An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[The Rookie Detective]

It's also convenient that Schwartz didn't speak a word of English.
Who would suspect a man who didn't speak English?

I don't think god himself could be as clever as Schwartz. If he actually didn't speak a word of English the convenient aspect is pretty much a moot point.

c.d.

But it adds to the mix.

The sum of all parts.

[c.d.]

Except that "convenient" can be applied to any witness or any fact in the case if one so chooses.

c.d.

[Jon Guy]

I think that has to be the likeliest explanation c.d.

It seems unlikely to me than an English speaking person would say ‘screamed but not very loudly.’ You can’t scream anything other than loudly. It’s like saying “he whispered incredibly loudly.”

Surely, the scarf being pulled tight is the likeliest explanation for screaming but not very loudly ?

[c.d.]

Surely, the scarf being pulled tight is the likeliest explanation for screaming but not very loudly ?

But do we know exactly when the scarf pulling occurred?

c.d.

[Jon Guy]

But do we know exactly when the scarf pulling occurred?

c.d.

No, we only know it was pulled tight before she was killed.

[c.d.]

No, we only know it was pulled tight before she was killed.

Right. But Schwartz wasn't there when she was killed. He is describing what took place prior to that.

c.d.

[Jon Guy]

Right. But Schwartz wasn't there when she was killed. He is describing what took place prior to that.

c.d.

Yes, he did scarper off when BS Man started swinging her about.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely, the scarf being pulled tight is the likeliest explanation for screaming but not very loudly ?

Hello Jon.

It was Blackwell that mentioned it:

“The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight.”

But neither he nor Phillips mention it in terms of being connected to her death though. The killer might have held it as he cut her throat though When asked about how she was killed Phillis said:

”I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut. I am of opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right side of the deceased, and taking into account the position of the incision it is unlikely that such a long knife inflicted the wound in the neck.”

If she was being forced to the ground why didn’t she call out? She would have known that this wasn’t a sexual encounter.

[JeffHamm]

Except, that's not what Mortimer says.

We know that she couldnt have been at her door when...
Lave
Eagle
Pc Smith
Parcelman
Bs man
Pipeman
Schwartz or
Stride

....were in the street,, because she would have seen at least 1 of them.

However, she states she was at her door for nearly the whole time, ergo, between 12.30am to 1am

But that can't be true.

Based on all the above individuals, the only times Mortimer could have been at her door was...

12.41-12.44am

and/or

12.46am-12.58am

That's a maximum of just 15 minutes out of 30.

That's therefore only half the time between 12.30am - 1am.

So did Mortimer lie, was she mistaken, or did she embellish her statement when she claimed to have been standing by her door nearly the whole time?

Well..we know that Mortimer WAS at her door at some point, because she DID see a man with a black bag.

Her evidence is then proven correct, because Goldstein goes to the police to say that he was the man seen with the black bag.

The question therefore is; if Mortimer told the truth about seeing a man with a black bag, then when did she observe him?

Well, based on the times above, Goldstein could have only been passing at either...

12.41-12.44am or 12.46am-12.58am

in other words, Mortimer's evidence proves that Goldstein could NOT have been Schwartz.... because if she saw Schwartz, she would have seen Bs Man also, and possibly Pipeman.


We also have the witness Brown...who passes by the end of the street after having come out of the shop and who witnesses a couple on the corner of the board school around 12.45am.

But his timing must be wrong, because at the same time Schwartz, Pipeman and Bs man would have been visible to Brown as he passed.

So we have Mortimer exaggerating her time spent at her door and we have Brown also getting his times wrong because he doesn't see or hear Schwartz, Bs man, Pipeman, or any shout of LIPSKI etc...


Brown also doesn't see Schwartz running away from the scene or Pipe man following him.


So it seems that both Brown and Mortimer were both incorrect about their timings.

That leaves the Schwartz incident to occur at around 12.45am like he stated through an interpreter.


Now...

all of this seems rather convoluted; to the point where it could be said, that something doesn't feel right.


However... how peculiar is it, that when we omit Schwartz's statement, we then lose Bs man, Pipeman, the shout of Lipski, and the entire assault that was alleged to have taken place at the same time that Mortimer claims she was at her door (nearly the whole time between 12.30am-1am) and the time that Brown passes the end of the street and sees the couple on the corner of the board school.

If we then look again at the list of names above... Mortimer could have been at her door anytime between 12.41am - 12.58am.

That's now 17 minutes out of 30.

That's only 2 more minutes, but it covers the time through 12.45am when the Schwartz incident should have occurred.

Mortimer's statement proves that Goldstein and Schwartz could not have been the same man.

But it also clashes directly with Schwartz's account based on the respective timings.

Mortimer- sees or hears nothing except for Goldstein

Lave - sees or hears nothing suspicious

Eagle - sees or heard nothing suspicious BUT there were others in the street as he approaches the club.

Brown- sees the couple on the corner

At least 2 people sitting inside the kitchen by the open window of the club- hear nothing





Schwartz - witnesses and assault at the same time BOTH Brown and Mortimer should have at least heard the assault and/or the SHOUT of "LIPSKI!"

Schwartz also brings both Bs man and Pipeman to the party.

And yet nobody else either SEES or HEARS Bs man or Pipeman.

In fact, not one single word that Schwartz says occurred, can be corroborated by any of the other people in and around the yard at or near the time the assault was said to have taken place.

Nobody saw or heard Schwartz running away either.


But still...Schwartz's statement always takes precedence over any of the other witnesses that were there that night.

Always at the expense of Mortimer and Brown.

And always at the expense of everyone who stated they heard or saw nothing suspicious that night.

The faith in Schwartz has always baffled me.

And just because he didn't speak English at the police station, doesn't mean he COULDNT speak English.

Fascinating

Who saw Deimshitz arrive, or Fanny on her doorstep or Brown with his supper or Spooner with his girlfriend or ....

And most are not giving precidence to Schwartz because they don't try to claim others are lying, rather they are trying to work out how all witnesses fit together, allowing for typical errors in the details like time estimations and recollections. If anything, those who find Schwartz inconvenient give precidence to equally unobserved people by using their statements without consideration of error in order to dismiss him entirely.

- Jeff

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon.

It was Blackwell that mentioned it:

“The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight.”

But neither he nor Phillips mention it in terms of being connected to her death though. The killer might have held it as he cut her throat though When asked about how she was killed Phillis said:

”I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut. I am of opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right side of the deceased, and taking into account the position of the incision it is unlikely that such a long knife inflicted the wound in the neck.”

If she was being forced to the ground why didn’t she call out? She would have known that this wasn’t a sexual encounter.

Hi Herlock

Blackwell did mention about the scarf been connected to her death - I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground.

Why she didn`t call out? Dr Phillips said: She was in a yard, and in a locality where she might cry out very loudly and no notice be taken of her.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

Blackwell did mention about the scarf been connected to her death - I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground.

Why she didn`t call out? Dr Phillips said: She was in a yard, and in a locality where she might cry out very loudly and no notice be taken of her.

We have a few alternative possibilities as ever Jon.

Was the scarf pulled by BS man during the Schwartz incident?
Was it held by BS man while he cut her throat (or when someone else cut her throat)?
Was her throat cut after she had been forced to the ground?
Was her throat cut while she was standing?
Was there no great noise because of the tightness of the scarf?
Was there no great noise because she perhaps knew her killer?
Was there no great noise because, until the second that he cut her throat, she saw him as nothing but a punter (maybe one that was a bit rough)?
Was there no great noise heard in the club because of the other noises?

In addition we have to double some of these up because, for example, we can ask “why did no one hear the street/Schwartz incident.” And then “why did no one hear the actual murder.”

So when I said in the past that there wasn’t much that we don’t know I might have been guilty of a slight exaggeration Jon. What I actually meant is I don’t think that anyone was lying so there’s no great mystery imo. Certainly a few unknowns though.

[The Rookie Detective]

Who saw Deimshitz arrive, or Fanny on her doorstep or Brown with his supper or Spooner with his girlfriend or ....

And most are not giving precidence to Schwartz because they don't try to claim others are lying, rather they are trying to work out how all witnesses fit together, allowing for typical errors in the details like time estimations and recollections. If anything, those who find Schwartz inconvenient give precidence to equally unobserved people by using their statements without consideration of error in order to dismiss him entirely.

- Jeff

Ah yes, but you're perhaps missing the point.

Brown, Spooner, Eagle etc... none of them claim to have seen anything particularly relevant in terms of action or drama.
Brown believes he saw Stride with a man on the corner of the street by the board school, and Mortimer speaks of a couple who spoke to her after the body had been found and who told her they heard nothing despite being on the corner.

Mortimer validates a couple on the corner
Brown validates a couple on the corner
The couple in the corner speak to Mortimer.
Mortimer sees Goldstein
Goldstein comes forward after being seen and is cleared.

But we have nothing to validate Schwartz.

The mistake he made was by adding Pipe man and the shout of "Lipski!" from Stride's alleged assailant.


Schwartz is ambiguous about the address he gives; not sure if his wife has moved etc...
Swanson also mentions specifically that Schwartz ran as far as the train line.
That only works if Schwartz witnessed an assault in Backchurch Lane or Christian Street.

So either Swanson is wrong, mistaken or lying (which by proxy obliterates Kosminski as a suspect) or Schwartz wasn't in Berner Street at all.

I personally believe that Schwartz may have been heading south down Christian Street and may have witnessed Spooner have an argument with his gf close to the junction with Fairclough and Christian Street and that he identified the wrong woman in Stride.
That would explain why Spooners timings don't fit with anyone else's.

Spooner then had to shape his story so as not to be considered a suspect in the murder of Stride, after having been seen assaulting his gf.
Hence why he got his timings all wrong.

Instead of turning right and heading west, Schwartz instead runs south down Christian Street as far as the train line at the eastern end of Pinchin Street.

Spooner is essentially BS man.

The murder of Stride being a coincidence completely unrelated to the assault that Schwartz witnessed.

In other words; whatever Schwartz claimed to have witnessed, it didn't take place in Duffield's yard, because the couple on the corner seen by Brown and validated by Mortimer, plus the woman in the kitchen around 5 yards from the murder site, with an open window and a partially open side door.... at least one of them would have heard either the assault and/or the shout of "LIPSKI!"

But nobody did.

Ultimately, the biggest question is...

If Schwartz was such an important key witness, who claimed to have seen a man assault the victim within 5 yards of where she was found murdered less than 15 minutes later; why didn't he then appear at the inquest?

The only answer is that he either wasn't as reliable a witness as the police first thought, or that he was THE Jewish witness who didn't want to testify against another Jew.
The only problem with that is... Bs Man is never described or referred to as Jewish, and he also shouts "Lipski" which was regarded as an antisemitic slur; although I accept this may not have been the case.

I know that not all witnesses are called to the inquest, but surely a man who claimed to have seen what he did, would have been compelled to attend the inquest to give evidence.

The fact that Schwartz also required a translator, means that any translation is open to scrutiny.
If the translator conveniently mistranslated the word "scream" so as to try and justify why a woman being attacked didn't instinctively cry out for help and/or why she wasn't heard by anyone else within earshot, then the same can be applied to the location and time that Schwartz claimed he witnessed the assault.

Requiring a translator doesn't help his integrity as a potentially crucial witness.

[JeffHamm]

I would argue you are evaluating the witness based upon how important the content of their statement is rather than based upon the context of their situation. Schwartz's context is similar to many, maybe even most, witnesses of the series. It is the content which is most (potentially) important. While I agree that the content means we need be extra careful about drawing g conclusions too quickly, I don't think the content can be dismissed as lies simply because it is potentially important.

If you don't trust Schwartz why do you dismiss him based upon witnesses who are no more supported, but who offer less case relevant information? Are you sure it is not because Schwartz is simply inconvenient?

- Jeff

[c.d.]

If Schwartz was such an important key witness, who claimed to have seen a man assault the victim within 5 yards of where she was found murdered less than 15 minutes later; why didn't he then appear at the inquest?

The only answer is that he either wasn't as reliable a witness as the police first thought, or that he was THE Jewish witness who didn't want to testify against another Jew.

How did you you determine that that could be the only answer, R.D.? How did you go about eliminating every other possibility? Maybe Schwartz had horrible body odor and Baxter didn't want him at the inquest for that reason? Of course I am being facetious but the point is that any reason is up for grabs because no one knows why he was not called.

c.d.

[c.d.]

The fact that Schwartz also required a translator, means that any translation is open to scrutiny.
If the translator conveniently mistranslated the word "scream" so as to try and justify why a woman being attacked didn't instinctively cry out for help and/or why she wasn't heard by anyone else within earshot, then the same can be applied to the location and time that Schwartz claimed he witnessed the assault.

How did everything become so damn "convenient" all of a sudden, R.D.?

How convenient that Fanny includes the word nearly in her statement.

How convenient that Diemschutz's horse held up when it did.

How convenient that Anderson didn't actually name the Ripper.

How convenient that Swanson didn't give the Ripper's first name.

How convenient that Macnaghten did not give a source for his information on Druitt.

How convenient that Druitt had a cricket match so soon after the murder.

The list goes on and on.

c.d.