An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Herlock Sholmes]

Smith passes and sees Stride and Parcelman in an otherwise empty street.

Lave is in the yard for air.

Stride and Parcelman move on and go their separate ways.

Lave comes to the street, notices nothing, goes back inside side.

Eagle returns and at around the same time that Brown goes for his supper.

Stride returns and stops the talk to Overcoat man just around the corner in Fairclough Street.

Brown passes them and hears her say ‘not tonight’; they separate.

Stride goes into Berner Street just as BS man does from the other end followed by Schwartz.

Stride ducks into the gateway (to wait for someone or to hide from BS man)

BS man passes Fanny’s door. She thinks that it’s a Constable (she assumes this because she hadn’t heard Smith pass earlier)

The incident occurs. Schwartz and Pipeman leave. BS man kills Stride and leaves.

It’s a minute or two since she heard the footsteps and Fanny goes onto her doorstep.

Some time before 1.00 Goldstein passes.

She goes back inside just before 1.00.

As she thinks that the footsteps were a Constable she assumes that she was on her doorstep from 12.30 or 12.35 until just before 1.00 (explaining her ‘most of the time between..)

Diemschitz arrives at around 1.00


Or alternately..


The incident occurs. Schwartz and Pipeman leave.

Fanny comes onto her doorstep.

BS man are in the passageway talking..

Goldstein passes and looks toward the club because he thinks that he hears someone inside the gateway.

Fanny goes back inside.

BS man kills Stride and leaves.

Diemschitz arrives at around 1.00

[Lewis C]

As Herlock mentions; it's the chronology of events that actually matters far more than any given timings.

On that basis; what can we sure of in terms of chronology of events?

Well if we choose to believe each witness at face value, then we know that...

In no particular order...


Goldstein walked down Berner St at the same time that Mortimer was at her door and saw him do so.

Eagle came back to the club and walked into the yard when Mortimer was not at her door, because she never saw anyone enter the yard.

Pc Smith saw Stride talking with Parcelman across the road from the club. Mortimer was not at her door.

Lave came out of the yard, went as far as the street and then reentered through the yard. Mortimer was not at her door.

Schwartz saw Bs man and Pipeman in Berner Street and Stride in the yard. Mortimer was not at her door. PC Smith was not in Berner Street.

Brown saw a couple on the corner by the board school on his way back from the chandler's shop. The couple hadn't been there 5 minutes earlier when he was on his way to the shop. PC Smith isn't present, Schwartz isn't present. Goldstein isn't present.

Schwartz, Bs Man, Pipeman, Eagle, Lave, Pc Smith, Letchford were not present for the duration of time Mortimer was at her door.

When Eagle returned to the club he eludes to other people having been in the street, but that he takes no notice of them. Stride was not standing in the yard when Eagle entered it.

Stride was not standing in the yard when Lave walked into it.

There are countless more, but for now let's ask the question...

Of the above, what is the correct chronological order of events?

Forget timings entirely, its just the correct sequence that matters in this instance.

Hi RD,

I'm wondering if there is anything in the above that we can be certain or close to certain about what order it happened in. What I feel most confident in asserting is that Smith passed and Eagle returned before Fanny was at her door and before Brown went out, but even that I'm not certain about.

[New Waterloo]

Well NotBlamed I am unable to speculate on motives or what exactly happened. We all have to slowly put the jigsaw together. I feel some degree of confidence in this approach. If we get enough pieces the gaps and speculation will pull together and may disappear. We are fortunate with the Stride murder in that we have lots of statements and witnesses. I agree with others the order of events is more important than timing. If we are very very lucky in putting an order of events together then motive and what happened will become obvious. I think we have more chance with this killing than the others.

[The Rookie Detective]

As Herlock mentions; it's the chronology of events that actually matters far more than any given timings.

On that basis; what can we sure of in terms of chronology of events?

Well if we choose to believe each witness at face value, then we know that...

In no particular order...


Goldstein walked down Berner St at the same time that Mortimer was at her door and saw him do so.

Eagle came back to the club and walked into the yard when Mortimer was not at her door, because she never saw anyone enter the yard.

Pc Smith saw Stride talking with Parcelman across the road from the club. Mortimer was not at her door.

Lave came out of the yard, went as far as the street and then reentered through the yard. Mortimer was not at her door.

Schwartz saw Bs man and Pipeman in Berner Street and Stride in the yard. Mortimer was not at her door. PC Smith was not in Berner Street.

Brown saw a couple on the corner by the board school on his way back from the chandler's shop. The couple hadn't been there 5 minutes earlier when he was on his way to the shop. PC Smith isn't present, Schwartz isn't present. Goldstein isn't present.

Schwartz, Bs Man, Pipeman, Eagle, Lave, Pc Smith, Letchford were not present for the duration of time Mortimer was at her door.

When Eagle returned to the club he eludes to other people having been in the street, but that he takes no notice of them. Stride was not standing in the yard when Eagle entered it.

Stride was not standing in the yard when Lave walked into it.

There are countless more, but for now let's ask the question...

Of the above, what is the correct chronological order of events?

Forget timings entirely, its just the correct sequence that matters in this instance.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NotBlamed. Diemschutz statement clearly states that he found Spooner around the Beehive Grove Street area. He does not mention Spooners girlfriend. Spooner is very close to where he lived. Perhaps his girlfriend had gone home a little earlier. I dont know. As for BSM. I have no reason to question Schwartz at the moment. Might have been mistaken what he saw but i cant see why BSM didn't exist at the moment.

So, we are agreed that Spooner is where he said he was, give or take a few yards. The only question then, is what became of the lady friend. It's true that Diemschitz does not mention her, and that is a little odd. Perhaps in stopping the two men running back along the street, Spooner became physically separated from her, and Diemschitz didn't notice her. Diemschitz did have his mind on other things and perhaps was a bit tunnel-visioned due to stress.

Perhaps Spooner threw his front door key to the lady, just as he ran off. Perhaps she followed him to Berner St but walked rather than ran. The latter would explain Mortimer's conversation with the mysterious board school couple. I say mysterious because the couple then seem to disappear - we never hear of them again.

We also seem to agree that BS Man has no apparent motive for killing, and so why suppose he did? If you don't doubt Schwartz, can you explain the killer's arrival on the scene?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another general point worth making in my opinion is on the word ‘convenient’ or ‘conveniently.’ This is often used when a series of events is suggested where one person just misses seeing another. “How convenient.” As if this is a deliberate example of manoeuvring witnesses into place like pieces on a chess board.

If we could look down on virtually any street at any time we would see things like this happening in real life. If we looked down on my street you would see Mr X passing and turning the corner just before Mrs Y exited her front door. Then five seconds after Mrs Y turns left out of her front door Mrs Z exits her front door two doors down from Mrs Y and neither see or hear each other.

Stuff like this happens every day but if we were looking down on this scene no one would say “well that was convenient.” And yet when a scenario is suggested that has someone narrowly missing someone the the word ‘convenient’ is wheeled out.

[New Waterloo]

Hi NotBlamed. Diemschutz statement clearly states that he found Spooner around the Beehive Grove Street area. He does not mention Spooners girlfriend. Spooner is very close to where he lived. Perhaps his girlfriend had gone home a little earlier. I dont know. As for BSM. I have no reason to question Schwartz at the moment. Might have been mistaken what he saw but i cant see why BSM didn't exist at the moment.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Rookie and all. I am not keen on theories and try to look at the evidence but sometimes you have to fill a gap. I am not sure that Spooner killed Stride. I am struggling to understand why anyone would cut her throat that night other than the maniac we know as JTR OR perhaps a drunk, angry Kidney.

I agree and the lack of apparent motive is one reason for supposing the BS character was not her killer, or that he even existed.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Of all the witnesses that night (morning) the only witness who gives us anything that can be verified, is Mortimer.

She sees a man with a black bag passing along the street.
That man is then compelled to come forward to the police.
The question is; if Mortimer hadn't seen Goldstein, would he have still come forward to the police?

I think it's unlikely and that his hand was forced by the busy body neighbour who saw him.

I'd suppose most people would think the opposite - had Mortimer's published sighting of him not occurred, he would have felt no need to come forward. As it was, he had to be persuaded by Wess, who would have known that Mortimer would have been interviewed by the police, and consequently black bag man would be of interest to them. Why do you not agree with this?

By the way, what makes Mortimer a busy body? Was William Marshall or anyone else in the habit of standing at their front doorstep in that era, also a busy body?

Another question; how did Goldstein know he had been seen?

Through the newspaper reports?

Or did he know that he had been seen at the time he walked through Berner Street?

If he had, then it's likely the reason why he was seen walking "hurriedly'

Why can't he just be in a hurry? Time is money.

In other words, when Fanny opened her door (ahem!) did the sound disturb Goldstein as he was walking regularly, and then make him speed up his pace?

If so, why the need to speed up?

FM: ... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road.

I can't see any speeding up here.

Was the sound of the heavy tramp of regulated footsteps that was heard from one report (attributed to Mortimer) the same man (Goldstein) that Mortimer claimed she saw in her 1st hand report?

Probably not. People of that era would have known the sound of a policeman's plod, very well.

In other words; did Mortimer hear Goldstein pass her door just as she went to lock up, but being nosy, she opens the door and this action disturbs Goldstein who then speeds up and darts around the corner?

The quote suggests to me that Mortimer watched the man come down the street from Commercial Rd. So, no, I don't think so.

When Goldstein is seen by Mortimer, he is almost certainly located.between her house and the club, with his back to her.

Really? What reasoning leads you to this near certainty?

Is there a chance that he had intended to go into the club, but on opening her door, Mortimer disturbs him and he instead speeds up and then darts around the corner instead of turning into the yard?

A middle-aged woman opening her door would not disturb a man in his twenties wanting to enter the club. Would Eagle have been similarly disturbed had Mortimer opened her door at the wrong time, prompting Eagle to depart the street and miss out on supper?

The motion of him looking up at the club is an automated physical reaction that could imply his initial intention was to go into the club.

Or, being a club member, he was just following normal curiosity.

We know that Mortimer didn't see Eagle, Lave, PC Smith, Parcelman, Schwartz, Pjpeman, Bs man or Stride.

That means the observation of Goldstein could only have occurred within a very small window.

It's what Mortimer didn't see that is arguably more relevant than what she did.

So, where do you place that window?

[Herlock Sholmes]

When we are discussing all things related to the Berner Street murder, where times are the main source of problem in getting any idea of the order of events I think it’s worth reminding ourselves of a couple of things. Firstly, the piece on timekeeping by Chris McKay which was initially posted by George some time ago. I’ll highlight just one sentence:

“So, if the working man's watch or clock was within 10 minutes of true time, I would think that good for the 1880s.”

We have also seen posted on here comments from Victorians complaining about differences between one clock and another. So it really does need to be remembered that, for example, if PC Smith stated a time (because he’d seen a clock) and James Brown stated the same time (because he had seen a clock) these two could actually have been ten minutes apart. Or maybe five or three or two.

The second thing that we need to remember is the research-based table posted by Jeff which shows how surprisingly far out people can be, and often are, when they are estimating periods of time.

With the above in mind, we can consider the testimony James Brown.

As Tom points out in Confidential, The Times has him seeing the couple at ‘about 12.45’ while he was on the way to get his supper. The Telegraph, in a poorly worded way, has him seeing them at ‘about 12.45’ after he’d been in the Chandler’s shop for three or four minutes. The Morning Advertiser has him leaving his house at ‘about 12.45’ and then seeing them on his way home after spending three or four minutes in the Chandler’s shop. The Star again has him leaving his house at ‘about 12.45’ and then seeing the couple on his way back after three or four minutes in the shop.

This suggests that Brown saw them on the way back which could have been 12.50 or 12.51. But I would add further..

What if his clock had been five minutes fast which meant that he actually left his house at 12.40? This would have him seeing the couple at 12.45 or 12.46.

And what if he was in the shop a couple of minutes longer than he’d estimated? This might have made it 12.48 when he’d seen the couple.

And what if his clock had been eight minutes fast? (How can we be sure that it wasn’t?) Then it would actually have been 12.37 when he’d seen left the house. This has him seeing the couple at 12.42 or 12.43. Or, if he’d been in the shop for two minutes longer than he estimated then 12.44 or 12.45.

Then what if his clock had been five minutes slow? This would have him actually leaving his house at 12.50 and seeing the couple at 12.55 or 12.56. And again, a couple of extra minutes in the shop and it would have made it 12.56.

This would give us a fairly wide range of possible times for Brown so which one is likeliest to have been correct? I certainly wouldn’t like to favour any of them; in fact I would suggest that there is just no way for us to know or to work this out, or to assess the accuracy of any time or period of time given. The only people that specifically tell us where they got their times from, as far as I can recall, are Louis Diemschitz (the Baker’s clock) and Dr. Blackwell (his pocket watch) and we can’t even assess the accuracy of those times.

—————

This is why it has been suggested (initially by George or FrankO I believe) that we would be better served in attempting to suggest possible ‘orders of events’ without being hampered too much by times. I know that this sounds counter-intuitive (as I’ve we are simply inventing our own version of events) but it really is the only way when we cannot confirm a single one of the times given. It’s not a case of shaping events to fit a particular version its about creating workable versions of events.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NotBlamed. I accept that the girlfriend (possibly Spooners) may not have said ‘bisecting thoroughfare’ but the report would suggest some suggestion of an intersecting alley way rather than street which a reporter would have ascertained from a conversation. So I would suggest the girl maybe talking about a location further towards Commercial Road because that section of Berner Street is where we see ‘bisecting thoroughfares’ its such a specific term for the press to use that I feel there may be something to it.
Diemschutz does not say that Spooner and his girlfriend were at Grove Street. His evidence confirms Spooner in the Grove street area. Spooner does say he was at the Beehive for some 30 minutes before the ‘searchers’ arrived but he left the earlier pub on commercial Road at midnight so according to him he is actually in the area with his girlfriend for over an hour. If we believe him about the Beehive where is he and his girlfriend from midnight to 12.30pm. Its quite feasible a courting couple would use alleyways.
Rookie is seeing real possibilities about the couple Brown saw but it is certainly complicated at the moment.

NW

Diemschitz: When I returned a man that we met in Grove-street, and who came back with us, took hold of the head, and as he lifted it up I first saw the wound in the throat.

I don't understand this post. Spooner places himself at the Christian/Fairclough intersection - a bisecting thoroughfare - and Diemschitz has Spooner in Grove St. That is close enough, and I can imagine Spooner wandering toward Grove St as the men ran past him. This area is nowhere near Hampshire Court or Batty's Gardens. If Spooner's lady friend used the term 'bisecting thoroughfare' to refer to one or both of these places, where would that leave Spooner's testimony? If the woman wasn't with Spooner, the only other possible location is the board school corner - meaning that Brown was mistaken about who he saw and heard. However, as I've suggested, we now have a critical witness pair who somehow manage to chat with Mortimer and say a few words to a reporter but are never questioned by the police or coroner.

As for Spooner's 'missing' half-hour, well perhaps the publican didn't abide by the midnight lockup, and Spooner's apparent confusion was just a result of him realising that he'd possibly thrown that man under a hansom cab. As far as the coroner is concerned, that would be no big deal.

A more interesting mystery - mentioned previously - is the hand that Spooner said the folded piece of paper was in. What hand was the cachous in?

[New Waterloo]

Hi Rookie and all. I am not keen on theories and try to look at the evidence but sometimes you have to fill a gap. I am not sure that Spooner killed Stride. I am struggling to understand why anyone would cut her throat that night other than the maniac we know as JTR OR perhaps a drunk, angry Kidney.

But there is more to Spooner. Something not adding up and yes he was involved in a violent attack a few months after Stride.

NW

[The Rookie Detective]

We also have to be careful when looking at the individual characters who claim to have been witnesses.

We can be assured from subsequent incidents that occurred outside of the murder of Stride, that Spooner and Diemschitz were both young men with a penchant for violence.

Can the words of Diemschitz and Spooner be trusted?

Being violent doesn't make someone a liar or course, but angry young men with a brazen care for others, should be questioned as to their integrity in terms of the murder of an innocent woman in Stride.

Of all the witnesses that night (morning) the only witness who gives us anything that can be verified, is Mortimer.

She sees a man with a black bag passing along the street.
That man is then compelled to come forward to the police.
The question is; if Mortimer hadn't seen Goldstein, would he have still come forward to the police?

I think it's unlikely and that his hand was forced by the busy body neighbour who saw him.

Another question; how did Goldstein know he had been seen?

Through the newspaper reports?

Or did he know that he had been seen at the time he walked through Berner Street?

If he had, then it's likely the reason why he was seen walking "hurriedly'

In other words, when Fanny opened her door (ahem!) did the sound disturb Goldstein as he was walking regularly, and then make him speed up his pace?

If so, why the need to speed up?

Was the sound of the heavy tramp of regulated footsteps that was heard from one report (attributed to Mortimer) the same man (Goldstein) that Mortimer claimed she saw in her 1st hand report?

In other words; did Mortimer hear Goldstein pass her door just as she went to lock up, but being nosy, she opens the door and this action disturbs Goldstein who then speeds up and darts around the corner?

When Goldstein is seen by Mortimer, he is almost certainly located.between her house and the club, with his back to her.

Is there a chance that he had intended to go into the club, but on opening her door, Mortimer disturbs him and he instead speeds up and then darts around the corner instead of turning into the yard?

The motion of him looking up at the club is an automated physical reaction that could imply his initial intention was to go into the club.

We know that Mortimer didn't see Eagle, Lave, PC Smith, Parcelman, Schwartz, Pjpeman, Bs man or Stride.

That means the observation of Goldstein could only have occurred within a very small window.

It's what Mortimer didn't see that is arguably more relevant than what she did.

[The Rookie Detective]

What could be a reason for Spooner's timing being so far out in relation to everyone else's?

Is there a possibility that Spooner had murdered Stride, fled along Fairclough, hid his knife (and change his coat?) and then waited for the inevitable.
When the 2 Jews then see him in Fairclough St and he says he has been outside the beehive; what if he hadn't been stationary, but had only just got there after having slain Stride?

I mean, who would suspect a killer to actively go back to the murder site posing as a bystander?

It's encroaching into the realms of Lechmere nonsense; but could there be just a snippet of a chance that Spooner was the killer?

Random and unlikely, but is it possible?

[The Rookie Detective]

Is there a reason why Goldstein's passing through couldn't have happened a couple of minutes prior to 12:52?

Miss Letchford was alleged to have been at her door at number 30, at 12.50am.