An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz walks behind BS man and he sees him confront Stride. As he crosses the road he sees that BS man is actually a baboon in human clothing. Schwartz, a former circus performer, pulls out a whip and advances on the baboon.

That would go some way to explain Schwartz's theatrical appearance. I like it.

At that exact moment there is a flash of light and a man appears holding a communication device. He tells Schwartz that he is from the planet Zong and that the baboon is actually an escaped prisoner from the penal colony on the space station Bongo. He tells Schwartz that he will deal with the baboon creature and that Schwartz should invent a different, less alien-based story to tell the police. He advises him to tell them that his communication device was actually a pipe and that the baboon creature was just a man for example.

Interesting. My personal theory is that Israel Schwartz was one of the Roswell aliens and was able to mutate into human form at will. That explains why no one can find a good match for him in the census records.

[The Rookie Detective]

I believe that the Schwartz incident can be explained as thus...



At 12.44am Schwartz walks south down Christian Street (west side of street) and witnesses Spooner assault his gf

Spooner was Bs man

Spooner is perhaps a member of the local vigilance committee and/or assuming the role of a plain clothed police officer.

As he approaches the junction with Fairclough street, Schwartz witnesses Spooner throw his gf to the floor near the Bee Hive; which was closed at this point.

A domestic between a couple.

As originally stated in the press.

Schwartz then crosses the road (to the east side) and sees Pipeman step out from the doorway of/by the Bee Hive, and then as he begins to follow Schwartz; Schwartz then runs directly south and straight down to the trainline ahead of him.

This corroborates Swanson.

Spooner's gf then gets up and walks away from her abusive BF, and heads west along Fairclough Street towards her home, but Spooner follows.

Pipeman is not associated with either of them and walks south down Christian Street.

Spooner then stops his GF at the corner of the board school and they are both seen by Brown as he leaves the Chandler's shop at 12.46am

After their argument Spooner is told "no, not tonight, some other night"

Spooner is agitated and walks off back along Fairclough street, his GF goes home alone.


Later when Spooner sees 2 Jews running along the road and claiming a woman has been murdered in the yard, Spooner instinctively joins them because for a moment he thinks it may be his GF. He arrives at the yard and the reason why he is able/allowed to get so physically close to Stride's body, is that he is checking it's not his GF, as she lives very close by.

That also explains why he fluffed his lines at the inquest, when it came to giving an accurate time. He claims to have been in the yard by 12.35am, but that's because he doesn't want to be identified as the man who was seen assaulting his GF outside the Beehive by Schwartz at 12.45am.

I believe that in this scenario, Schwartz and Brown incorrectly identify Stride and that at this point Stride was already standing quietly in the yard waiting for someone.


Marshall sees Stride with her actual killer earlier at 11.45am.
The same man seen by both Gardener and Best.

An Anglo-Jew not associated with the club.


Now going back to Spooner; he manages to tell his GF that they need to say that they were standing on the corner of the board school both before and after the murder, because if he is identified as the man who assaulted her in Christian St, then he may be blamed for the subsequent murder of the woman in the yard due to a random witness having seen him being violent.

It then explains why Spooner says he was with his GF but then took her home, despite nobody seeing his GF.
He never took her home, but rather she went home after he assaulted her in the street.
All witnessed by Schwartz.

Spooner then tells Mortimer that he and his GF were standing on the corner of the board school both before and after, despite it being impossible for Mortimer to see them.

Mortimer is at her door from 12.42am to 12.54am.

The street is quiet

But what of Goldstein?

Well, perhaps he is the man who sees Stride murdered.

Goldstein is seen by Mortimer as he walks south down Berner Street, and her perception of him walking hurriedly is in part; not contextually accurate.

It has always been curious to me why he would be walking hurriedly.

Well, perhaps Goldstein is the man that Moritmer hears walking with a measured walk outside her door at 12.55am.

Only a few moments before, Mortimer had gone inside (having been standing at her door between 12.41am-12.53am) and planned to go to bed.
However, as Mortimer is about to lock the door to go to bed, she hears the man walk past, and then re-opens the door to be nosy.
She then witnesses Goldstein at the exact moment that Goldstein sees Stride being murdered in the yard.

Mortimer then witnesses Goldstein walk hurriedly off and look back towards the club as he dashes around the corner of the board school. He had intended to go into the club, but stops cold when he sees the killer with a large knife.

Goldstein never sees a couple on the corner because Spooner and his gf were not there then.

Goldstein is then the Jewish "witness" who won't testify because he sees a fellow Jew murder Stride.

An Anglo-Jew that he recognises.

Moments after Goldstein sees the killer, Mortimer goes back inside none-the-wiser, and the killer knowing he has been seen by Goldstein, quickly runs out of the yard and heads south and then west along Fairclough, before turning left and heading south down Backchurch Lane, and then west towards the COL.

Mortimer misses seeing the killer by a matter of seconds.

As does Diemschitz, who has just turned the corner into Berner Street as the killer goes around the corner and into Fairclough Street at 1am.

Mortimer then hears Diemschitz cart pass her door

The murder occurs between 12.57am and 12.59am


Thoughts?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here's a thought experiment for people to contemplate. Reference below.

Schwartz made it clear he had reached the gateway when he stopped to watch the altercation in the gateway between the man and the woman.

This isn’t true. You are favouring Abberline’s wording because you believe it creates an opportunity for a mystery. Schwartz never mentioned ‘stopping.’ In fact ‘stopping’ would be unlikely and doesn’t appear in character with the fleeing Schwartz.

After the man throws the woman onto the footway, Schwartz crosses the street. I've always found this rather odd. If Schwartz had reached the level of the gateway after turning into the street on the club side, he would be mere feet away from the man and woman - essentially at reach out and touch distance. How could this level of proximity not invite drawing him into the fracas?

Again, you are quite deliberately looking to create a mystery where none exists. We have no reason to suspect that Schwartz ever reached the level of the gateway. BS man reached the gateway as the testimony makes abundantly clear. Schwartz sees this confrontation up ahead (we don’t know how far but it’s not likely to have been much…a few feet) and decides to cross the street to avoid having to walk directly past the incident on the same side.

On crossing he sees Pipeman, who it seems is the intended recipient of the first man's call of 'Lipski'. At that point Schwartz walks away, presumably south as that is the direction of both 22 Ellen St, and the nearest railway arches. I've always found this crossing of the street rather odd, also. If Schwartz wants to proceed to 22 Ellen St, he should stay on the club side of Berner St. On the other hand, if he is going to an address in Berner St that his wife has not moved from in his absence (referring to the Star account), he should still stay on the club side as, South of Fairclough St, that is the side with all the residential addresses (e.g. William Marshall).

He crosses to avoid the incident. What’s odd about it?

There is a way of 'getting around' both of these oddities. Suppose that, instead of turning into Berner St on the club side, so that Schwartz virtually comes face-to-face with the quarrelling couple, he actually turns in on the opposite side - the board school side - and observes the man and woman from across the street. Then, when the woman is thrown to ground, Schwartz crossed the road toward the gateway, not away from it. Presumably, Schwartz is intending to confront the man. Sensing this confrontation, the man calls 'Lipski' to his buddy, who then proceeds toward Schwartz with intent. At this point, Schwartz 'thinks twice' about proceeding with the confrontation, and walks away instead, but finding the second man continues to follow him, he begins to run.

This is not what Schwartz said happened therefore it isn’t what happened.

So, in this scenario, Schwartz is not just a passive observer, he intentionally becomes involved. Note how this fits with the press account, in which he is described as an intruder:

On what planet does this fit?

... 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, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

No doubt this scenario will generate as many questions as it provides answers, but I think it's worth some thought.

---

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having 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. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. [Here there is a marginal note. 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'.] Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

Schwartz walks behind BS man and he sees him confront Stride. As he crosses the road he sees that BS man is actually a baboon in human clothing. Schwartz, a former circus performer, pulls out a whip and advances on the baboon. At that exact moment there is a flash of light and a man appears holding a communication device. He tells Schwartz that he is from the planet Zong and that the baboon is actually an escaped prisoner from the penal colony on the space station Bongo. He tells Schwartz that he will deal with the baboon creature and that Schwartz should invent a different, less alien-based story to tell the police. He advises him to tell them that his communication device was actually a pipe and that the baboon creature was just a man for example.