An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Lewis C]

From the Echo, Oct 2:

"MAN WITH A BLACK SHINY BAG."

The young man Albert Baskert, of [13], Newnham-street, Whitechapel, has made a further statement. It will be noticed that the man who spoke to him in the Three Nuns Hotel on Saturday night carried a black shiny bag, and it is remarkable that the only man Mrs. Mortimer observed in Berner-street, nearly two hours afterwards, also carried a black shiny bag. Baskert says: - "On Saturday night, about seven minutes to twelve, I entered the Three Nuns Hotel, Aldgate. While in there an elderly woman, very shabbily dressed, came in and asked me to buy some matches. I refused, and she went out. A man who had been standing by me remarked that these persons were a nuisance, to which I responded 'Yes.' He then asked me to have a glass with him, but I refused, as I had just called for one myself. He then asked me if I knew how old some of the women who were in the habit of soliciting outside. I replied that I thought some who looked about 25 were over 35, the reason they looked younger being on account of the powder and paint. He asked if I could tell him where they usually went with men, and I replied that I had heard that some went to places in Oxford-street, Whitechapel, others to some houses in Whitechapel-road, and others to Bishopsgate-street. He then asked whether I thought they would go with him down Northumberland-alley, a dark, lonely court in Fenchurch-street. I said I did not know, but supposed they would. He then went outside and spoke to the woman who was selling the matches, and gave her something, I believe. He returned to me, and I bade him "Good night" at about ten minutes past twelve. I believe the woman was waiting for him. I do not think I could identify the woman, as I did not take particular notice of her, but I should know the man again. He was a dark man, about 38 years of age, height about 5ft. 6in. or 7in. He wore a black felt hat, dark clothes (morning coat), and black tie, and carried a black, shiny bag.

Hi Andrew,

The man referred to as "Baskert" in that article is the man we usually refer to as Albert Bachert. There's good reason to doubt his credibility. I think what most likely happened is that he said this because he was aware of Fanny's account of a man with a black bag.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

The man referred to as "Baskert" in that article is the man we usually refer to as Albert Bachert. There's good reason to doubt his credibility. I think what most likely happened is that he said this because he was aware of Fanny's account of a man with a black bag.

Hi Lewis.

If a woman saw a man with a black bag walking north at around the time of the murder, and that man not Leon Goldstein, who might it have been?

If you click on the >> link in the ChrisGeorge quote in my post (#30), it will take you to the corresponding thread. Check out the youtube video link posted by Nelson.

[New Waterloo]

Possibly the man that Mortimer sees is Schwartz. It is possible that Schwartz was carrying a bag. He makes no reference to this when making his report to the police why should he. I seem to recall he made his report before Goldstein makes his. Goldstein was carrying a bag and he believes he is the man seen by Mortimer so makes his report to clear his name. Thats a simple answer but still remarkable how they both walk through at about the same time. but feasible I suppose.

NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The sequence of events is:

The Star, Oct 1, states: Information which may be important was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder.

The Star, Oct 2, states: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Morning Advertiser, Oct 3, states: W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.

It was only after Schwartz's story start to fall apart that Wess persuaded and accompanied Goldstein to the station, to explain his movements on the night. Why Wess felt a need to do so at that point in time, is an open question.

The theory that Schwartz and Goldstein were one and the same man, is supposedly falsified by the independent visits to the police. The response is that Wess had a motive for persuading and accompanying a man to Leman St station that evening, and we only have his word that the man he accompanied was Leon Goldstein.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Schwartz’s story never fell apart. It’s not possible to dismiss Schwartz story. Anyone can say that they disbelieve Schwartz but that’s based simply on gut instinct and not evidence. There is no evidence to dismiss Schwartz.

[New Waterloo]

Agreed. Schwartz seems a pretty good witness to me. Yes his interpretation of what was happening may be incorrect but he says what he saw with his eyes. When Mortimer says what she saw does she mention seeing of hearing Diemschutz returning to the yard. Cant seem to find that. Also if the disturbance started wilst she was briefly indoors the angle looking out of her front window would prevent a view of the yard or close to the gates. So could have missed it. If it lasted seconds. I think the commotion she hears which she thinks is another row at the club is the disturbance witnessed by Schwartz. Everybody clears off a minute os so before Diemschutz returns and drives into the yard. Maybe something like that.

NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz’s story never fell apart. It’s not possible to dismiss Schwartz story. Anyone can say that they disbelieve Schwartz but that’s based simply on gut instinct and not evidence. There is no evidence to dismiss Schwartz.

There is no mention of Schwartz by anyone, after November 1888. The contrast with Joseph Lawende is striking.

[New Waterloo]

Schwartz walks along the pavement from Commercial Road on the same side of Berner street as Mortimer lives. When he gets to about number 34 he crosses to the other pavement to avoid BSM and the disturbance. ( i think he actually says this)Fanny looks out and sees a man (Schwartz) walking from the direction of commercial road, walks very fast and looks back at the club. He witnesses whats going on in the gateway which she cannot because of the angle. (thats why it could be Schwartz it all fits) and turns left into Fairclough)
Fanny wonders if he has come from the club because she is only seeing his walking when further south from the club and perhaps she thinks he msy have exited and walked straight across the road to the other pavement before she sees him.
still a mystery about Goldstein!


NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Agreed. Schwartz seems a pretty good witness to me. Yes his interpretation of what was happening may be incorrect but he says what he saw with his eyes. When Mortimer says what she saw does she mention seeing of hearing Diemschutz returning to the yard. Cant seem to find that. Also if the disturbance started wilst she was briefly indoors the angle looking out of her front window would prevent a view of the yard or close to the gates. So could have missed it. If it lasted seconds. I think the commotion she hears which she thinks is another row at the club is the disturbance witnessed by Schwartz. Everybody clears off a minute os so before Diemschutz returns and drives into the yard. Maybe something like that.

NW

In this context (we are discussing Schwartz in relation to Goldstein), your opinion of Schwartz, my opinion of Schwartz, and anyone else's opinion, is irrelevant. What matters is how Woolf Wess perceived the situation, and what he decided to do about it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no mention of Schwartz by anyone, after November 1888. The contrast with Joseph Lawende is striking.

Why would they still be talking about him?

[New Waterloo]

You make a valid point NotBlamed I will try and stay on track. Clearly a person calling himself Schwarz exists. He went to the police to report what he said he saw.

Wess go’s with a person called Goldstein to the police to report that the person Mortimer sees with a blag bag is Leon Goldstein.

My suggestion is that perhaps Wess is being defensive in some way (there was a volitile disturbance at the club a week or so before and Wess and many of his friends are declared anarchists anti police anti capitalist.

Perhaps on this occasion Wess has jumpef the gun so to speak and started defending a member of the club (Goldstein) when the actual person Mortimer saw was Schwartz.

I dont think Schwartz and Goldstein are the same person. This is further confirmed when the press located Schwarz after he had been to the police.

there are probably many reasons Wess defended Goldstein like what activities were happening at the club, trying to seem helpful or that Goldstein was somehow involved.

cant really get my head round this at all but just trying to suggest that the man who Mortimer saw could have been Schwarz (he could have been carrying a bag) and Wess is being overly defensive because he was worried.

I think in the case of Wess and some other members and associates of the club they wete very academic intellectuals. Not all of course. But well able to manipulate the ordinary police officers at the time to protect their anarchist and protest activities.

NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why would they still be talking about him?

In regard to the investigation, for the same reason Lawende remained spoken of. It's also odd that no memoir makes mention of him, considering he supposedly had a close encounter with a probable victim of JtR.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You make a valid point NotBlamed I will try and stay on track. Clearly a person calling himself Schwarz exists. He went to the police to report what he said he saw.

Wess go’s with a person called Goldstein to the police to report that the person Mortimer sees with a blag bag is Leon Goldstein.

My suggestion is that perhaps Wess is being defensive in some way (there was a volitile disturbance at the club a week or so before and Wess and many of his friends are declared anarchists anti police anti capitalist.

What are we to make of Wess's timing? Mortimer's comments were in the Monday morning papers. The Goldstein police statement occurred at about 11pm on the Tuesday. The delay could be explained away, it's just that in the meantime the Star reports that doubts have arisen over Schwartz.

Perhaps on this occasion Wess has jumpef the gun so to speak and started defending a member of the club (Goldstein) when the actual person Mortimer saw was Schwartz.

Then why would Goldstein agree to get involved? Your suggestion, if true, would mean that Goldstein was a false witness.

I dont think Schwartz and Goldstein are the same person. This is further confirmed when the press located Schwarz after he had been to the police.

That only proves the existence of one man. Even then, the police and press accounts are rather different, so we cannot even say with certainty that "the Hungarian" was Israel Schwartz.

there are probably many reasons Wess defended Goldstein like what activities were happening at the club, trying to seem helpful or that Goldstein was somehow involved.

cant really get my head round this at all but just trying to suggest that the man who Mortimer saw could have been Schwarz (he could have been carrying a bag) and Wess is being overly defensive because he was worried.

I think in the case of Wess and some other members and associates of the club they wete very academic intellectuals. Not all of course. But well able to manipulate the ordinary police officers at the time to protect their anarchist and protest activities.

NW

If the man Mortimer saw was actually Schwartz, then did Schwartz tell the police he had gone out for the day, with a black bag? If no bag at all, what did he do for food and drink? Was he so poor that he could leave his wife to move their meagre belongings to a new residence? Yet, the following evening he rocks up to a police station "well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line." Strange.

Why would Mortimer not mention all the carry-on that Schwartz noted?

If Schwartz had embellished his story (which would explain the lack of corroborating witnesses), he was just a man on his way home after a very long day out, who happened to look back at the club as he walked by. If police began to doubt his story, it would be necessary to avoid associating him to the man with a black bag. Hence Goldstein's appearance at Leman St station. That's the theory, anyway. However, Goldstein would then have to be Schwartz, and the man presenting to the police as Leon Goldstein would have to be faking an identity.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is there any thread on here that doesn’t involve a conspiracy or a cover-up?

Wess is completely unimportant.
Goldstein is even less important.

These two are in the ‘Mrs Fiddymont’ category. Why do they keep getting discussed? I know that we are short of new topics on here but how many times do we need to go over a series of events where we know what happened. It’s very simple. Schwartz was there.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis.

If a woman saw a man with a black bag walking north at around the time of the murder, and that man not Leon Goldstein, who might it have been?

If you click on the >> link in the ChrisGeorge quote in my post (#30), it will take you to the corresponding thread. Check out the youtube video link posted by Nelson.

I suppose that there are a lot of people that it could have been, most of them being people that we don't know about.