An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It’s perfectly simple. You cannot, under any circumstances, claim to know that Schwartz couldn’t have seen the woman from his position behind BS man. You want this to be the case because you have an obsessive belief that nothing is ever as it appears. Everything is some kind of plot or mystery. You are wrong.

Even if we ignore the police for a moment and stick with the Star report (which you seem to prefer), we can see that neither the first man nor Schwartz were in a position to see Stride until they had reached the gateway.

He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage ...

Pushing her back into the passage tells us where she had been - in the passage! The gates weren't on public property; they were part of Dutfield's Yard. Members of the club were in the habit of closing those gates, most nights. Standing in the gateway implies standing in the passageway - a location that makes her invisible to someone entering Berner St until they are essentially at the level of the gates.

Only you are suggesting these things because only you are seeking to write your own Berner Street script. I don’t know how you can keep posting this kind of stuff. Swanson said:

“…had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.”

Which aligns well with what we see in the Star.

I assume that English is your first language? If that’s the case why can’t you understand what is being said here?“Got as far as the gateway” does not mean that he was in the gateway. To say that he had ‘reached’ could have meant being 10, 15, 20 feet away. Why can’t you understand this. The gateway wasn’t wide. You appear to be claiming that all three were in it. We don’t know how far behind BS man Schwartz was. We can’t ‘deduce’ it, or ‘assume’ it, or ‘calculate’ it, or ‘infer’ it. Why can’t you accept this? We don’t know and can never know how far behind BS man Schwartz was so please stop making things up.

The irony of you asking me about my English. I've been arguing in many posts that having Stride in the gateway with the other two makes little sense. Do you read posts carefully?

Abberline used the word stopped but you won’t accept the possibility, the absolute likelihood that even if he had stopped it was for a second. This is a man who immediately crossed the road to avoid a quarrel and then ran away when a man shouted at him. This isn’t Dirty Harry. He’s hardly going to stand a few feet across the road watching events unfold. Neither the Swanson synthesis nor The Star version mention him ‘stopping’ but you seize on this one word because you spot a chance of furthering your agenda.

Schwartz stopped to watch the man ill-using the woman. That is what Abberline tells us. From Swanson we know what at least some of that ill-using consisted of. It cannot have occurred over a period of one second. It seems improbable that this ill-using occurs with Schwartz right next to them in the gateway. However, there is plenty of room to watch these strangers, without getting into their personal spaces, from across the street. So, that is what I think occurred.

If you are so keen to go with Abberline on this trivial piece of nitpicking then can we assume that you agree with him in considering Schwartz a genuine witness or would that be the wrong type of cherrypicking?

If it so trivial, it shouldn't bother you either way, but it does, so...

Abberline considered him a genuine witness. I remain only partially convinced.

[The Rookie Detective]

Don’t know. Don’t care. They aren’t important.

Despite the couple who Mortimer said spoke to her after the murder, and the couple Brown saw, were standing virtually in the same place at around the same time.

More a couple of inconvenience, than a couple of unimportance.

[The Rookie Detective]

Okay...

Let's keep this calm and try another approach...

Forget Bs man

Let's focus on the actual victim and alleged witness.

A simple question...


According to Schwartz, when did he first see Stride, and what was she doing?


Now all we have to go on are Swanson, Abberline and The Star.

Not a word the Star says can be trusted due to it's tabloid agenda.


So let's stick to Swanson and Abberline.

That trusted and admired clever copper duo.


In Schwartz's statement he says he has got as far "...as the gateway."

That could be of varying distance, but one can be reasonably certain that when Schwartz claims he had got as far as the gateway, that he would needed to have been within the distance and geometric angle to be able to actually see the gateway in order for his claim to retain its accuracy.

When we then combine some of the rest of the sentence that includes "...a woman standing in the gateway." we can then see that both quotes "as far as the gateway" and seeing a woman "standing in the gateway" work together as supportive claims respectively.

So, going back to the first part of my initial question...

"When did Schwartz first see Stride?"

Well when we combine the 2 quotes from the statement above plus the fact that he wouldn't have been physically able to see anyone standing in the gateway unless he could visually see the gateway with his own eyes as he walked down the street, then we can then be reasonably certain that when he saw Stride standing in the gateway before the assault, he must have literally been able to have seen her.

"As far as the gateway"
"Saw a woman standing in the gateway"
Schwartz being within the field of vision within the geometric angles required for him to have been able to have seen Stride in the first place.

The 2nd part of my question...

"What was Stride doing when he first sees her?"

Well again, she's seen standing in the gateway.

Meaning Schwartz needs to be close enough and within the geometric field of vision to be able to see her literally standing there.

He doesn't say she's already on the floor, he doesn't say he sees her before Bs man stops to go and talk to her.

He says he sees her standing in the gateway.

Schwartz sees Bs man stop and talk to her.

So when we combine all the above, it is evident that either Schwartz did get "as far as the gateway" BEFORE he then sees Bs man stop and talk to a woman standing in the gateway" All of this before the subsequent assault he then witnesses.

or...

Schwartz's statement holds litlle to zero literal meaning, as nothing he says can be verified by math and physics, and his statement is therefore reduced to being as reliable as a chocolate teapot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, what prompted Pipeman's fear? He ran too.

Did he run or walk? There was an incident going on. Is it such strange behaviour for a human being to go elsewhere? Maybe in your world but not in the real one.

Is the couple Fanny Mortimer referred to, the same couple that James Brown witnessed?

Don’t know. Don’t care. They aren’t important.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In #33, the screams are screamed words ... which weren't screamed. That is going beyond translation error. It's really just changing the evidence to something more palatable.

Absolute nonsense. No English speaker would use that phrase under any circumstances. But guess what? Schwartz didn’t speak English. That is the explanation. No other is required. So there is no need to ever mention this particular aspect of the case ever again. But you will of course because you have a plot to try and flesh out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We cannot claim to know that either man was walking on the pavement.

The man tried to pull the woman into the street ...

Where he had been walking?

What are you talking about? Where else would they have been walking? I’m convinced that you aren’t posting seriously now.

So then, what is your point?

If Schwartz reaches the gateway and stops to watch the man and woman, he would be right next to them. If Schwartz had walked on the club-side footway, he would literally be able to reach out and touch either of them. While he is there, all the talking, pushing, pulling, throwing, and screaming occurs. Really?

He didn’t stop. And again - we don’t know how far behind them he was?! What are you waffling about? What point are you trying to make? This is sooooooooooo simple. Read the bloody evidence!

Schwartz walked along the street at an unstated distance behind BS man. The incident began so he crossed the road to avoid getting caught up in it. As he was passing - on the opposite side of the street - the shout of “Lipski” goes out. Schwartz sees Pipeman but carries on walking and leaves the scene.

THAT is what happened. I really am losing patience with your blatant attempt to impose your own agenda on this. Why don’t you change the record!

[Herlock Sholmes]

The gates were just inside the yard. If Stride was standing in the gateway, she wasn't standing on the footway, she was standing just inside the yard. I'm sorry if this is confusing for you.

It’s perfectly simple. You cannot, under any circumstances, claim to know that Schwartz couldn’t have seen the woman from his position behind BS man. You want this to be the case because you have an obsessive belief that nothing is ever as it appears. Everything is some kind of plot or mystery. You are wrong.

The Star also tells us that:

... a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand ...

Presumably you believe that too.

We cannot know what is or isn’t true on this particular aspect but I suspect that the version reported by Swanson is the likeliest to have been true. The part about Pipeman’s appearance has no real mystery. As Schwartz first noticed him he’d possibly just come round the corner and had stopped to light his pipe near to the doorway of the beer shop. An assumption was then made by someone that he had come out of the beer shop. It’s not impossible that he had come out of the beer shop door even though the place was closed. Someone living on the premises might just have wanted a breath of air whilst having a smoke. The knife/pipe can be put down to translation. When The Star went to see Schwartz would they have taken a proper interpreter or might they have found someone that spoke ‘some’ Hungarian. Or might they have used a family member that spoke ‘some’ English. Is Schwartz likely to have told the police ‘pipe’ and The Star ‘knife’? No. We also have to factor in the obvious and common sense (something that might go against the grain for you) in that reporters are in search of a juicy story to sell papers. The police wanted to catch the killer so they needed accurate as possible information.

Strange then, that I'm the one who has been pushing for the acceptance that Schwartz had reached the gateway when sees the man stop, as Swanson said, and that Schwartz stopped to look, as Abberline said. In other words, I'm following what the police said, whereas you (and others) are rejecting these points in favour of a newspaper report.

Only you are suggesting these things because only you are seeking to write your own Berner Street script. I don’t know how you can keep posting this kind of stuff. Swanson said:

“…had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.”

I assume that English is your first language? If that’s the case why can’t you understand what is being said here?“Got as far as the gateway” does not mean that he was in the gateway. To say that he had ‘reached’ could have meant being 10, 15, 20 feet away. Why can’t you understand this. The gateway wasn’t wide. You appear to be claiming that all three were in it. We don’t know how far behind BS man Schwartz was. We can’t ‘deduce’ it, or ‘assume’ it, or ‘calculate’ it, or ‘infer’ it. Why can’t you accept this? We don’t know and can never know how far behind BS man Schwartz was so please stop making things up.

Abberline used the word stopped but you won’t accept the possibility, the absolute likelihood that even if he had stopped it was for a second. This is a man who immediately crossed the road to avoid a quarrel and then ran away when a man shouted at him. This isn’t Dirty Harry. He’s hardly going to stand a few feet across the road watching events unfold. Neither the Swanson synthesis nor The Star version mention him ‘stopping’ but you seize on this one word because you spot a chance of furthering your agenda.

If you are so keen to go with Abberline on this trivial piece of nitpicking then can we assume that you agree with him in considering Schwartz a genuine witness or would that be the wrong type of cherrypicking?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Trusting that Herlock won't mind me commenting. I don't find this confusing, just irrelevant and becoming a little repetitive and boring.

So, footway or passageway, you don't mind where Stride had been standing.

IMO that translation could interpreted in more than one way. Was he shouting a warning to BSMan, or warning him to desist his attack on the woman. Was the "intruder" that he rushed toward BSMan or Schwartz? Was Pipeman perceiving BSMan as an attacker or Schwartz as the attacker attempting to escape the scene. Don't know about the knife - was that an embellishment to justify his running away?

Schwartz is the intruder, because Knifeman shouts a warning to BS Man, and then rushes at Schwartz with a knife. We can infer from his aggression that the warning is in relation to Schwartz. The problem with the press account - and it's a huge one - is that Schwartz has not behaved like an intruder - on the contrary he does what he can to avoid the situation. What we have in the press account, is two versions of reality, poorly stitched together. As Schwartz is walking away, why does Knifeman feel the need to approach him with intent? Just let him go!

Reading between the lines, it would seem that for Schwartz to have become a genuine intruder, he did not just divert around the fracas at the gateway. He got involved. That is (one reason) why I believe Schwartz's crossing of the street was in the opposite direction to that normally supposed. He crossed toward the gateway, not away from it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I rather like #33 and #36.

In #33, the screams are screamed words ... which weren't screamed. That is going beyond translation error. It's really just changing the evidence to something more palatable.

#36 is a fair question, but if the woman was being ill-used, #35 might contain some of the words Schwartz used to convey that ill-use. Also, the screams - or whatever they were - being tied to this ill-use seems a reasonable enough suggestion. What is the alternative - that she was thrown down and screamed "ouch! ouch! ouch!"?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Did he? We don't know if he exited for the reason of avoiding a situation, or whether he saw Schwartz off and did or didn't return.

Abberline: Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. 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.

Pipeman ran. If out of fear, then of what? If he was running after Schwartz, then he is in some sense an accomplice to the first man. That changes the whole dynamic of the situation.

Andrew, you ask a great many questions, many of which are hypothetical (post #295), and for which there are no definitive answers. I have a few possibilities but they can only be conjecture.

There may not be definitive answers, but we should try to remain within the bounds of the evidence we have. If that evidence contradicts, we need to do our best to resolve it. Wess claims there was a chase along Fairclough St at around 12:45. Spooner was there at that time. He does not report seeing this chase. Something is not right.

[GBinOz]

The gates were just inside the yard. If Stride was standing in the gateway, she wasn't standing on the footway, she was standing just inside the yard. I'm sorry if this is confusing for you.
Trusting that Herlock won't mind me commenting. I don't find this confusing, just irrelevant and becoming a little repetitive and boring.

The Star also tells us that:

... a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand ...

IMO that translation could interpreted in more than one way. Was he shouting a warning to BSMan, or warning him to desist his attack on the woman. Was the "intruder" that he rushed toward BSMan or Schwartz? Was Pipeman perceiving BSMan as an attacker or Schwartz as the attacker attempting to escape the scene. Don't know about the knife - was that an embellishment to justify his running away?

[GBinOz]

Assuming we are in the 33% reality, try #35 and #37 from another thread.

I rather like #33 and #36.

[GBinOz]

So, what prompted Pipeman's fear? He ran too.
Did he? We don't know if he exited for the reason of avoiding a situation, or whether he saw Schwartz off and did or didn't return.

Is the couple Fanny Mortimer referred to, the same couple that James Brown witnessed?
Possibly verging on probably. There's no way of knowing.

Andrew, you ask a great many questions, many of which are hypothetical (post #295), and for which there are no definitive answers. I have a few possibilities but they can only be conjecture.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why does anyone need to see around corners on a straight street? You also haven’t taken into consideration the fact that it was night time, so the lighting should be considered. Also, it’s entirely possible that he saw BS man in front of him but paid no attention to what was further on. Added to this we don’t know which part of the pavement he was walking on. Near to the houses or near the gutter? Both would give a different angle.

We cannot claim to know that either man was walking on the pavement.

The man tried to pull the woman into the street ...

Where he had been walking?

Schwartz could have seen the woman any time from when he turned into Berner Street onward. I really can’t see how it’s relevant.

So then, what is your point?

If Schwartz reaches the gateway and stops to watch the man and woman, he would be right next to them. If Schwartz had walked on the club-side footway, he would literally be able to reach out and touch either of them. While he is there, all the talking, pushing, pulling, throwing, and screaming occurs. Really?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Swanson: “..he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.”

Not a single hint of her being ‘just inside the yard’

The gates were just inside the yard. If Stride was standing in the gateway, she wasn't standing on the footway, she was standing just inside the yard. I'm sorry if this is confusing for you.

The Star: “he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way”

Schwartz was a distance behind him, clearly on the same side of the road and the woman was in the entrance and there is no suggestion of her precise positioning or that she would have been out of sight.

The Star also tells us that:

... a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand ...

Presumably you believe that too.

You are simply making things up like the script of a play.

Strange then, that I'm the one who has been pushing for the acceptance that Schwartz had reached the gateway when sees the man stop, as Swanson said, and that Schwartz stopped to look, as Abberline said. In other words, I'm following what the police said, whereas you (and others) are rejecting these points in favour of a newspaper report.