An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[c.d.]

What is the exact wording of Schwartz's statement regarding his proximity to the gateway?

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

On the question of whether or not Schwartz stopped walking, even if we take Abberline's statement literally, he didn't say how long Schwartz stopped. If he stopped for 2 or 3 seconds, it wouldn't significantly affect the timeline anyway.

Blood has been removed from the stone.

I realise that the difficulty with this issue is that, for many of us, admitting that Schwartz stopped has the potential to wreak havoc with preferred timelines, and even threaten the viability of Schwartz's story. However, his stopping at the level of the gateway has other implications, unrelated to time. I discuss these in #203. I believe that post answers several questions about the incident. If anyone disagrees with those answers, please explain and perhaps offer alternatives.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I also find it bizarre that there's a seemingly random reference to Schwartz's evidence being heard at the inquest.
If it was, then he certainly didn't give it in person.

If' that's the case, then he must have seen the murderer and/or the murder, and was shielded by the police from attending the inquest in person.

"Must have been." Are you saying there could not be any other explanation, R.D.?

c.d.

The more fundamental question is, did Schwartz give evidence at the inquest?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The other scenario exists whereby Schwartz wasn't his name, and the police changed his name for fear of him being targeted by the killer.

Wouldn't it be weird if Goldstein was the man who actually saw the murder, but in a bid to protect him and oust the killer, the police then changed his name to Schwartz in a bid to make the killer believe that Goldstein hadn't actually seen him murder Stride.

How does that work, given the following?

The Star re Schwartz: He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them.

The name 'Israel Schwartz' wasn't publicly known, after the double event.

Or, perhaps Schwartz's witnessing of the attack on Stride was a deliberate ruse to oust the killer, by inventing an assault that never happened and thus lead the killer into a sense of false security.

So, why do we see doubts reported in the Star, Oct 2?

The assault was first mentioned in the press as an assault that was seen taking place, but was left alone as the witness thought it was a domestic between a couple. Zero mention of Schwartz.

Right, so why the need for a name change?

But what if Goldstein informed the police that he saw the killer, but was fearful of his brethren targeting him. He then goes to the police under duress with Wess, who ensures that Goldstein doesn't say too much.

But unbeknown to Wess, Goldstein has already been to the police prior to this; to state he saw the killer.

The police then need to protect their asset by inventing a new "witness" who had come forward to say he saw an assault.

This then gives Goldstein some indirect protection against retaliation from the club, because as far as Wess knows, Goldstein only tells the police what he tells them in Wess's presence.

As an informant, the police are protecting Goldstein because Wess and Co now think that a man called Schwartz saw an assault on the victim.
When in reality, Goldstein saw the whole thing, and could identify none other than club member Kozebrodski as the killer.

"Kosebrodski was the suspect"


Can you imagine...

I can imagine that if this were true, it would be reflected in Swanson's report, which it isn't.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Who? We don’t know who she was.

If not, it was the couple referred to in #174. Take your pick and adjust your timeline accordingly. Brown did not see a man being pursued at 12:45, or a man standing at the door of the Nelson, and Eagle did not see a woman standing in the gateway at 12:40. By the time Brown exits the chandler's shop, the couple are there and claim to have heard no unusual noises.

I'm sure you can make it work.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the question of whether or not Schwartz stopped walking, even if we take Abberline's statement literally, he didn't say how long Schwartz stopped. If he stopped for 2 or 3 seconds, it wouldn't significantly affect the timeline anyway.

Good point Lewis. It could have been a second. If someone is walking away and they turn to look back at something behind them they might halt for a second rather than carry on walking without looking where they’re going. Or they might just slow down a little which imo is more likely.

[Lewis C]

On the question of whether or not Schwartz stopped walking, even if we take Abberline's statement literally, he didn't say how long Schwartz stopped. If he stopped for 2 or 3 seconds, it wouldn't significantly affect the timeline anyway.

[c.d.]

So are you saying there could be no other possible explanation or are you saying you believe your explanation best fits the evidence? There is a big difference between the two. That is my point.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

I also find it bizarre that there's a seemingly random reference to Schwartz's evidence being heard at the inquest.
If it was, then he certainly didn't give it in person.

If' that's the case, then he must have seen the murderer and/or the murder, and was shielded by the police from attending the inquest in person.

"Must have been." Are you saying there could not be any other explanation, R.D.?

c.d.

If the police stated his evidence was heard at the inquest, but there's no record of him attending, then there is a conflict there that needs explaining.

He either didn't attend; meaning his evidence wasn't heard in 1st person
Or he did attend and gave evidence.

There's no evidence of the latter.

And so if he didn't attend the inquest, but the police stated his evidence was heard there; then we have a puzzle to unravel there.

Either someone else (the police) told the inquest of a man who witnessed an assault but thought it was a domestic, or his evidence wasn't heard at all.

If it wasn't heard, then it doesn't explain why it wasn't considering what Schwartz claimed he saw.

In other words, he should have been the key witness.

So either his evidence amounted to nothing and wasn't considered relevant to the official inquest into her death, or the police needed to shield him from attending in person.

He was either important, or he wasn't.

If he was important then there's no reason why he couldn't attend IF the police were correct in stating that his evidence WAS heard at the inquest.

So either the police were lying about his evidence being heard at the inquest, or they were telling the truth, but needed to keep Schwartz from physically attending in person.

Hope that explains the reasoning to my point.

[c.d.]

I also find it bizarre that there's a seemingly random reference to Schwartz's evidence being heard at the inquest.
If it was, then he certainly didn't give it in person.

If' that's the case, then he must have seen the murderer and/or the murder, and was shielded by the police from attending the inquest in person.

"Must have been." Are you saying there could not be any other explanation, R.D.?

c.d.

Edit - make that "Must have seen."

c.d.

[c.d.]

I also find it bizarre that there's a seemingly random reference to Schwartz's evidence being heard at the inquest.
If it was, then he certainly didn't give it in person.

If' that's the case, then he must have seen the murderer and/or the murder, and was shielded by the police from attending the inquest in person.

"Must have been." Are you saying there could not be any other explanation, R.D.?

c.d.

[c.d.]

We also only have what he claimed to have said from a 3rd person perspective.

His original statement doesn't seem to have survived; which is very convenient indeed.

Convenient for whom, R.D.? What about all of the other documents in the case that have not survived? Should we consider those to be have been conveniently removed thus making them suspicious?

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

It's difficult and I always get stuck on this bit ...

James Brown: On Sunday morning last, about 12.45, I went from my own home to get something for supper at the corner of Berner-street, and was in the shop three or four minutes and then went back home. As I was going home I saw a man and woman standing against the wall by the board school in Fairclough-street. As I passed them in the road I heard the woman say, "No, not tonight; some other night." That made me turn round, and I looked at them. I am almost certain that the deceased was the woman.

What's she doing over there at that time?

Exactly.

Well said.

If we do indeed go with what everyone actually SAID, then Brown, Mortimer and Schwartz's testimonies are IMPOSSIBLE to occur at the SAME TIME.

So we are left with altering times to try and fit everyone in.


It's odd though that Mortimer and Brown are always altered to fit around Schwartz, and of the 3 of them, Schwartz remains an enigma.

We also only have what he claimed to have said from a 3rd person perspective.

His original statement doesn't seem to have survived; which is very convenient indeed.



But, for the sake of balance...


I also find it bizarre that there's a seemingly random reference to Schwartz's evidence being heard at the inquest.
If it was, then he certainly didn't give it in person.

If' that's the case, then he must have seen the murderer and/or the murder, and was shielded by the police from attending the inquest in person.
But why the need to protect him from testifying as to what he witnessed first hand?

Unless the killer was of particularly important public status and the police were worried about Schwartz being targeted as their star witness?

What's interesting, is that by trying to explain Schwartz's physical absence from the inquest, but try and explain why his evidence was referenced by a senior police officer; it THEN actually spirals into the realm of conspiracy theory.


The other scenario exists whereby Schwartz wasn't his name, and the police changed his name for fear of him being targeted by the killer.

Wouldn't it be weird if Goldstein was the man who actually saw the murder, but in a bid to protect him and oust the killer, the police then changed his name to Schwartz in a bid to make the killer believe that Goldstein hadn't actually seen him murder Stride.

Or, perhaps Schwartz's witnessing of the attack on Stride was a deliberate ruse to oust the killer, by inventing an assault that never happened and thus lead the killer into a sense of false security.

The assault was first mentioned in the press as an assault that was seen taking place, but was left alone as the witness thought it was a domestic between a couple. Zero mention of Schwartz.

But what if Goldstein informed the police that he saw the killer, but was fearful of his brethren targeting him. He then goes to the police under duress with Wess, who ensures that Goldstein doesn't say too much.

But unbeknown to Wess, Goldstein has already been to the police prior to this; to state he saw the killer.

The police then need to protect their asset by inventing a new "witness" who had come forward to say he saw an assault.

This then gives Goldstein some indirect protection against retaliation from the club, because as far as Wess knows, Goldstein only tells the police what he tells them in Wess's presence.

As an informant, the police are protecting Goldstein because Wess and Co now think that a man called Schwartz saw an assault on the victim.
When in reality, Goldstein saw the whole thing, and could identify none other than club member Kozebrodski as the killer.

"Kosebrodski was the suspect"


Can you imagine...

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's difficult and I always get stuck on this bit ...

James Brown: On Sunday morning last, about 12.45, I went from my own home to get something for supper at the corner of Berner-street, and was in the shop three or four minutes and then went back home. As I was going home I saw a man and woman standing against the wall by the board school in Fairclough-street. As I passed them in the road I heard the woman say, "No, not tonight; some other night." That made me turn round, and I looked at them. I am almost certain that the deceased was the woman.

What's she doing over there at that time?

Who? We don’t know who she was.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Can anyone tell me, without flights of fancy, why events in Berner Street could have occurred as per the version involving the witness testimonies?

It's difficult and I always get stuck on this bit ...

James Brown: On Sunday morning last, about 12.45, I went from my own home to get something for supper at the corner of Berner-street, and was in the shop three or four minutes and then went back home. As I was going home I saw a man and woman standing against the wall by the board school in Fairclough-street. As I passed them in the road I heard the woman say, "No, not tonight; some other night." That made me turn round, and I looked at them. I am almost certain that the deceased was the woman.

What's she doing over there at that time?