An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[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.

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

But we do, if we choose to apply the sight lines/field of vision to the map of Berner Street.

We can quite literally draw lines to see and measure the precise angles within which it would have been possible for Schwartz to have seen her standing in the gateway.

We then look at a range to see the minimum and maximum distance possible and then can prove within which space Schwartz could have been when he first saw her.

For example, if he's walking down Berner Street and sees Bs man, but doesn't mention Stride until after Bs Man is seen stopping and talking to her, we can reasonableness certain that Stride was not standing on the pavement level with Schwartz's of sight as he walks forwards.

He only mentions seeing Stride after he has seen Bs man stop and talk to her.


This indicates that Stride was standing behind the line of sight of the pavement that covered Schwartz's field of view as he walked down the street.


It's a matter of maths and physics.

We then look at varying parameters to see what can work and what is physically impossible.

For example, when Schwartz was walking down Berner Street and drew level with number 30 (the Letchfords) it would have been physically impossible for him to have seen Stride standing in the gateway.

Nobody can see around corners.

And so, at what point/location in space time COULD Schwartz have seen Stride as he walked down the road?

It's not a theoretical question; but rather a question of physics.

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.

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.

[The Rookie Detective]

For some reason it’s being suggested that Schwartz wouldn’t have been able to see the woman standing in the gateway from his position on the pavement behind BS man. Nothing suggests that she was out of site and we have no way of knowing how far away Schwartz would have been able to see her from.

But we do, if we choose to apply the sight lines/field of vision to the map of Berner Street.

We can quite literally draw lines to see and measure the precise angles within which it would have been possible for Schwartz to have seen her standing in the gateway.

We then look at a range to see the minimum and maximum distance possible and then can prove within which space Schwartz could have been when he first saw her.

For example, if he's walking down Berner Street and sees Bs man, but doesn't mention Stride until after Bs Man is seen stopping and talking to her, we can reasonableness certain that Stride was not standing on the pavement level with Schwartz's of sight as he walks forwards.

He only mentions seeing Stride after he has seen Bs man stop and talk to her.


This indicates that Stride was standing behind the line of sight of the pavement that covered Schwartz's field of view as he walked down the street.


It's a matter of maths and physics.

We then look at varying parameters to see what can work and what is physically impossible.

For example, when Schwartz was walking down Berner Street and drew level with number 30 (the Letchfords) it would have been physically impossible for him to have seen Stride standing in the gateway.

Nobody can see around corners.

And so, at what point/location in space time COULD Schwartz have seen Stride as he walked down the road?

It's not a theoretical question; but rather a question of physics.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no ‘model’ required. What is going on here is a quote deliberate attempt to re-write history solely for the sake of being able to claim that something ‘new’ has been found. Some aren’t reading evidence they are trying to recreate it.

Schwartz walked along Berner Street an unknown distance behind BS man but on the same side. This is a fact. Any attempt to dispute it is an act of dishonesty. He was on the SAME side of the street. In the Swanson version Schwartz saw BS man stop and talk to a woman in the gateway but it’s not stated whether Schwartz noticed the woman before BS man spoke to her. The Star however suggests that he saw the woman before BS man spoke to her but it’s not entirely clear that this was the case due to the wording.

So we just can’t know for certain if he’d seen the woman first but it’s really unimportant. The evidence favours that he hadn’t noticed her though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It suggests she was not on the footway, even partially. She was just inside the yard. This would require Schwartz to have reached the gateway when he sees the man stop and talk to her, and that is exactly what Swanson tells us.



Does the plot include Schwartz giving evidence at the inquest?

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 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.


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

[Herlock Sholmes]

It doesn't particularly bother me as it is of little to no consequence. Whether or not Schwartz could see her in advance depends entirely on exactly where she was standing in the gateway in relation to the street alignment. If she was slightly inside the street alignment then she would not have been visible to Schwartz (or Mortimer) until he was reasonably close - not right on the gateway but close enough to decide that he didn't want to be involved in what was taking place. I'm not seeing a plot here...?

For some reason it’s being suggested that Schwartz wouldn’t have been able to see the woman standing in the gateway from his position on the pavement behind BS man. Nothing suggests that she was out of site and we have no way of knowing how far away Schwartz would have been able to see her from.

[GBinOz]

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.

[GBinOz]

Do you mean, the situation escalated after Schwartz had walked away, and the first man calls/shouts 'Lipski' to Schwartz and/or the second man? That was all it took to strike fear into these men?
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.

Just to be clear, you believe the couple remained oblivious to all the goings on?

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.