An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Herlock Sholmes]

Swanson implies that Schwartz stopped. When Schwartz has reached the gateway, he sees the first man stop. Schwartz watches what happens and then crosses the road. We can infer that Schwartz watched while stationary. Abberline's memo confirms this. I'm even inclined to believe that by the time the two men have reached the level of the gates, Schwartz has taken a narrow lead, so to speak. That is because Schwartz's goal is to get home, whereas the man has been distracted by the woman.



Funny how your attitude to the Star account has changed.

What is odd about that account, is that Schwartz does seem to act rather cowardly, yet at the same time he is depicted as an intruder who 'justifies' an aggressive response. As stated previously, this makes sense if Schwartz crosses toward the first man, as opposed to away from him.



Not sure what you're on about here. His preceding behaviour consists of walking down the street.



In #203 I described a scenario I believe explains issues with the story I have personally found troubling, none of which relate to the timespan issue. It's interesting that Schwartz can be moved to the other side of the street, and then cross to the club side, without running into any obvious logical errors. None that I'm aware of yet, anyway. Not much I can do if you think this is all part of ploy to make the event last too long.

My interpretation is closer to the police reports than yours is. If you have total confidence in Schwartz, accept those reports literally.

There’s only one interpretation. The real one and yours.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is odd about that account, is that Schwartz does seem to act rather cowardly, yet at the same time he is depicted as an intruder who 'justifies' an aggressive response. As stated previously, this makes sense if Schwartz crosses toward the first man, as opposed to away from him.

Another baseless fantasy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Swanson implies that Schwartz stopped. When Schwartz has reached the gateway, he sees the first man stop. Schwartz watches what happens and then crosses the road. We can infer that Schwartz watched while stationary. Abberline's memo confirms this. I'm even inclined to believe that by the time the two men have reached the level of the gates, Schwartz has taken a narrow lead, so to speak. That is because Schwartz's goal is to get home, whereas the man has been distracted by the woman.

No he doesn’t. You’ve simply invented that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Before the witness [Dr Phillips] had concluded his evidence the inquiry was adjourned until Friday, at two o'clock.

That was on the Wednesday. What did Coroner Baxter do on the Thursday? I have it down to either:

A) He went to the first day of a test match, for which he and his wife had bought tickets weeks before.

B) He took testimony from Israel Schwartz, in a session closed to the public and press.

Your imagination has escaped.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, in corresponding with the Home Office, it is your humble opinion that Abberline used an inaccurate figure of speech. Right.

Obviously.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Israel Schwartz is the subject of the sentence. The reaching of the gateway pertains to him.

How can you possibly conclude that?

”12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [i.e. Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at that hour on turning into Berner St from Commercial Road & 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…”

So Schwartz sees a man stop and speak to woman who was standing in the gateway. Therefore it is impossible that Schwartz could have been in that gateway too.

“As he turned the corner from Commercial Road 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 where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her.”

How could this be more obvious? Why are you disputing this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, you accept that things don't work with the times as is - you need to call on your leeway to make it all work. It's interesting how this leeway always goes the 'right' way. In some press accounts, James Brown is returning from the shop at 12:45, rather than heading toward it. That leaves even less time to squeeze everything in. Reasonable margins-of-error in witness times go in both directions, not just to whatever's convenient.

Any leeway has to be a + or -. No one can be taken seriously if they don’t accept this.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why not go with Swanson who doesn’t mention stopping?

Swanson implies that Schwartz stopped. When Schwartz has reached the gateway, he sees the first man stop. Schwartz watches what happens and then crosses the road. We can infer that Schwartz watched while stationary. Abberline's memo confirms this. I'm even inclined to believe that by the time the two men have reached the level of the gates, Schwartz has taken a narrow lead, so to speak. That is because Schwartz's goal is to get home, whereas the man has been distracted by the woman.

Why not go with The Star who doesn’t mention stopping?

Funny how your attitude to the Star account has changed.

What is odd about that account, is that Schwartz does seem to act rather cowardly, yet at the same time he is depicted as an intruder who 'justifies' an aggressive response. As stated previously, this makes sense if Schwartz crosses toward the first man, as opposed to away from him.

Why not view the likelihood of him stopping in light of his preceding behaviour - scarpering?

Not sure what you're on about here. His preceding behaviour consists of walking down the street.

You are, yet again, quite deliberately trying to make this incident last longer than it actually could have (just as Michael used to try and stretch the time between Diemschitz finding the body and him going for a PC) because you have an ongoing agenda to create a mystery (something that you have form for) You are trying to reduce the subject to a spy novel with your approach. We KNOW what happened with Schwartz because he told us.

In #203 I described a scenario I believe explains issues with the story I have personally found troubling, none of which relate to the timespan issue. It's interesting that Schwartz can be moved to the other side of the street, and then cross to the club side, without running into any obvious logical errors. None that I'm aware of yet, anyway. Not much I can do if you think this is all part of ploy to make the event last too long.

He walked along Berner Street with BS man an unknown distance in front of him. An incident began and so Schwartz, who naturally wanted to avoid getting close, crossed over the road and continued passing the incident. As he gets to the other side he sees Pipeman (neither he nor us know where he came from though it’s possible that he stopped in the doorway of the beer house to enable him to light his pipe) Schwartz kept looking across, probably in glances (hoping not to antagonise the man) but the man sees him looking and calls out ‘Lipski’. Schwartz leaves the scene. We don’t know what happened in Berner Street next.

No one lied. Errors in witness testimony are always possible.

My interpretation is closer to the police reports than yours is. If you have total confidence in Schwartz, accept those reports literally.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why do we need to overcomplicate? The suggestion that Schwartz attended the inquest came from one person. There is no record of him attending the inquest. Answer - the person that mentioned his attendance was mistaken. He made an incorrect assumption.

Before the witness [Dr Phillips] had concluded his evidence the inquiry was adjourned until Friday, at two o'clock.

That was on the Wednesday. What did Coroner Baxter do on the Thursday? I have it down to either:

A) He went to the first day of a test match, for which he and his wife had bought tickets weeks before.

B) He took testimony from Israel Schwartz, in a session closed to the public and press.

[The Rookie Detective]

If you can prove that Schwartz’s 12.45 was the same as Brown’s then I’ll grant that an issue exists. But you can’t, so there isn’t one.

Or...


If it can be proven that Schwartz's 12.45am was the same as Brown's 12.45am... Mortimer's being at her door's 12.45am ("nearly the whole time") and the couple seen by Brown on the corner, and Mrs Diemschitz sitting in the kitchen by the open window and door ajar, then there may be an issue.


It's essentially...


Schwartz VS Brown, Mortimer, Mrs Diemschitz and the young couple.


(that's 1 against 5)


And so why is it always the minority of Schwartz who has their times set at 12.45am, but all the others are then either moved or explained away in some other manner?


Has anyone tried supporting the majority and moving Schwartz's time?


Schwartz's 12.45am is clearly wrong.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Are you immune to the concept of someone making an error?

You need to be careful who you are attributing text to. Most of the text you have quoted was of c.d. quoting TRD.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It is clearly BS man who ‘stopped’ and was ‘level with the gateway.’ Schwartz was behind BS man on the same side of the road but an unknown distance behind him.

Israel Schwartz is the subject of the sentence. The reaching of the gateway pertains to him.

Abberline used the word ‘stopped’ but we have no record of Schwartz using this and, in my opinion, it was just an inaccurate figure of speech.

As we have no record of anything Schwartz was quoted as saying, this is disingenuous.
So, in corresponding with the Home Office, it is your humble opinion that Abberline used an inaccurate figure of speech. Right.

[The Rookie Detective]

Why do we need to overcomplicate? The suggestion that Schwartz attended the inquest came from one person. There is no record of him attending the inquest. Answer - the person that mentioned his attendance was mistaken. He made an incorrect assumption.

That's a very important point that you make.

Whomever mentioned his attendance at the inquest to give evidence, was indeed mistaken.


That individual wasn't able to get the basics right and appears to claim that Schwartz's evidence was heard at the inquest, when it clearly wasn't.


I wouldn't trust the judgement of the man who couldn't even get the basics right, and i would then question other potential key errors made by that same person at other times throughout the case.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It only ‘doesn’t’ work if you believe that all times need to be accepted as being synchronised. If you allow some leeway on times, which has to be done if you take a serious approach, then there are no issues. We just have to accept that these times weren’t exact.

If you can prove that Schwartz’s 12.45 was the same as Brown’s then I’ll grant that an issue exists. But you can’t, so there isn’t one.

So, you accept that things don't work with the times as is - you need to call on your leeway to make it all work. It's interesting how this leeway always goes the 'right' way. In some press accounts, James Brown is returning from the shop at 12:45, rather than heading toward it. That leaves even less time to squeeze everything in. Reasonable margins-of-error in witness times go in both directions, not just to whatever's convenient.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So why didn't Bs man hear Schwartz, and why did Bs man choose to assault Stride at the exact time he did?


Based on the above, it may be the case whereby Schwartz is walking on the opposite side of the road, rather than on the same side.

This would seem odd if Schwartz had turned into Berner Street from the west of Commerical Road, but would work if Schwartz had come from the east and then turned left into Berner Street.


But if he was on the same side of the road as Bs man and Stride, then why did Bs man then assault her just as Schwartz reached the gateway?


That makes no sense whatsoever.

Not only that, but there is no interaction between the woman and Schwartz. She is being assaulted, and he is right there. She says nothing to him, and he offers nothing to her. It's just weird.

But if Schwartz was already on the opposite side of the road, and then as he reaches level with the gateway, he glances over the road to observe Bs man stop and engage with Stride momentarily before BS man launches as assault on her, then that may explain why the assailant didn't hear or notice Schwartz until AFTER he had assaulted Stride.

Right. Starting Schwartz from the opposite side of the street can solve at least one problem, probably more.

But based on Bs man appearing to stop, talk and then assault Stride all in a matter of a few seconds, it begs the question; had Bs man spoken to Stride earlier/before Schwartz turns into the street?

Based on Pipeman's location and the chance that the 2 men could have been companions; it seems possible that BS man had already spoken to Stride but then had walked off angered by her response. He then turns to have a 2nd go at Stride with the intention of assaulting her and teaching her a lesson. But he turns back just as Schwartz turns into the street.

Schwartz only sees Bs man stop and talk to her, but the assailant may have indeed already tried his luck earlier. Something must have made him angry, and there seems no time for Bs amn to have escalated to an assault so quickly; based on Schwartz's account.

What is Pipeman's location? The doorway of the pub that had closed no later than midnight?

You might recall that I've argued that the second man (Pipeman) came from Hampshire Court. You argued recently that Schwartz doesn't see BS Man until he is almost at the gates himself, with the first man now just ahead of him. So, assuming Schwartz came down the East/school side of the street, had the first man himself come from that court? Perhaps the men had both been at the Red Lion on Batty St. Not sure how late it would have been open.