An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone who argues against you is both wrong and arguing in bad faith.

Not everyone.

What is important is that Schwartz has reached the gateway by the time he stops to watch the man who also stops, to talk to the woman. At that point he has not crossed the street.

If the police and press accounts are in conflict, we go with the police. You want to do the opposite and accuse me of having an agenda. I wonder what people think about that?

You are suggesting that he was on the other side. It’s not me that’s coming up with such poor stuff.

Let's continue the quote: ... a man walking as if partially intoxicated.

Evidently, Schwartz caught up to him.

No he didn’t.

It was/is a narrow street. Anywhere across the width of the street, including footways, is still behind him. The phrase "He walked on behind him" doesn't have to be taken so literally that we should imagine Schwartz tracing the man's footsteps. It just means that Schwartz has seen the man when turning into the street and followed him down it.

Rubbish. They were on the same side and Schwartz was a distance behind BS man.

“As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

For me, the strongest point in favor of Schwartz' account is it makes Schwartz' look bad. At a minimum, he saw a woman being assaulted and not only did not help, he ran away.

I hadn’t considered that but again, a good point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One factor we should consider is the noise levels.

[Coroner] Was there much noise in the club? - [William Wess] Not exactly much noise; but I could hear the singing when I was in the yard.

[Coroner] If there was dancing and singing in the club you would not hear the cry of a woman in the yard? - [Morris Eagle] It would depend upon the cry.

[Coroner] Supposing a woman had screamed, would you have heard it? - [Phillip Krantz] They were singing in the club, so I might not have heard. When I heard the alarm I went out and saw the deceased, but did not observe any stranger there.

That's significantly more background noise than for the other murders.

Good point Fiver.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unless Stride was standing on the street side of the gateway, and not as the statement says "standing in the gateway," then the question of when Schwartz first saw the woman CAN be answered...

He first saw Stride when he could first see the gateway.

Because she was standing IN the gateway.

It says in his statement word for word.

Therefore, for Schwartz to have seen Stride standing in the gateway, he must have been close enough to see the gateway itself; which was set back slightly from the road and was not visible from the same side of the road until he passed Mortimer's house.

That's a geometric physical fact.

No it’s not. This is nitpicking on a ludicrous level. If she was seen standing in the gap between the two buildings then she would have been said to have been ‘in the gateway.’

The exact same statement also says he got "as far as the gateway" and then the assault began afterwards.

This doesn’t mean that he got in front of the gateway.


To deny that is to question both Swanson's and Abberline's integrity.

No it’s not. It’s to use the English language with common sense.

Schwartz's statement literally says that he reached as far "as the gateway" and saw the man (who he had noticed from much earlier up the street) "stop and talk to a woman who was standing in the gateway."

But it doesn’t say that he hadn’t already seen the woman. He might have done and he might not have done.

So the question of when he first saw Stride can indeed be answered...

All that’s important is that we realise that Schwartz never got to the gateway. This is s fact.

He first saw Stride when he was physically close enough and within sighting of the gateway to be able to physically see her standing in the gateway and by proxy; within sightline of the gateway itself.

Which could have been from a position 10 yards behind BS man. You appear to be suggesting that Schwartz walked along Berner Street 10 feet behind him.

This all occurred BEFORE the assault began and BEFORE he crossed the road.


It may seem unimportant, but it's actually crucial to understanding the chronological sequence of what Schwartz witnessed.

No…it’s pointless nitpicking that advances our useful knowledge of events not one iota.

And the beauty of my point, is that all I am doing is sticking precisely to the exact wording of the statement that was endorsed by both Swanson and Abberline.

I haven't changed anything but simply analysed the actual police statement to decipher the sequence correctly.

Of course, if it was possible for Schwartz to have seen Stride standing in the gateway from when he first turned into Berner St (like you previously implied) despite the gateway not being visible from that distance and geometic angle, then Schwartz may have had some sort of super power and could see through walls.

For gateway read gap in the two buildings.

Or we can dismiss Swanson and Abberline and stick with the Star's report.

A sensationalist tabloid paper obsessed with sales and rhetoric, or 2 senior police officers involved directly with the case.

The Star's report isn't worth the paper it was written on.

The reason why Schwartz felt he had to cross the road, was because the assault started and he needed to give it a wide berth.

Yes and you and Andrew are claiming that Schwartz was walking behind BS man so closely that he would barely have had chance to cross over. He would pretty much have bumped into the back of BS man.

There wasn't any other need for him to physically cross the road because 22 Ellen Street would require him to stay on the same side of the road as the club.

These anomalies won't go away just because something is deemed unimportant.

My entire reasoning and point is based solely on the exact wording and sequence of the statement endorsed by Swanson and Abberline.

If that statement is wrong, then so am I.

And if the statement is wrong, then Schwartz's words mean nothing and his testimony becomes worthless.

That by proxy may explain why such a seemingly key witness on paper, just fades into obscurity and isn't even called to the inquest.

That last paragraph is merely conjecture of course.

I’m losing the will to live here.

Schwartz walked down Berner Street at an unknown distance behind BS man. He saw him stop and talk to the woman. You two are assuming that this woman was in hiding. She was standing there for a reason. If someone is using that location as a spot for meeting someone why the hell would they go back to the actual gates? Next you’ll be claiming that she was next to the side door of the club. When you see a gate between two buildings the gap itself can be called the gateway.

Although it doesn’t say that he did, it cannot be impossible that he actually the woman before BS man stopped to talk to her. but if he didn’t it’s not important. The alternative is that he saw the woman when BS man got to her and she then came to the pavement. We still can’t know how far behind BS man Schwartz was at this point. What certainly can’t have happened is what you and Andrew are claiming…the Schwartz virtually bumped into the back of BS man. He was a short distance behind when he crossed the road.

[Fiver]

That the report says that the Leman Street police have reason to doubt the story doesn’t mean that they think that Schwartz lied about being there of course. It could have meant that Schwartz misinterpreted the incident.

The Swanson synthesis was written over two weeks after the murder and in it Swanson writes: “But I understand the Inspector to suggest that Schwartz’ man need not have been the murderer.”

We know that Abberline believed Schwartz because he tells us just that.

For me, the strongest point in favor of Schwartz' account is it makes Schwartz' look bad. At a minimum, he saw a woman being assaulted and not only did not help, he ran away.

[Fiver]

Little noise was made (for whatever reason) and we have no reason to doubt this fact. The ‘noise’ part of the incident could have taken as little as 10 seconds, we don’t know, but the notion that this incident couldn’t have occurred unheard is nothing short of preposterous. And yet this very suggestion is the catalyst for all manner of theories.

One factor we should consider is the noise levels.

[Coroner] Was there much noise in the club? - [William Wess] Not exactly much noise; but I could hear the singing when I was in the yard.

[Coroner] If there was dancing and singing in the club you would not hear the cry of a woman in the yard? - [Morris Eagle] It would depend upon the cry.

[Coroner] Supposing a woman had screamed, would you have heard it? - [Phillip Krantz] They were singing in the club, so I might not have heard. When I heard the alarm I went out and saw the deceased, but did not observe any stranger there.

That's significantly more background noise than for the other murders.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The reason why Schwartz felt he had to cross the road, was because the assault started and he needed to give it a wide berth.
There wasn't any other need for him to physically cross the road because 22 Ellen Street would require him to stay on the same side of the road as the club.

This would mean Schwartz crossed the road twice. Once to avert the situation, and then again to get back on route to 22 Ellen St. I'm sure you've already worked that out, though.

Going back in time to the point that Schwartz is turning into the street from Commercial Rd, it assumes that he walks down the street on the club side. However, we are not told this - Swanson is not specific, so we have to work this out, if we can.

Now, you state that having reached the gateway himself, Schwartz thinks he needs to cross the road to avoid the situation, once the man gets violent. This is in conflict with his destination, though. So, why not step around dear Liz, and recommence walking South? Crossing the street is ... overkill (no pun). To put it pseudo-technically - your solution is over-engineered. He doesn't need to cross the street.

It's just a jump to the left
And then a step to the right

So, I'm going to suggest that his crossing of the street is still unaccounted for. Perhaps you would argue that he crosses the road to put some distance between them and him and continues to watch from that vantage, before walking away. Is that what Swanson is conveying here:

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away...

That would seem to blow the time budget, though. If alternatively, he walks away diagonally and without delay, he would be facing away from BS. How then, would he suppose 'Lipski' was directed at Pipeman?

Suppose instead we go with my notion of Schwartz walking down the street on the opposite side. He can then reach the gateway and watch without being intrusive. If he crosses the street from there, it could be for one of two reasons. Either he wants to intervene in the situation, or he wants to steer toward Ellen St.

Consider the second scenario. He is now heading to the Nelson corner. He may be able to sense who 'Lipski' is intended for. The question now is why doesn't Pipeman follow Schwartz straight back up Berner St, if his goal is to see Schwartz off? In the first scenario, Schwartz becomes an intruder, just as he is inexplicably described in the press account. Pipeman would then surely have to come from South of the gateway, and not the Nelson corner.

I sense that Schwartz got more involved in the incident than we are led to believe.

[New Waterloo]

Of course we still have the problem of fitting Leon Goldstein into all of this.

I am still struggling with how Leon Goldstein goes to the police and says to them 'the man that Mrs Mortimer saw walking along Berner Street was me' (or words to that effect)

He can identify himself even if he was carrying a shiny bag.

He could say ' The man Mrs Mortimer saw sounds like me, I was walking along there at around that time and carrying a black shiny bag' (or similar words)

You may think I am daft saying this but presumably there was no ID procedure.

Look at the problems we have with the description of Bible John and the suspects.

It is highly likely that the man Mortimer saw was Leon Goldstein but I think we are just accepting this without anymore info

NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We are almost in agreement, Chris. Almost. LOL

By the way, what do reckon about the following?

Information which may be important was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

Was Schwartz an actor, or flamboyant in his dress, or is this a euphemism for something?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So who was arrested? I agree that the likeliest candidate would be Pipeman who must have been local as the description wasn’t exactly idiosyncratic enough to point out an individual. It’s possible that he’d actually come forward to clear his name and the press assumed that he’d been arrested but tats a quibble. Who else could it have been? Perhaps it was Parcelman, and as Packer’s man was never identified, then this couldn’t have been him if arrested. Maybe he came forward to clear his name? Maybe Smith saw him again? Who knows? But the above report, if accurate, has the second man arrested coming from a different source.

It is hardly conceivable that either Pipeman or Parcelman came forward, and there be no reference to this in Swanson's report, or any surviving police correspondence. Just look at what Abberline is saying weeks later:

The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.

If Pipeman had been identified and questioned before the Star, Oct 2 went to press, it would be known why he ran, and Abberline would not being construing this as an open question. Thus, who this other source was, remains an intriguing question.

That the report says that the Leman Street police have reason to doubt the story doesn’t mean that they think that Schwartz lied about being there of course. It could have meant that Schwartz misinterpreted the incident.

Misinterpreted what? A woman being assaulted? How could the police know Schwartz misinterpreted something? He was there (apparently), they weren't. Yet, on that flimsy basis, they are going to cease the investigation? Inconceivable.

The Swanson synthesis was written over two weeks after the murder and in it Swanson writes: “But I understand the Inspector to suggest that Schwartz’ man need not have been the murderer.”

We know that Abberline believed Schwartz because he tells us just that. But here is Swanson talking about ‘the inspector,’ which it’s reasonable to assume as being Abberline, questioning whether the man that Schwartz saw was actually the murderer.

What you're quoting is a Home Office marginal note. The inspector referred to is D.S. Swanson.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I am responding because you are making assumptions which are totally against reason and common sense. You are suggesting one of two scenarios.

a) That Schwartz was walking behind BS man and sees the incident begin and he continues walking until he is in the gateway too…essentially standing next to the couple.

b) That Schwartz walks behind BS man who stops and converses with the woman but as soon as Schwartz gets to the gateway, again next to the couple, the incident begins and he crosses the road.

Most outlandish of all is your suggestion that he walked behind BS man but on the other side of the road and when he saw the incident crossed the road to the club side and the incident.

None of these three are reasonable suggestions and it’s difficult to see what prompted you to make them except for the usual reasons.

Anyone who argues against you is both wrong and arguing in bad faith.

The question of when Schwartz first saw the woman is one of the least important questions imaginable. The accurate answer is that we have no way of knowing because we haven’t heard that exact piece of information from Schwartz’ own lips. Swanson’s version tells us nothing and The Star version might be read as Schwartz having noticed the woman before the incident began. So the question can’t be answered.

What is important is that Schwartz has reached the gateway by the time he stops to watch the man who also stops, to talk to the woman. At that point he has not crossed the street.

If the police and press accounts are in conflict, we go with the police. You want to do the opposite and accuse me of having an agenda. I wonder what people think about that?

The question of how far in front of Schwartz BS man was walking isn’t answered therefore we can’t say or assume a distance. The Swanson version says nothing on this particular subject (but it’s a synthesis after all and so an unimportant detail) The Star, however, gives us: “As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him..” I can see no reason to doubt that this was what Schwartz told the reporter unless it was some kind of mistranslation.

Let's continue the quote: ... a man walking as if partially intoxicated.

Evidently, Schwartz caught up to him.

So, the evidence plus reason and common sense tells us that Schwartz was walking some distance behind BS man and on the same side of the road. He saw the incident begin (did the incident begin the second that BS man saw Stride? Not necessarily…it would depend on the distance between the two men. So it’s possible that the couple might have talked for a very few seconds before the incident began. We can’t know so this is just speculation…but it’s speculation within reason) As soon as the incident began, and an unknown distance before Schwartz reached the couple, he crossed over the road to avoid getting involved.

It was/is a narrow street. Anywhere across the width of the street, including footways, is still behind him. The phrase "He walked on behind him" doesn't have to be taken so literally that we should imagine Schwartz tracing the man's footsteps. It just means that Schwartz has seen the man when turning into the street and followed him down it.

[The Rookie Detective]

The question of when Schwartz first saw the woman is one of the least important questions imaginable. The accurate answer is that we have no way of knowing because we haven’t heard that exact piece of information from Schwartz’ own lips. Swanson’s version tells us nothing and The Star version might be read as Schwartz having noticed the woman before the incident began. So the question can’t be answered.

Unless Stride was standing on the street side of the gateway, and not as the statement says "standing in the gateway," then the question of when Schwartz first saw the woman CAN be answered...

He first saw Stride when he could first see the gateway.

Because she was standing IN the gateway.

It says in his statement word for word.

Therefore, for Schwartz to have seen Stride standing in the gateway, he must have been close enough to see the gateway itself; which was set back slightly from the road and was not visible from the same side of the road until he passed Mortimer's house.

That's a geometric physical fact.

The exact same statement also says he got "as far as the gateway" and then the assault began afterwards.


To deny that is to question both Swanson's and Abberline's integrity.

Schwartz's statement literally says that he reached as far "as the gateway" and saw the man (who he had noticed from much earlier up the street) "stop and talk to a woman who was standing in the gateway."

So the question of when he first saw Stride can indeed be answered...

He first saw Stride when he was physically close enough and within sighting of the gateway to be able to physically see her standing in the gateway and by proxy; within sightline of the gateway itself.

This all occurred BEFORE the assault began and BEFORE he crossed the road.


It may seem unimportant, but it's actually crucial to understanding the chronological sequence of what Schwartz witnessed.

And the beauty of my point, is that all I am doing is sticking precisely to the exact wording of the statement that was endorsed by both Swanson and Abberline.

I haven't changed anything but simply analysed the actual police statement to decipher the sequence correctly.

Of course, if it was possible for Schwartz to have seen Stride standing in the gateway from when he first turned into Berner St (like you previously implied) despite the gateway not being visible from that distance and geometic angle, then Schwartz may have had some sort of super power and could see through walls.

Or we can dismiss Swanson and Abberline and stick with the Star's report.

A sensationalist tabloid paper obsessed with sales and rhetoric, or 2 senior police officers involved directly with the case.

The Star's report isn't worth the paper it was written on.

The reason why Schwartz felt he had to cross the road, was because the assault started and he needed to give it a wide berth.
There wasn't any other need for him to physically cross the road because 22 Ellen Street would require him to stay on the same side of the road as the club.

These anomalies won't go away just because something is deemed unimportant.

My entire reasoning and point is based solely on the exact wording and sequence of the statement endorsed by Swanson and Abberline.

If that statement is wrong, then so am I.

And if the statement is wrong, then Schwartz's words mean nothing and his testimony becomes worthless.

That by proxy may explain why such a seemingly key witness on paper, just fades into obscurity and isn't even called to the inquest.

That last paragraph is merely conjecture of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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.

So who was arrested? I agree that the likeliest candidate would be Pipeman who must have been local as the description wasn’t exactly idiosyncratic enough to point out an individual. It’s possible that he’d actually come forward to clear his name and the press assumed that he’d been arrested but tats a quibble. Who else could it have been? Perhaps it was Parcelman, and as Packer’s man was never identified, then this couldn’t have been him if arrested. Maybe he came forward to clear his name? Maybe Smith saw him again? Who knows? But the above report, if accurate, has the second man arrested coming from a different source.

That the report says that the Leman Street police have reason to doubt the story doesn’t mean that they think that Schwartz lied about being there of course. It could have meant that Schwartz misinterpreted the incident.

The Swanson synthesis was written over two weeks after the murder and in it Swanson writes: “But I understand the Inspector to suggest that Schwartz’ man need not have been the murderer.”

We know that Abberline believed Schwartz because he tells us just that. But here is Swanson talking about ‘the inspector,’ which it’s reasonable to assume as being Abberline, questioning whether the man that Schwartz saw was actually the murderer.

I think that this is the likely explanation. After the two arrests the Police gained such information that led them to suspect that the ‘incident’ might not have been Stride and her killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is based on the press account, which as I explained in #305, paints an incoherent picture of the incident.

Can someone tell me why the primary defender of the standard model has rather suddenly felt the need to downplay the police reports in favour of a questionable newspaper report? If the confidence in Schwartz is as high as it is made out to be, that should not be necessary.



This is not an argument.

Can someone tell me why the primary defender of the standard model believes it appropriate to reply to posts in this manner?

I am responding because you are making assumptions which are totally against reason and common sense. You are suggesting one of two scenarios.

a) That Schwartz was walking behind BS man and sees the incident begin and he continues walking until he is in the gateway too…essentially standing next to the couple.

b) That Schwartz walks behind BS man who stops and converses with the woman but as soon as Schwartz gets to the gateway, again next to the couple, the incident begins and he crosses the road.

Most outlandish of all is your suggestion that he walked behind BS man but on the other side of the road and when he saw the incident crossed the road to the club side and the incident.

None of these three are reasonable suggestions and it’s difficult to see what prompted you to make them except for the usual reasons.

…

The question of when Schwartz first saw the woman is one of the least important questions imaginable. The accurate answer is that we have no way of knowing because we haven’t heard that exact piece of information from Schwartz’ own lips. Swanson’s version tells us nothing and The Star version might be read as Schwartz having noticed the woman before the incident began. So the question can’t be answered.

….

The question of how far in front of Schwartz BS man was walking isn’t answered therefore we can’t say or assume a distance. The Swanson version says nothing on this particular subject (but it’s a synthesis after all and so an unimportant detail) The Star, however, gives us: “As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him..” I can see no reason to doubt that this was what Schwartz told the reporter unless it was some kind of mistranslation.

So, the evidence plus reason and common sense tells us that Schwartz was walking some distance behind BS man and on the same side of the road. He saw the incident begin (did the incident begin the second that BS man saw Stride? Not necessarily…it would depend on the distance between the two men. So it’s possible that the couple might have talked for a very few seconds before the incident began. We can’t know so this is just speculation…but it’s speculation within reason) As soon as the incident began, and an unknown distance before Schwartz reached the couple, he crossed over the road to avoid getting involved.

….

The only ‘problem’ with this is that it doesn’t assume that things are made up. Schwartz behaved just as he told everyone.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You make some very good points here Andrew.

Thanks George. Let me take this opportunity to say that I appreciate your posts. Always thought provoking. I know I ask a lot of questions in reply, but I think the Echo man pursued story, for example, is very important. We have to get that right, as far as possible.

IF we accept accept the validity of the Star's story, we have to consider whether the Leman St police doubted that the incident happened, or doubted what Schwartz reported happened was actually what happened. I strongly suspect the latter - that Schwartz's impressions combined with losses in translation were judged to be mistaken, or could not be pursued.

Most of what Schwartz described was activity. What were his impressions? Who 'Lipski' was shouted at? He didn't claim to be certain. Were the two men together or known to each other? Schwartz couldn't tell (although there is evidence that his position on this may have changed). Would these uncertainties, which existed from the start, result in the police stating they had come to doubt the story? It sounds to me like the doubts are of a more fundamental nature than just inaccurate impressions. Would they drop the investigation, pending further evidence, due to these uncertainties? I don't think they would, and who is supposed to supply this extra evidence, anyway?

Furthermore, we have to contend with context of this doubt. It seems to have occurred after two men were arrested. How could related arrests result in doubts arising, unless someone has been interviewed and found to be both credible and who contradicts Schwartz in more than a superficial way?

The man arrested "on the description thus obtained" can only have been BSMan or Pipeman, as they are the only descriptions supplied by Schwartz. Suppose it was Pipeman, and he said that he had either seen Schwartz off and quickly returned, or was actually calling to BSMan to cease and desist, and then approached the couple to be told by Stride that it was just a dispute and that she fell rather than being thrown down, and this was followed by the departure of BSMan.

Supposing that Pipeman admitted to seeing Schwartz off, is opening a Pandoras Box. It's worth noting that we have evidence that the police did not suspect the second man. Seeing Schwartz off implies he is an accomplice. If Pipeman made verbal contact with Stride just before she was murdered, it would be a huge deal. We hear nothing of this contact from any source. Why wouldn't Swanson have mentioned this?

Alternatively, maybe Kosminski was arrested on the basis of Schwartz's description, but then Schwartz refused to identify him because he was Jewish, thus bringing any further action to a halt unless further evidence was obtained.

I think if a credible suspect had been arrested and questioned, we would see this mentioned somewhere.

As far as the other source, I can only speculate that maybe The Star mixed up arrests and reports, and the reference is to Mortimer's sighting of the man with the black bag, which the police also decided not to pursue any further.

Unless further evidence is obtained, our discussions can only involve speculation.

Regarding black bag man, I should note that this thread was created with you in mind. I've thought a lot about the identity of the interviewed neighbour, particularly since you argued that she could not have been Fanny Mortimer. Initially I thought you were wrong - that the neighbour was Fanny. Now I'm more inclined to think that you were right, and I was wrong.