An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[JeffHamm]

This is a highly problematic claim.

We only have Schwartz's word that this unexplained standing in the gateway actually occurred. Not a single witness provides support.

Even if we assume this gateway vigil to be the truth, saying that this is not part of the event, collides with reasons hitherto given for Stride being there. Like, she was waiting for the BS Man. In that case the event starts when Stride gets to the gateway, and not when she is first noticed by Schwartz.



If we assume that BS killed Stride, we cannot assume he did the moment Schwartz is out of sight.

There are four individuals involved in this event. It may be true that the entirety of this incident is usually truncated down to only look at it from the point of view of Schwartz, but I'd suggest that this is often to avoid some troubling questions.

There is nothing problematic at all. We were talking about how long the Schwartz event would last, so that means the things Schwartz describes. He doesn't describe how or when Stride gets to the gate, she is just there.

And what B.S. does after Schwartz leaves is unknown, as I already indicated by my examples. Different theories would result in different durations, as I said.

But so what? How are those problems when the goal is to get a reasonable estimate of the Schwartz event? We have about 90s for what Schwartz himself describes, to which one adds the time for B.S. The minimum being that B.S. leaves very quickly after Schwartz has fled and he took exits to Fairclough. If he kills Stride add maybe 10 seconds more if you wish.

You are now talking about fitting the Schwartz event into a bigger description of the night, but that is an entirely different phase. All we are doing is timing this piece of the puzzle. Once we have it understood, if we can construct the rest of the night we can then look to see if there are sections of time that could be suitable places to fit the Schwartz piece. If there is only one, then we've narrowed down when it likely occurred, if there are two, we have options, and so forth.

And, if you find a time window when the above shortest version fits and there is an extra 2 minutes to work with, then you could suggest more may have transpired as well.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

So on that basis it would seem that IF Schwartz was correct with what he saw and his timings, then Stride was the most unfortunate woman in having been assaulted and then less than 10 minutes later being murdered by a stealthy one-cut killer who acted in complete silence and then disappeared without trace.

From a strictly statistical probability perspective, I would say yes, quite unlikely. But we have to consider the circumstances. Stride was not standing in front of a church on Sunday afternoon surrounded by hundreds of people. Whitechapel was a rough place. She was a lone woman standing by herself late at night right after the pubs had closed and there were probably a lot of drunk workingmen on the streets. So with that in mind, a little prior street hassle becomes much less ominous and statistically less important. At least in my mind.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

TRD is right not to casually assume that the 3rd-person report must be based on another interview with Fanny. How the 10-minute versus nearly all of 30-minutes doorstep vigil impacts on the credibility of Schwartz, however, comes down to when the 10 or so minutes occurs - if indeed it did and was Fanny. In the 3rd-person report, it starts pretty much on 12:45 - right after a policeman's plod is heard passing her house. So, an immediate issue arises.

If we suppose the 10-minute vigil is close to the truth, and base the starting time on PC Smith's testimony, we have Fanny locking up not long after 12:45. Did she see Goldstein just before turning in, as in the Evening News (yet another) interview would suggest? There are two problems with this. At that time, she should have seen Schwartz, not Goldstein. The second problem being that the police put Goldstein's traversal of the street at "about 1am".

Is 12:45 about 1am? What do the quoted words Fanny suggest?

I had just gone indoors and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' club close by.

That sound like she is locking up a few minutes before 1am. If the 10-minutes commences right after Smith passes, the timeline is stretched to breaking point.

I wasn't taking a position either way about whether Fanny's two different accounts were based on a single interview or two different interviews. My main point was that we can't assume that an account that the writer chose to state in the first person is necessarily a more reliable account than one that the writer chose to state in the third person. A secondary point is that I wouldn't refer to either account as the earlier account or the later account. They were published the same day.

IIRC, there is at least one suggested timeline where Fanny's time at her door is estimated as slightly less than 10 minutes.

[The Rookie Detective]

Generally speaking, if a person is assaulted and they manage to survive, they tend to go for help, or to seek another location where they can feel safer.

Technically it could have been an assault but in reality might have been just a little street hassle. Something she was used to. She might have been more pissed then scared, not really hurt, and told herself she'd be damned if she was moving. So consider it an act of defiance.

c.d.

I accept your point and can envisage a scenario whereby Stride was defiant and chose not to move.

A little street hassle is not indicative of a man who then cuts a woman's throat and then leaves her to die.

So based on the idea of a little street hassle, we can be fairly certain that Bs man was not the killer, and certainly not the Ripper.

The body of evidence from Stride's murder shows that the killer made one clean cut (not jagged) across her throat and dispatched her cleanly and quickly.

Her death was more akin to a professional killer, than a drunken man throwing her to the ground and shouting racial slurs.

There was no evidence of a struggle, apart from some blood on her right hand, and it is clear that Stride's murder occurred extremely quickly.

One clean cut. Controlled rage, but not the work of a drunken thug; as per eluded to by Schwarz's sighting of a little street hassle.

It is also important to note that the very first report of Schwartz's story that appeared in the newspaper, did indeed mention about the witness believing it was a domestic between a couple.

So on that basis it would seem that IF Schwartz was correct with what he saw and his timings, then Stride was the most unfortunate woman in having been assaulted and then less than 10 minutes later being murdered by a stealthy one-cut killer who acted in complete silence and then disappeared without trace.

[c.d.]

Generally speaking, if a person is assaulted and they manage to survive, they tend to go for help, or to seek another location where they can feel safer.

Technically it could have been an assault but in reality might have been just a little street hassle. Something she was used to. She might have been more pissed then scared, not really hurt, and told herself she'd be damned if she was moving. So consider it an act of defiance.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We’re back in silly conspiracy territory again. There’s just no escaping it. A deliberate attempt to manufacture a mystery. We can produce half a dozen different scenarios at least which allow for all of the facts but all we get is ‘what are the chances of..’ ‘it doesn’t seem likely.’

What isn’t likely is that there was a far-fetched plot going on in Berner Street.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I agree NBFN.

It seems to me that Schwartz is there for 2 reasons.

Firstly, to bring the time forward from just before 1am, to 12.45am
Secondly, to divert attention away from the possibility of the killer having been a club member; Schwartz describes a gentile who shouts an antisemitic slur.

It is IMO very likely that the murder occurred just before 1am, but the club got Schwartz to come forward and claim he saw the victim being assaulted around 15 minutes earlier than she actually did.

Hi RD.

As stated in #133, I'm inclined to suppose that the murder could not have occurred just before 1am. I think certain club members became aware of when the murder occurred. Schwartz's tale is certainly problematic, but I don't think there was any shifting of the time.

Regarding the 3rd-person interview with the woman who went to her doorstep after hearing the "measured, heavy tramp", can I suggest that had Fanny Mortimer not been the subject of that interview, could the actual interviewee be the neighbour interviewed by the Evening News? The identity of that neighbour is the subject of post #1 of this thread.

What is often overlooked, is that there is no evidence of the aftermath of the assault IF BS man was NOT the killer.

If he wasn't then he must have left the scene, but there's no witnesses to that of course.

And so, if Stride wasn't murdered by BS man, she would needed to have got up off the floor, brushed herself off etc... but for some reason then choose to stay exactly where she was.

Now unless she was waiting for someone specifically, then she would have no reason to stay where she was after having been assaulted by BS man.

Generally speaking, if a person is assaulted and they manage to survive, they tend to go for help, or to seek another location where they can feel safer.

Stride may have been illiterate when it came to writing, but she was multilingual and more savvy and streetwise than she is ever given credit for.
Why would she have stayed put after BS man had thrown down to the floor?

You're right that Stride must have had a very strong reason to hang around, if indeed she did so. Yet, in this scenario she is effectively hanging around waiting for JtR to arrive. She must have been offered a strong incentive, if that was the case. She was dressed up, by her standards. Was Jack intending to take her to dinner, then kill her? So, why didn't he?

The BS Man killed Stride theory is problematic, but so is the "another man came along" theory.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Mortimer never said she was at her door for about 10 minutes.

That particular statement appeared in the press in the 3rd person. The statement also included Mortimer hearing the measured footsteps pass her door.

However, in the actual statement that she made in the 1st person context, she clearly states that she stood at her door for nearly the whole time (between 12.30am -1am)

Now whether she was later re-interviewed and her words being taken down and submitted in the 3rd person by the reporter, then she may have indeed amended her statement. But that's mere conjecture and the idea that Fanny ever said that she was only at her door for 10 minutes, is not something that can override what she initially said.
It's more convenient for the likes of Schwartz of course, but if we look at what she said, then we must accept that she did spend much of the time at her door, or that she was exaggerating her involvement for the sake of getting in the press.

What we do know for certain is that she did spend some time at her door because she did observe Goldstein. Otherwise, he would of had no reason to have gone to the police.

If we look at what all of the witnesses actually said, then we are left with some alarming oddities, that can only be explained away; in part; by moving everyone's timings around, just so that Schwartz's account can fit into the nights events.

We don't know what she actually said. Both versions are press accounts. Neither overrides the other. Just because one writer phrases what he wrote in the first person and the other phrases it in the first person doesn't mean the former is more reliable. I don't think that matters much, but I also don't think we know which is the earlier account. Both are from October 1st, so they're virtually simultaneous.

TRD is right not to casually assume that the 3rd-person report must be based on another interview with Fanny. How the 10-minute versus nearly all of 30-minutes doorstep vigil impacts on the credibility of Schwartz, however, comes down to when the 10 or so minutes occurs - if indeed it did and was Fanny. In the 3rd-person report, it starts pretty much on 12:45 - right after a policeman's plod is heard passing her house. So, an immediate issue arises.

If we suppose the 10-minute vigil is close to the truth, and base the starting time on PC Smith's testimony, we have Fanny locking up not long after 12:45. Did she see Goldstein just before turning in, as in the Evening News (yet another) interview would suggest? There are two problems with this. At that time, she should have seen Schwartz, not Goldstein. The second problem being that the police put Goldstein's traversal of the street at "about 1am".

Is 12:45 about 1am? What do the quoted words Fanny suggest?

I had just gone indoors and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' club close by.

That sound like she is locking up a few minutes before 1am. If the 10-minutes commences right after Smith passes, the timeline is stretched to breaking point.

[The Rookie Detective]

According to yourself, that someone was Israel Schwartz or a mutual associate. You can't suggest stuff like this and at the same time say, "nothing to see here".



So, why did you pretend that the times for "the incident" and the police search were essentially identical?

Wess appears to know something of the incident, before Schwartz had left the police station. He mentions 12:45. He's even aware of the name of one of the men involved. A few days later, Arbeter Fraint suggests the murder occurred at about 12:45. If the authors believed Diemschitz had disturbed the murderer, they should have changed that time to around 1am. They didn't.

I agree NBFN.

It seems to me that Schwartz is there for 2 reasons.

Firstly, to bring the time forward from just before 1am, to 12.45am
Secondly, to divert attention away from the possibility of the killer having been a club member; Schwartz describes a gentile who shouts an antisemitic slur.

It is IMO very likely that the murder occurred just before 1am, but the club got Schwartz to come forward and claim he saw the victim being assaulted around 15 minutes earlier than she actually did.

What is often overlooked, is that there is no evidence of the aftermath of the assault IF BS man was NOT the killer.

If he wasn't then he must have left the scene, but there's no witnesses to that of course.

And so, if Stride wasn't murdered by BS man, she would needed to have got up off the floor, brushed herself off etc... but for some reason then choose to stay exactly where she was.

Now unless she was waiting for someone specifically, then she would have no reason to stay where she was after having been assaulted by BS man.


Generally speaking, if a person is assaulted and they manage to survive, they tend to go for help, or to seek another location where they can feel safer.

Stride may have been illiterate when it came to writing, but she was multilingual and more savvy and streetwise than she is ever given credit for.
Why would she have stayed put after BS man had thrown down to the floor?

So, either BS man was the killer and Schwartz was the "witness" who then chose not to give evidence for fear of another Jew being hanged; meaning BS man was a Jew, or Schwartz witnessed a gentile assault Stride, and it was then Bs man who cut her throat after Schwartz ran off, past his own house, and then towards the trainline.

If Schwartz did indeed witness the phantom assault that nobody else saw or heard, then BS man must have been the murderer.

Does Bs man then match the description of the man seen talking with Eddowes?

If he doesn't then it may be a case of Stride having been murdered by Bs man, who was a club member and the club then covered it up by getting Schwartz to come forward and state he saw a Bs man assault Stride at 12.45am.

Whereas the actual murder took place just before 1am.

if this is the case, then someone from the club was the killer, and that may suggest that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.


It would have taken less than 30 seconds for the killer to have grabbed Stride's scarf tightly from behind, drag her to the floor, spin her to her left and kneel on her upper torso, before inflicting a single clean cut (not jagged) with a long sharp blade that according to the doctor that examined her; almost decapitated her. whether this last point is correct is subjective, but that's what he suggested.

But i digress...


The mistake that Schwartz made, is that his job was to convince the police that the victim was assaulted 15 minutes earlier than she was murdered and by a man who wasn't a Jew.
But Schwartz wasn't expecting the police to then believe that the man who shouted BS man COULD have been a Jew, because a gentile wouldn't have shouted "LIPSKI!.

He expected the police to believe that BS man was NOT a Jew.

That is why there's confusion with Schwartz, Bs man and Pipeman; the police took a different view to the one that Schwartz intended the police to take.

Whether a member of the club did or did not kill Stride is perhaps besides the point, but the idea that the club may have tried to alter the time the murder occurred by introducing an assault that never even took place, perhaps implies that they knew more than they were letting on.


Stride was almost certainly murdered just before 1am, and because of that, the assault on Stride at 12.45am that wasn't seen or heard by anyone, just doesn't make any sense.


Unpopular as that may sound.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Lewis,

If we consider that she didn’t see Morris Eagle walking past her front door at around 12.40 then that’s a third of the ‘nearly the whole time’ gone in one go.

It also leaves very little time for Stride to arrive and begin her vigil at the gateway, if Schwartz was correct about entering the street at about 12:45. So, she cannot be far away when Eagle enters the club.

Eagle: In the club we had a rare good time. We were singing songs and all that sort of thing.

I wonder if he was half-tipsy?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, we can. How long Stride was at the gateway before the start of the Schwartz event is not part of the Schwartz event.

This is a highly problematic claim.

We only have Schwartz's word that this unexplained standing in the gateway actually occurred. Not a single witness provides support.

Even if we assume this gateway vigil to be the truth, saying that this is not part of the event, collides with reasons hitherto given for Stride being there. Like, she was waiting for the BS Man. In that case the event starts when Stride gets to the gateway, and not when she is first noticed by Schwartz.

And, as I mention, if one considers Schwartz leaving the location of Berner' Street the "end" then it lasts about 1m 32s. But if you consider B.S. also leaving Berner' Street, then you need to make assumptions about what B.S. does and which direction he went, and add in that time too.

The duration of what Schwartz describes, including B.S.leaving the area would be between 1m 50s and about 3m.

So in trying to understand the whole timeline, one has a 1m 50s to 3m puzzle piece to work with that gets referred to as the Schwartz event

- Jeff

If we assume that BS killed Stride, we cannot assume he did the moment Schwartz is out of sight.

There are four individuals involved in this event. It may be true that the entirety of this incident is usually truncated down to only look at it from the point of view of Schwartz, but I'd suggest that this is often to avoid some troubling questions.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You’re simply confirming why Wess is unimportant. He heard something from someone a mixed up what he’d heard.

According to yourself, that someone was Israel Schwartz or a mutual associate. You can't suggest stuff like this and at the same time say, "nothing to see here".

Approx 12.45 - Schwartz saw the incident.
Approx 1.00 - Diemschitz found the body.
Approx 1.02 - Diemschitz and Koz ran for a Constable.

There is no mystery. Unless you invent one of course.

So, why did you pretend that the times for "the incident" and the police search were essentially identical?

Wess appears to know something of the incident, before Schwartz had left the police station. He mentions 12:45. He's even aware of the name of one of the men involved. A few days later, Arbeter Fraint suggests the murder occurred at about 12:45. If the authors believed Diemschitz had disturbed the murderer, they should have changed that time to around 1am. They didn't.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don’t consider anyone as ‘having a connection’ just because they might have spoken on one occasion. And in this case they might not even have communicated directly.

That one occasion being between the time Wess left home to return to the club (later in the morning), and him speaking to the Echo reporter that afternoon, when the club was paywalled. What a coincidence.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Israel Schwartz was interviewed by Abberline. Therefore he existed. Every second discussing whether he existed or not is a second wasted.

Would the real Israel Schwartz please stand up?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Mortimer sees a man with a black shiny bag. I think this can be accepted as fact as there would be no reason to suggest she would make it up.

Mortimer does not know the person. He is walking ver fast on the opposite side of the road to her house and looks at the club when walking by fast.

Wess and Leon Goldsmith SUGGEST to the police and Press that the person is Leon Goldsttein a member of the club.

According to Swanson, this occurred at about 1am. We can presume that this estimate is based on Goldstein's police statement. It's interesting that Mortimer does not give even an approximate time for her sighting.

It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and 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.

Let's assume the ~1am estimate is correct, though.

FM: There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates.

So, presumably the murderer and victim entered the gates, several minutes earlier than Goldstein's traversal of the street, when Fanny was inside. Perhaps around 12:50. This timing makes sense when considering the extent of blood flow noted by the earliest witnesses of the deceased.

If the broad-shouldered man story is true, then it would seem there is not enough time for another man to come along. He must already be there. We are left with a few anomalies. Here's one:

... he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ...

PC Lamb: I scarcely could see her boots. She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.

Something is not right.