An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[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.

[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.]

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.

[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.]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[c.d.]

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

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

c.d.

Neither Schwartz's statement nor his inquest testimony survives, as you know. All we have is Swanson's report and later comments from Abberline.

... 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.

Schwartz made it very clear, by placing himself level with the gateway, that he knows exactly where the incident occurred. Could Schwartz have observed the fracas from the same footway that Liz was thrown onto, or was he across the street at the time?

Think about this - the man ill-using the woman calls 'Lipski' just after Schwartz is crossing the road and sees the second man. Why bother with the intruding Jew, if he is walking away from the gateway? Is it because our supposedly timid and frightened witness is actually crossing toward the gateway, and thus the first man, and not away from him as has always been supposed?

[c.d.]

Well Schwartz gave his statement through an interpreter. We don't know how proficient he was. Could Schwartz have said something like I was nearing or approaching the gateway or something along those lines? Seems like there is a lot of leeway there.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Once we read Abberline stating that Schwartz stopped, there is no leeway.

... I am of opinion it [Lipski] was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

Why hurl an insult after Schwartz crosses the street, going away from the gateway, after Schwartz had been at the gateway watching? It makes little sense. However, if he calls the insult when Schwartz approaches, it makes more sense, as does Abberline's reason for supposing it was called to Schwartz, and not Pipeman.