An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[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.

[GBinOz]

Perhaps you could quantify the risk?

If a report in the Star is now going to be the basis for the standard model of Berner St, let's be consistent about it.

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.

Here we have an anomaly. The police received a description from another source. How could that be?

Abberline: There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

Who is this other source? Do we have the full story? Would Pipeman's story have confirmed or contradicted Schwartz?

You make some very good points here Andrew.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

bingo herlock. here we have an apparently religious jew, new to the country, cant speak english and hes going to lie to the police in a major murder investigation, putting him and his family in legal danger. yeah right.

Perhaps you could quantify the risk?

If a report in the Star is now going to be the basis for the standard model of Berner St, let's be consistent about it.

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.

Here we have an anomaly. The police received a description from another source. How could that be?

Abberline: There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

Who is this other source? Do we have the full story? Would Pipeman's story have confirmed or contradicted Schwartz?

These questions will never go away, no matter how many times faith in Schwartz is exclaimed.

and then of course theres the fact that he pretty much describes a suspect that matches the man that all the other witnesses saw.

Peaked cap match. Wonderful.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz never reached the gateway. He crossed the road before reaching there because the incident began.

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.

Your suggestion that he began on the other side of the road is nonsense of course.

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

bingo herlock. here we have an apparently religious jew, new to the country, cant speak english and hes going to lie to the police in a major murder investigation, putting him and his family in legal danger. yeah right.

and then of course theres the fact that he pretty much describes a suspect that matches the man that all the other witnesses saw.

I just can’t see anything that indicates that he was lying Abby. No one else heard or saw a short not very loud incident which occurred in an empty street…where is the problem? A couple of years ago a motorbike crashed into my friends car which was parked outside his house. Neither he, his family or any of the neighbours knew it had happened until an hour later when his son got home. Things happen.

[Abby Normal]

For years the suggestion has been made by some that Israel Schwartz was never in Berner Street and that something shady was going on. Actually there is no aspect of this case we some kind of chicanery isn’t suggested by someone. Some appear to be averse to any explanation which couldn’t have been created by Dan Brown but at some point we surely have to take in a dose of common sense. So we have to ask some (mostly fairly obvious questions)


Do we have any evidence-based suggestion as to why Schwartz might have lied about being in Berner Street (aside from the usual ‘15 minutes of fame’ point?)

- The only answer to this can be a resounding ‘no.’

How likely would it be that, during a series gruesome murders by throat-cutting that were all over the news, a man would lie to place himself right at the scene. Not only that he places himself there alone so that he has no bystanders or confederate to confirm that Schwartz himself hadn’t attacked and murdered Stride.

- It is one thing to think ‘outside the box’ and another to think ‘on another planet.’

Is it at all possible that a man (Schwartz) who according to some had never been in Berner Street couldn’t have been aware of the possibility that some Berner Street witness might come forward to prove him a liar to a very angry police force? Someone like Fanny Mortimer or some neighbour looking out of the window for example. Would he really have relied totally on good fortune?

- It’s difficult (if not impossible) to image anyone but idiot being unaware if this obvious possibility. Why would anyone risk something like this?

How likely would it be that a police force who were desperately under pressure to bring the killer to justice would have checked out Schwartz story? He would have been able to tell them where he had been and who he had been with and also where he was heading and why?

- Can we really assume that they didn’t? Should we assume this level of incompetence? I wouldn’t feel confident in pushing such a suggestion.

Are we to believe that the police, faced with a potential conflict between Schwartz and Mortimer, were just too stupid to notice or is it the case that they just knew more than we did after closely questioning both parties?

- Obviously no interview transcript exists between the police and Schwartz and Mortimer which means that we are working from edited highlights. Clearly the police saw no issue with the incident occurring unseen and unheard by anyone but Schwartz and Pipeman as they continued to consider Schwartz as an important witness and not a man who could have been there. Isn’t there a reasonable chance that during close questioning the police found that Fanny had spent more time indoors than she had initially claimed? Maybe she’d said “well yes I did nip indoors for a minute or so to do something” and we all know (as would the police) that an estimate of a minute or so might easily have been 2 or 3.

Why is Schwartz constantly questioned and doubted and yet Fanny Mortimer appears to get a free pass.

- A simple but valid question. How good was her judgment? How do we know that she wasn’t just a busybody? Why is Schwartz judged against Mortimer but not the other way around?

How long was the duration of the incident and is it possible that it might have been unseen or unheard by anyone but Schwartz (and the unidentified Pipeman)

- We just can’t put an exact time on the incident but we also have the question of when we start the stopwatch and when we stop it. Jeff, I believe, gave a total estimate (including walking along Berner Street) of around one and a half minutes and I’m fine with that. But, in terms of the actual incident we are talking of a very few seconds. 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.


Schwartz might have been inaccurate in the time that he gave and, who knows, due o his lack of English he might have mistaken a domestic or even a piece of drunken horseplay for a more serious attack but we have absolutely no reason, based on evidence, to doubt his presence. So why does the suggestion go on and on. I think that the answer lies in the fact that there is nothing knew to discuss in the case. So the idea of getting a theory accepted is an attractive prospect. What we can’t fail to notice is how much heavy lifting is required. Too many claims to know what we can’t know. Too much evidence twisting. Too many strange interpretations. Too many assumptions of stupidity (Schwartz, the Police etc)

bingo herlock. here we have an apparently religious jew, new to the country, cant speak english and hes going to lie to the police in a major murder investigation, putting him and his family in legal danger. yeah right.

and then of course theres the fact that he pretty much describes a suspect that matches the man that all the other witnesses saw.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But with the greatest of respect; we don't know what happened, and that's the fundamental reason that underpins why we all choose to openly discuss our views, hypotheses and theories on this wonderful forum, and thus share our respective opinions and insights into the many mysteries of the case that still remain elusive and unsolved.

If an individual is shot down for going against the grain and challenging preconceived ideas or data that remains subjective; and therefore up for scrutiny, then it would be grossly unfair if that individual then feels they can't share their thoughts and views through mutual discussion and reciprocation just because someone else doesn't agree.

Otherwise, it's just suppression; for the sake of not rocking the boat and making waves.

It's perfectly okay and normal to have different opinions on what happened in any given scenario across the series of murders, as long as the discussion always remains mutually respectful and doesn't descend into the realms of chaos; driven in part by the frustration of uncompromising minds and egos; that we all have to some degree.

There is always room for a new approach and there will never be an end to it while the case remains subjective and open to discussion.


Kind regards


RD

Of course that’s the case RD. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t ever discuss but we keep seeing the same effort being made and it does smack to me of an effort at creating a scenario/theory just for the sake of it. The source of any perceived discrepancy in Berner Street is the false suggestion that the incident couldn’t have occurred without it being seen or heard by someone else which just can’t be true. Things occur without being seen or heard all of the time. Series of events occur where x just misses seeing y and y just misses seeing z all the time and yet we get Andrew constantly posting as if we’re discussing a spaceship landing or a heavy metal band rehearsing a song. Nothing is mysterious about the fact that this short incident wasn’t seen or heard. The police would also have realised this and they would have interviewed both Schwartz and Mortimer. So there was clearly no issue with this incident occurring unseen or heard. So, if there is no issue what reason can we have, based on evidence, to doubt what Schwartz told the police?

Then we get this unfounded suggestion that Schwartz was on the other side of the road which just wasn’t the case. Then we get the unfounded suggestion that Schwartz wouldn’t have been able to see the woman in the gateway when we don’t know how far back Schwartz was, how light it was or the exact spot where the woman was standing. So how can we make these assumptions?

We are missing so much written evidence but it’s apparent that Abberline and the police didn’t feel that Schwartz was lying. So did they believe this on a hunch or did his story all add up after they had looked into it?

Im not for suppressing discussion RD but I’m against someone coming up with a theory and then going to any lengths to support and advance it.