mistake. As for rejecting my suggestion, you have rejected it emotionally, not logically. The later would require a coherent argument. The former only requires a character assassination. You're quite good at the later.

No. Again this is your quite deliberate attempt to manipulate the facts to suit your own theories. We cannot apply a timespan to anything just on account of a phrase. A man could see someone punch someone in the face, an event of one second, and that person could be said to have ‘ill used’ the person that he’d hit. You are trying to create a position where Schwartz virtually pulls up a chair and pulls out a flask of tea to watch BS man and the woman. He watched events in passing. If he did stop (which I doubt) it can only have been an instinctive, one second or so action. On one hand we have the timid Schwartz crossing the road to avoid getting involved, and yet on the other you want him standing just a few feet away watching in full view of the man that he was obviously afraid of.

You're rejected the words of the man who interviewed Schwartz at length and claiming that my acceptance of the literal meaning of both Abberline and Swanson's words on the subject of Schwartz, amounts to manipulating the facts to suit my own theories. This is a terrible look. Absolutely terrible.

Your reference to a few feet away has you making the same mistake once again. There is zero fear of BS Man, implicit in the police reports.

Again, you are trying to manipulate the evidence to suit a theory. The above sentence makes no sense. We all understand the sentence and why it was used. You can can go on alone in thinking what you do. You are totally wrong.

Then so was Abberline for accepting those words. He questioned Schwartz closely. Had he wanted clarification on the screaming, he would have asked for it. Perhaps he did and the "not very loudly" was the clarification.

It’s clearly not. It’s a statement of fact.

It's the statement of a mind that cannot handle being challenged.

[New Waterloo]

He Echo report supplied by Herlock is interesting. The girls is said to live ‘on the street’ which presumably means Berner Street (can she be identified)

Don't really understand why she says somebody came walking along commercial road in the direction of Aldgate. What is all that about? She said they were about to say goodnight (kiss I expect) on Berner Street. Odd remark

I think she meant walking past them on Berner Street then turning left towards Aldgate on the Commercial Road

Bit early regards timing?

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just had a quick look through the Berner Street section of Tom’s book again (I’ll read it fully later on hopefully) He gives us this quote from The Echo, Oct 1st

It is established almost beyond doubt that the poor creature met her death some time between twelve and one o’clock. And yet no one seems to have heard a struggle, or a groan, or the slightest indication of what was going on. From twelve o’clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart. “We heard nothing whatever,” she told a reporter this morning. “I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o’clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside them.” “I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said “Good night” a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate.”


So Fanny’s couple have bitten the dust.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If she intended meeting someone, then at least the following questions arise.

- Who? Maybe this guy.

- Why was this person never identified?

- Was she stopped by Overcoat Man at the board school corner on her way to the gates? If yes, had she been walking West on Fairclough St?

- Why wait at the gates to Dutfield's Yard? What's wrong with the board school intersection, or the top of Berner St?

To answer the last question myself, perhaps she wanted to wait discretely, and used the darkness of the yard to her advantage. That would mean that neither BS Man nor Schwartz would likely have seen her until they had reached the level of the gates. Ditto if is she is trying to avoid the approaching BS Man, as per your other suggestion.

Maybe BS man was Marshall’s man and she had agreed to meet up with him later but maybe the gateway wasn’t the planned meeting point and Liz was just planning to go home and avoid this bloke. Earlier he’d made the comment about her saying anything but her prayers. This could have meant that she had promised to meet him later just as an excuse to get away from him and he suspected this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Once again, you're indicating that you don't read posts carefully. Reread #338. Print the map in #2 and plot the routes, if that helps.

I’ve read your point. I understand your point. Please stop insinuating that I don’t get it because I haven’t read it properly. I have read it and entirely reject your suggestion that Schwartz was on the opposite side of the road to begin with.

He stopped to watch the woman being ill-used. Applied common sense would suggest that 'ill-using' is not a word that describes a one-second timespan. Schwartz watched ... and the seconds ticked by.

No. Again this is your quite deliberate attempt to manipulate the facts to suit your own theories. We cannot apply a timespan to anything just on account of a phrase. A man could see someone punch someone in the face, an event of one second, and that person could be said to have ‘ill used’ the person that he’d hit. You are trying to create a position where Schwartz virtually pulls up a chair and pulls out a flask of tea to watch BS man and the woman. He watched events in passing. If he did stop (which I doubt) it can only have been an instinctive, one second or so action. On one hand we have the timid Schwartz crossing the road to avoid getting involved, and yet on the other you want him standing just a few feet away watching in full view of the man that he was obviously afraid of.

This really reminds me of when Michael tried, rather embarrassingly, to stretch out the time between Diemschitz finding the body and him going for a Constable to around 15 or 20 minutes just to accommodate a theory.

It was used correctly - the not very loudly qualifier tells us that. If the 'correct' word was not one that we associate with loudness, the qualifier would have been unnecessary.

Again, you are trying to manipulate the evidence to suit a theory. The above sentence makes no sense. We all understand the sentence and why it was used. You can can go on alone in thinking what you do. You are totally wrong.

Another personal attack.

It’s clearly not. It’s a statement of fact.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think we are getting somewhere and the jigsaw just may be coming together a bit more. Common sense tells me there are too many players in this. I think we reach a point at times when we have about 3 or 4 couples a few yards away from the club.
i think it may be reasonable to suggest that Mortimers couple are Spooner and his girlfriend. The reason I suggest this is that Spooner is way out with his timing that night (too early) as is the female in Mortimers couple. Both couples frequent the Commercial Road and are wandering around after pub closing time.


Spooners evidence suggests that he and his girlfriend were stationary at the Beehive for a relatively long period. But that cannot be entirely true. They had the walk from commercial road and importantly the girlfriend had at some point to get home requiring another walk. A girl does mention being on Berner Street on her own at some point. Must think about that.

I think we can say that she does not attend the murder scene. Certainly not initially.

so whatever theory we have she has to walk home. On her own or with Spooner before he attends the yard. The evidence seems to be telling us that as Spooner goes to the yard on his own. We can argue different of course but the girl does not get a mention. Where Spooners girl lived would categorically tell us the direction she walked home because she must have done.

it may tell us a lot

NW

Mortimer said the couple had been 20 yards away.

Diemschitz: A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me, and when we reached the yard he took hold of the head of the deceased. As he lifted it up I saw the wound in the throat.

He's referring to Spooner. Grove St is even further from the Berner/Fairclough intersection than the Beehive.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

NotBlamed. Surely you're aware that you are quoting sources that contradict your own arguments and support the arguments of those you're attempting to argue against? You've just presented several sources that put the 'young couple' on Commercial Road (not Fairclough) at a much earlier time than 12:45/50, which is precisely what I've been saying. Yet you they attempt to state this dovetails perfectly with Brown's statement and rules him out!

Two couples, Tom. An earlier one and a later one. As I said ...

The 'walking couple' looks like a different couple, to me.

Are you 'taking the piss' as they say? You wouldn't be the first to do so on a Stride thread, I can assure you that. If so, I won't bother wasting my time.

Not on this occasion.

Is it too much of a stretch to suppose that Brown was incorrect that Stride was the woman he saw?

Michael Kidney: On Monday I saw Mrs. Malcolm, who said the deceased was her sister. She is very like the deceased.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’d suggest that she was either intending to meet someone which is possibly why she said “not tonight…” (if it was she talking to the man seen by Brown) or that she was heading home and saw BS man approaching in the distance and ducked into the gateway hoping that he hadn’t seen her. BS man is very similar in description to Marshall’s man so maybe she had reluctantly agreed to meet up with him later? Or maybe she was trying to avoid him?

If she intended meeting someone, then at least the following questions arise.

- Who? Maybe this guy.

- Why was this person never identified?

- Was she stopped by Overcoat Man at the board school corner on her way to the gates? If yes, had she been walking West on Fairclough St?

- Why wait at the gates to Dutfield's Yard? What's wrong with the board school intersection, or the top of Berner St?

To answer the last question myself, perhaps she wanted to wait discretely, and used the darkness of the yard to her advantage. That would mean that neither BS Man nor Schwartz would likely have seen her until they had reached the level of the gates. Ditto if is she is trying to avoid the approaching BS Man, as per your other suggestion.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That explains nothing. As per Swanson’s synthesis of the Police interview Schwartz walked away then began running when he saw Pipeman walking in the same direction. Abberline’s mention of ‘running’ could have been, and most likely was, in regard to when Schwartz began running.

Delusional.

Because it’s a very silly idea. I can’t understand why you would suggest that Schwartz pretty much ‘walked into’ BS man.

Once again, you're indicating that you don't read posts carefully. Reread #338. Print the map in #2 and plot the routes, if that helps.

Because you are simply latching onto a word used by Abberline. ‘Stopped’ doesn’t describe a period of time. If he had stopped it might only have been for a second but the reality of the situation and Schwartz actions tells us how unlikely this was. He crossed the road to avoid even being close to the incident. He then left the scene rapidly and began running when he saw Pipeman just walking in the same direction. And you think that this guy just stood across the road a few feet away and pulled out the popcorn? Come on. Apply a bit of common sense.

He stopped to watch the woman being ill-used. Applied common sense would suggest that 'ill-using' is not a word that describes a one-second timespan. Schwartz watched ... and the seconds ticked by.

Really? Wordplay? ‘Screamed’ was clearly a word used incorrectly. And when might a word be used incorrectly in this way? When a non-English speaker was speaking via an interpreter of unknown competence of course.

It was used correctly - the not very loudly qualifier tells us that. If the 'correct' word was not one that we associate with loudness, the qualifier would have been unnecessary.

I’m not setting hard and fast rules. Everything has to be tempered with common sense. You are simply scrambling around to latch onto a words or interpretations which allow full reign to your overactive imagination which is what you usually do. You begin by thinking…there’s obviously something going on here, people are lying, there’s some kind of cover-up…then you shape every opinion to suit that agenda.

Another personal attack.

[New Waterloo]

I think we are getting somewhere and the jigsaw just may be coming together a bit more. Common sense tells me there are too many players in this. I think we reach a point at times when we have about 3 or 4 couples a few yards away from the club.
i think it may be reasonable to suggest that Mortimers couple are Spooner and his girlfriend. The reason I suggest this is that Spooner is way out with his timing that night (too early) as is the female in Mortimers couple. Both couples frequent the Commercial Road and are wandering around after pub closing time.


Spooners evidence suggests that he and his girlfriend were stationary at the Beehive for a relatively long period. But that cannot be entirely true. They had the walk from commercial road and importantly the girlfriend had at some point to get home requiring another walk. A girl does mention being on Berner Street on her own at some point. Must think about that.

I think we can say that she does not attend the murder scene. Certainly not initially.

so whatever theory we have she has to walk home. On her own or with Spooner before he attends the yard. The evidence seems to be telling us that as Spooner goes to the yard on his own. We can argue different of course but the girl does not get a mention. Where Spooners girl lived would categorically tell us the direction she walked home because she must have done.

it may tell us a lot

NW

[Lewis C]

It's important to mention that even The Times has him leaving his house at 12:45...not seeing the couple at this time. His trip to the chandler chop would take 1 to 2 minutes, then he said he spent 3 or 4 minutes inside the shop before leaving and then crossing the street to walk past the couple. This would place the sighting around 12:50 a.m.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Here's a quote from the 6 Oct Times: "I saw the deceased about a quarter to 1 on Sunday morning. At that time I was going from my house to get some supper from a chandler's shop at the corner of Berner-street and Fairclough-street. 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. I noticed the man had a long coat on, which came very nearly down to his heels. I believe it was an overcoat. I could not say what kind of cap he had on. The place where they were standing was rather dark. I saw nothing light in colour about either of them. I then went on and went indoors. I had nearly finished my supper when I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder." That was about a quarter of an hour after I got in."

I don't think it's completely clear whether this account is saying Brown saw her on the way to the shop or on the way home, but the first sentence does say that he saw her at about 12:45. However, your timing of 12:50 could be right anyway, because 12:50 is close enough to 12:45 to fit within the range of his estimate.

I think the 2nd sentence makes it sound like he saw the couple on the way to the shop, but the sentence that says "I then went on and went indoors" makes it sound like he saw them on his way back home.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis

I wouldn’t dispute that one. I think I might have fallen into the trap of assuming that The Telegraph version must fit The Times one and that it was just down to the way that it was worded.

It still allows for Stride to have walked to the gateway after Brown passed and we don’t know how his 12.45 estimate stood against other timings. So I won’t write off my suggested scenario at the moment.

I’ve been intending for a while to have a re-read of Tom’s work on Berner Street. I don’t have many ripper books on kindle but Confidential is one of them.

I agree with the 2nd paragraph. If Brown and Schwartz were each off by 5 minutes - Brown's 12:45 may have really been 12:40 and Schwartz' 12:45 may have really been 12:50 - then the Schwartz incident could have happened after Brown returned to his house.

[Tom_Wescott]

NotBlamed. Surely you're aware that you are quoting sources that contradict your own arguments and support the arguments of those you're attempting to argue against? You've just presented several sources that put the 'young couple' on Commercial Road (not Fairclough) at a much earlier time than 12:45/50, which is precisely what I've been saying. Yet you they attempt to state this dovetails perfectly with Brown's statement and rules him out! Are you 'taking the piss' as they say? You wouldn't be the first to do so on a Stride thread, I can assure you that. If so, I won't bother wasting my time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Herlock Sholmes]

Walked to the gateway to do what? If she is intending to find clients, hasn't she just found a punter at the corner?

I’d suggest that she was either intending to meet someone which is possibly why she said “not tonight…” (if it was she talking to the man seen by Brown) or that she was heading home and saw BS man approaching in the distance and ducked into the gateway hoping that he hadn’t seen her. BS man is very similar in description to Marshall’s man so maybe she had reluctantly agreed to meet up with him later? Or maybe she was trying to avoid him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This assumes there was only one black bag of note.

You've previously noted that references to up versus down Berner St, could be explained as journalistic error or are interchangeable, but the reference to a man possibly coming from the club is not so easy to explain away. Fanny made it clear that her black bag man came from Commercial Rd. Houston, we have another problem.

Yes we do have a problem. The obviously unreliable Fanny Mortimer.