An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[The Rookie Detective]

There’s no need for another approach RD. We know what happened. That should be an end of it.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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)

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the point is 100% wrong.

[The Rookie Detective]

...a location that makes her invisible to someone entering Berner St until they are essentially at the level of the gates.

100% my entire point relayed in just one sentence, bravo!

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's unlikely someone came out of the Nelson, given that it had closed no later than midnight. It's also unlikely that a man coming from there or around that corner would feel any need to shout a warning to a man assaulting a woman, given that man had entered the street from the opposite direction. I don't think the Star got the location right. Swanson doesn't give us a location for Pipeman, but he does tell us the man followed him. This would suggest he was to the North of Schwartz when first spotted.

Where do you dredge this stuff up from? He was near the beer shop which is why the suggestion was made that he might have exited it.

If the paper has modified some of the story, and other parts of the report rely on questionable translations, it cannot be regarded as a reliable document. Perhaps we can use it to get some idea of why Schwartz was on the street at that time, but we cannot intuit which parts are accurate and which parts are in error, with any confidence.

Don’t you get bored with all of this? Schwartz walked behind BS man on the club side of the road. As the incident began Schwartz crossed the road. He then saw Pipeman.

These can be taken as facts.

Where did Robert Paul and Charles Lechmere walk - footway or road?

Footway. The clue is in the word ‘foot.’ It’s where you go if you are on ‘foot.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

There’s no need for another approach RD. We know what happened. That should be an end of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

This isn’t true. We can’t know that. It might be physically possible for someone to see something but they just don’t notice it. Like when they are looking at something or someone else…as in this case.

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.

No it doesn’t. You should stop ‘implying.’

Which aligns well with what we see in the Star.



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?

Schwartz never reached the gateway. He crossed the road before reaching there because the incident began. Your suggestion that he began on the other side of the road is nonsense of course.

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.

Comedy stuff.

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.

Yes, you want him to be a Freemason.

[Fiver]

If the paper has modified some of the story, and other parts of the report rely on questionable translations, it cannot be regarded as a reliable document. Perhaps we can use it to get some idea of why Schwartz was on the street at that time, but we cannot intuit which parts are accurate and which parts are in error, with any confidence.

Based on this reasoning, we should throw out all accounts by all witnesses to all events related to the Ripper killings. That doesn't just shut down suspectology, it shuts down almost all discussion of the case, since virtually everything we have is from newspaper accounts.

Or we can apply common sense. If there are conflicting accounts, the most common is likelier to be true. Period newspapers were not above embellishment, so more sensational elements are less likely to have occurred. Most times given are estimates based on the last time witnesses saw a non-synchronzied clock. Multiple witnesses can give the same time for different events and not be lying. Human perception and memory are fallible. And things that don't make sense in a translation are probably the result of an inaccurate translation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Did you read #303?

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

They appear to arrive on the scene just when Brown is returning home from the chandler's shop. He didn't spot the couple on his outward journey. Brown's timing and their 20-minute estimate seem a good match.

Not a knockout blow for Schwartz, but a strong uppercut all the same.

[Fiver]

Where did Robert Paul and Charles Lechmere walk - footway or road?

It's implied that Cross was walking on the north pavement until he saw Nichols body.

"Passing through Buck’s-row he saw something dark lying on the pavement, and, going to the centre of the road, saw that it was the figure of a woman." - 3 September 1888 Evening Post

It is clear that Paul was walking on the north pavement until Cross approached him.

"He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him." - 18 September 1888 Times

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

It's unlikely someone came out of the Nelson, given that it had closed no later than midnight. It's also unlikely that a man coming from there or around that corner would feel any need to shout a warning to a man assaulting a woman, given that man had entered the street from the opposite direction. I don't think the Star got the location right. Swanson doesn't give us a location for Pipeman, but he does tell us the man followed him. This would suggest he was to the North of Schwartz when first spotted.

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.

If the paper has modified some of the story, and other parts of the report rely on questionable translations, it cannot be regarded as a reliable document. Perhaps we can use it to get some idea of why Schwartz was on the street at that time, but we cannot intuit which parts are accurate and which parts are in error, with any confidence.

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

Where did Robert Paul and Charles Lechmere walk - footway or road?

[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.