An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Andrew, since you believe that Stride was being violently assaulted and thrown to the ground, how do you account for the low volume of her screams. This takes place at a time of unspeakable murder/mutilations so any woman being attacked should have been screaming at maximum volume. I would entertain the possibility that a more suitable translation might have been that she scolded three times, but not very loudly. JMO.

I put the probability of the incident being true at about 33%. That is the best way to account for all the Schwartz related anomalies.

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

Why do you suppose Abberline accepted this description, of the sounds being screams? I can accept the sounds might have been noises better described otherwise, but I cannot accept your notion that the sounds were actually spoken words. That would not be a translation error, it would be a falsehood.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

When the situation escalated I believe that both Schwartz and Pipeman were unsure of what was going on. Schwartz said that Pipeman made a move towards him and this is what prompted his fear and prompted his exit from the situation.

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

I think that the timing of all the events doesn't preclude the possibility that they were not there when the goings on were going on.

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Now then Andrew, I would look on it as a courtesy if you refrained from putting words in my mouth.

I'm just asking questions.

If Parcelman returned to find Stride slain there are a few obvious players that could be involved, namely BSMan, Pipeman and Schwartz, although I would personally exclude Schwartz from this consideration. BSMan could be considered, IMO, as a non-JtR suspect such as Kosminski. Pipeman I would look on as an possible opportunistic JtR posing as a rescuer. But I would add to the list the names of Eagle and Goldstein. I would quickly add that I have no proof in their regard, just nagging suspicions.

If Parcelman finds Stride slain with the killer right there, and proceeds to chase him along Fairclough, is that the one and only chase, or was there another involving Pipeman and Schwartz? I'm confused because you name these two in the obvious players that could be involved. If Schwartz has already run off, seemingly followed by Pipeman, then who witnesses Parcelman pursuing BS Man? Was there another man that Schwartz wasn't aware of? If this unknown individual alerted the club - when did this occur? I don't mean at what clock time, I mean why was it left to Diemschitz to discover the body? We seem to have yet another individual that the police never identified.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Replace the name "Schwartz" above, with any other witness who walked along Berner Street, and see whether it still makes sense.

I really don’t understand the point RD. Berner Street is a straight road. If someone is said to be ‘standing in a gateway’ or ‘standing in a doorway’ it doesn’t mean that they are behind the line of the buildings and therefore out of sight to someone walking along. We have no evidential reason to believe that the woman was out of sight. We also have no sure way of knowing at exactly what point Schwartz saw her. Did he see the BS man walking and the women slightly ahead? Or, did he only notice/see the women when BS man began talking to her? Either way the point makes zero difference to our analysis of what went on.

So not only do we not know when Schwartz first saw the woman but we can’t possibly ever know and we don’t need to know, any more than we need to know what colour socks Schwartz was wearing because it’s not relevant.

There isn’t one single piece of evidence that casts doubt on the fact that Israel Schwartz was in Berner Street. We might of course question his time but we have no reason to call him a liar. So my question remains as it has done for years….why are people so intent on calling him a liar? It smacks of an agenda I’m afraid.