An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[The Rookie Detective]

It doesn't particularly bother me as it is of little to no consequence. Whether or not Schwartz could see her in advance depends entirely on exactly where she was standing in the gateway in relation to the street alignment. If she was slightly inside the street alignment then she would not have been visible to Schwartz (or Mortimer) until he was reasonably close - not right on the gateway but close enough to decide that he didn't want to be involved in what was taking place. I'm not seeing a plot here...?

Exactly my point George.

How could Schwartz see Stride standing in the gateway unless he was within the physical field of vision and by proxy; within relatively close proximity to the gateway itself?

In other words, what is the earliest possible time and furtherst possible distance away from the gateway for it to be physically and literally possible for Schwartz to have seen Stride standing in the gateway?

It's believed he walked on the same side of the road.
It's believe he only saw Stride AFTER he sees Bs Man.

Therefore Stride cannot be standing in the street, or on the pavement level with the west side of the street, because Schwartz would have seen Stride as he walked down the road.

Note that if Mortimer was standing at her door at no.36, she would not be able to see anyone standing in the gateway from her position.

And so, if Schwartz walked along the same side of the road, and presumably walking in the middle of the pavement I.e. half way between Mortimer's door and the road, then at what point would Schwartz be able to see Stride?

Schwartz sees her prior to her being thrown onto the footway and crucially... BEFORE he crosses the road.

That means that Schwartz is still walking on the same side of the road when he sees Bs man stop to talk to Stride.

It also means that he needs to cross the road BEFORE Bs man tries to pull her into the street, because if he doesn't then he would either be virtually in line with the assault, or he would have needed to have already walked PAST the gateway when the assault occurs.

For this to happen, Schwartz would need to have looked back and witnessed what was going on, ot he would have needed to have stopped wither before or after the gateway.

Of course, perhaps the truth lies in the idea that Schwartz's account was a lot of smoke and mirrors.

We can be assured from the lack of follow up after the statement taken by Schwartz, that the police at some point lost faith in it's value.

initially it was reported that a man thought he was witnessing a domestic and so walked away. It doesn't name Schwartz at the time.
On that basis, perhaps the police took the story and elaborated arrocordingly in a bid to try and oust the killer.

The purpose?

To make the real killer believe the net was closing in on him.

Did the police try and call the Ripper's bluff?

Did they take the initial true story of a couple seen arguing and then took ownership of it to try and make the killer believe that there was a key witness who saw him?

I believe there's a chance that the couple seen arguing had nothing to do with Stride.

Perhaps It was Spooner and his elusive GF having a tiff in the street.

Perhaps Spooner was the elusive BS man.

And perhaps Spooner's eagerness to attend the murder scene was in part due to the fact he had been physically violent towards his GF close to that spot only 15 minutes beforehand.

The fact that he physically touched Stride and that his are the only timings to be clearly way out with everyone else's...speak of a man with something to hide.

It may also be possible that the "couple" seen on the corner of the board school, was Spooner and his GF.

Sponner then gets his GF to rejoin him and they make an effort to tell Mortimer that they had been standing on the corner the whole time and heard nothing, both before and after the murder.
Perhaps they weren't there as long as they claimed to be.

But I digress...


It would be intrugung to have an authentic map of Berner Street at the time, and then work out precisely both WHERE Schwartz needed to have been to be able to see Stride, and WHEN the earliest possible time he could have seen her based on his physical position in the street, covering his maximum field of vision.

As Herlock says...Schwartz never said he identifed Stride.

But he did claim to have SEEN her standing...in the gateway.


More to unravel here despite the unpopularity surrounding it.

[GBinOz]

Which begs the question - is that what she would do if soliciting or waiting for someone?

IMO she was waiting for Parcelman to return, either from a visit to the toilet in the yard or from some business in either the Club or the printing office. I think he returned to find her on the ground with her throat cut and her killer standing over her, and then gave chase of him down Fairclough, as reported. I think that he failed to come forward afterwards because he was married or engaged.

[GBinOz]

This is reasonable enough. However, the scenario you have depicted would suggest that Stride was not particularly fearful of her predicament. In that case, Schwartz was unlikely to be fearful, also. Ditto Pipeman.
I don't think there was a high level of fear or concern at that stage. The fear developed when Schwartz was at the intersection and the situation escalated.

An issue for the domestic hypothesis is that the police found no man who might have been a candidate for it. If the man was not Michael Kidney, what might the domestic be in regard to?
While I don't rule out Michael kidney, I would have in mind Kosminski as a player in this scenario only. The proximity of the homes of his relatives and the obvious path between them down Berner St raises questions in my mind as to whether he may have been seen by Schwartz in the role of BSMan. This may have been the basis of the Anderson conclusions, whether they were right or wrong. JMO, YMMV.

Presumably you don't suppose there was a couple at the intersection, when the dispute got louder. If Pipeman objected to BS Man's behaviour, it would seem odd that not only did he not come forward to the police, but he was seemingly never even identified by them.

I think there was a couple at the intersection - the couple referred to by Mortimer. However, I am entirely in agreement with Herlock when he points out that all deliberations regarding times have to be tempered with the presumption that the lack of synchronisation of the clock renders all time statements subject to substantial error in either direction. In that period a clock that was within 10 minutes of GMT was considered to be satisfactory. A plus and minus conflict could render a 20 minute difference. Added to this is the "guessing" errors of time intervals (see Jeff's treatise on this subject) applied to uncertain starting points and time estimates become irrelevant.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It doesn't particularly bother me as it is of little to no consequence. Whether or not Schwartz could see her in advance depends entirely on exactly where she was standing in the gateway in relation to the street alignment. If she was slightly inside the street alignment then she would not have been visible to Schwartz (or Mortimer) until he was reasonably close - not right on the gateway but close enough to decide that he didn't want to be involved in what was taking place. I'm not seeing a plot here...?

Which begs the question - is that what she would do if soliciting or waiting for someone?

Perhaps she was temporarily hiding, having stolen cachous and grapes. That may not be a nice suggestion, but these were very tough times.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Does it bother no one that in neither version does Schwartz specifically claim to have seen the woman in advance of BS man getting there.

It suggests she was not on the footway, even partially. She was just inside the yard. This would require Schwartz to have reached the gateway when he sees the man stop and talk to her, and that is exactly what Swanson tells us.

Because some are too busy weaving a plot.

Does the plot include Schwartz giving evidence at the inquest?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

According to the Pall Mall Budget; there was no rest day...

This is a snippet from Thursday 4th October 1888

According to Wikipedia, the paper "was a weekly digest of articles from evening newspaper The Pall Mall Gazette". Is this website your source...? https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.ed...ial%20archive.

Did Schwartz attend on this day, but his evidence not being deemed as significant in throwing any light on the murders?

A journalist may have been told that.

Fascinating indeed.

Nice work!

[GBinOz]

Does it bother no one that in neither version does Schwartz specifically claim to have seen the woman in advance of BS man getting there. Because some are too busy weaving a plot.

It doesn't particularly bother me as it is of little to no consequence. Whether or not Schwartz could see her in advance depends entirely on exactly where she was standing in the gateway in relation to the street alignment. If she was slightly inside the street alignment then she would not have been visible to Schwartz (or Mortimer) until he was reasonably close - not right on the gateway but close enough to decide that he didn't want to be involved in what was taking place. I'm not seeing a plot here...?

[GBinOz]

According to the Pall Mall Budget; there was no rest day...

This is a snippet from Thursday 4th October 1888



So based on this article, it appears that the inquest did continue throughout the entire week.

The question is; was the Pall Mall Budget correct?

Interesting possibilities if they were.

A day of evidence giving behind closed doors and away from the press?

Would that ever be allowed to happen at an inquest in 1888?

Did Schwartz attend on this day, but his evidence not being deemed as significant in throwing any light on the murders?

Or was the article above wrong and there was no inquest at all on the Thursday 4th?

Fascinating indeed.

Great find RD, and some interesting and thought provoking questions regarding conclusions. Well done.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does it bother no one that in neither version does Schwartz specifically claim to have seen the woman in advance of BS man getting there. Because some are too busy weaving a plot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a crucial point that the traditionalists will have to grapple with. If they want Schwartz observing the woman many yards prior to the gates, they will need to place Schwartz across the street. That is when things will get interesting for them.


.

A baffling misinterpretation. Although I should replace the word ‘baffling’ with ‘intentional.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's break this down piece by piece...

Ok

Schwartz saw a man stop and talk to a woman who was standing in the gateway.


So...


Schwartz sees...

1 - a man...
2 - stop...
3 - and talk...
4 - to a woman...
5 - who was standing...
6 - in the gateway.


That is word for word.

Agreed, it tells us that the woman was in the gateway, BS man then arrived at the gateway to talk to her so that Schwartz couldn’t have been in the gateway too, which was a small area, or else he’d have been standing right next to the couple.

One sequence.

6 individual key points


Now let's set aside the timing of when this occurred...

12.45am?
12.46am?
12.42am?
12.49am?
12.47am?

etc...etc...etc..

Ok. We can’t know how Schwartz idea of 12.45 compared to other people’s of course.


...and instead focus specifically on how this could have occurred.

Let's focus on the maths and physics of the scene, rather than the usual attempts to decipher what time it happened.


So i ask again...

HOW could Schwartz see Stride standing in the gateway unless he was within a few yards of her?

Schwartz is walking on the same side of the road, and yet is able to see Stride standing in the gateway.


How?

With his eyes.

The only way this can work...

1) Schwartz is physically close enough to the gateway to be within the field of vision to be able to see Stride standing in the gateway.
2) Stride was not standing in the gateway, but was instead standing on the pavement and in full view of Schwartz, from further up (north) the street.

The issue with the latter, is that it's not what was written in the statement.

Schwartz said that he was walking behind BS man at an unknown distance. It appears to be being implied that either a) BS man was such a huge obstacle that Schwartz couldn’t possibly have see anything beyond his. I know that we call him Broad shouldered but I doubt that he was the width of the pavement. Or b) he was so far behind BS man that he wouldn’t have been able to have seen Stride.

Neither of the above are in line with what the evidence tells us. The woman was standing in the gateway. This doesn’t mean that she was inside the yard and behind the line of the buildings. She was clearly in the same kind of position as a woman standing on her doorstep would have been. I genuinely can’t see why this is a problem RD.

Furthermore, there's another important clue as to the physical position of Schwartz when he witnesses the assault on Stride...


And it's something that is always overlooked.


What does Schwartz do to prove that he was within close proximity to Stride when she was assaulted?


He identifies her.

What do you mean by ‘identifies’ RD? He didn’t say “I saw Elizabeth Stride.”

But when does he identify her?


When she's already on the ground?

Very unlikely.


The only time that Schwartz can positively identify Stride, is from when he first sees her standing in the gateway, to the moment she is thrown to the floor.

The optimum time for the identification to occur was the moment when Bs man tried pulling her into the street. Stride would be being effectively pulled towards Schwartz's location in the street, and therefore provide Schwartz with a few seconds to see her face, before she was span around and thrown down onto the footway and away from the street (and away from Schwartz)


Now Schwartz doesn't say that he sees a woman being pulled into the street from any given distance, but he has to be close enough to be able to see her having been standing in the gateway BEFORE she's assaulted, and be close enough to see her and identify her as the murder victim.

I can’t understand how you have arrived at this conclusion RD. When BS man identified the woman that he’d seen as the murder victim he was talking about the whole event. At no point did he claim to have only been able to ID her from when she was on the ground.


The fact that the statement tells us that as Schwartz reached the gateway, he saw a man stop and talk to a woman who was standing in the gateway, and then the man tried to pull her into the street, before throwing her down onto the footway....tells us that Schwartz had to have been within a few yards of Stride when she was attacked.

Agreed. Something that I’ve said all along.

The reason why Schwartz doesn't bump into either BS man or Stride, is because just as BS man launches an assault on Stride, Schwartz then instinctively attempts to cross the road to get away from them.

Perfectly normal, understandable behaviour.

The reason why no collision occurs, is because Schwartz has already initiated walking across the road BEFORE BS man tries to pull Stride into the street and away from the gateway.

Yes.

In other words; if Schwartz hadn't have crossed the road, then he likely would have collided with Bs man and/or Stride as Bs man tried to drag her into the street.

Yes.

Stride is then thrown down onto the floor just as Schwartz has reached the other side of the road.

In Swanson’s synthesis Schwartz crosses the road after BS man had thrown her to the ground. The Star don’t mention her being on the ground.

Within seconds, Schwartz notices Pipeman ahead of him and then hears Bs man shout over to him "Lipski!

In Swanson’s synthesis it’s clear that he is of the opinion (derived from his officers) that BS called out “Lipski” to Pipeman. In The Star it’s Pipeman who is shouting a warning at BS man.


Unless of course...the words in the 3rd person statement promoted by the police was full of factual and literal errors.

I don’t understand why you only suggest that the ‘police’ version might be full of errors and lies and not The Star version. Surely if one version is likely to contain errors it’s the newspaper report?


If that's the case, then it makes Schwartz's statement null and void as potential key evidence.

This is something that we face across the case RD. Wickerman’s advice on this is good imo in that we should first take an overview of the reports and see if we can get a better picture. We have to accept the possibility of error though. And the fact that a newspaper reporter would be more prone to exaggeration than a police interview.

I wouldn’t say

The other scenario is that the entire thing never happened in the first place and there was never an assault.

Which we have no evidence for and would be unlikely in the extreme.

But if there was, then we are compelled to follow the actual words written in the statement.

And although there are discrepancies we don’t really have any huge issues.

[The Rookie Detective]

https://www.espncricinfo.com/records...tches-1?team=1 No test cricket that day.



The 'rest day' remains unexplained.

According to the Pall Mall Budget; there was no rest day...

This is a snippet from Thursday 4th October 1888



So based on this article, it appears that the inquest did continue throughout the entire week.

The question is; was the Pall Mall Budget correct?

Interesting possibilities if they were.

A day of evidence giving behind closed doors and away from the press?

Would that ever be allowed to happen at an inquest in 1888?

Did Schwartz attend on this day, but his evidence not being deemed as significant in throwing any light on the murders?

Or was the article above wrong and there was no inquest at all on the Thursday 4th?

Fascinating indeed.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Who was playing, and what was the result?

https://www.espncricinfo.com/records...tches-1?team=1 No test cricket that day.

I don't think that the statement regards his attendance at the inquest can be dismissed out of hand without supporting evidence. I would see the Thursday gap as a point in favour, but the fact that no record of his alleged evidence has been found is a point against.

The 'rest day' remains unexplained.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The three screams that were not very loud didn't seem to attract any attention which, if Stride was afraid, would have been her intention. I believe that she didn't feel any fear because it was what Schwartz assumed - a domestic. I think that BSMan took her arm and was trying to persuade her to accompany him away from the gateway, but she had other ideas and twisted away from him as he let her go resulting in her appearing to have been spun around and put on the ground. Rather than three screams, I suspect a series of indignant admonishments not meant to be heard by others. In one of the translations he is pulling her out of the gateway and the other translation has him pushing her into the yard. There is a lot of room for conjecture with Schwartz telling the story slightly differently, translation errors or mis-interpretations and the difference in audience appreciation between the police and the press.

This is reasonable enough. However, the scenario you have depicted would suggest that Stride was not particularly fearful of her predicament. In that case, Schwartz was unlikely to be fearful, also. Ditto Pipeman.

Once again, Schwartz (and I) thought he was seeing a domestic so he may have paused momentarily to come to this assessment and decide to cross the road. I'm not trying to solve any problem, but I think that Schwartz was trying to solve the problem of getting involved in a domestic. I also don't think that BSMan even noticed him at this stage.

An issue for the domestic hypothesis is that the police found no man who might have been a candidate for it. If the man was not Michael Kidney, what might the domestic be in regard to?

It would appear to me that when Schwartz reached the intersection he heard a commotion from the yard and turned to see what was happening. I suspect that the dispute between BSMan and Stride had become louder, and BSMan this time looked around to see who may be watching. So did BSMan call say "Lizzie" to Stride and this was mistaken for "Lipski"? Did BSMan shout Lipski at one or both of the men at the intersection? Did Pipeman shout a warning at BSMan to stop what he perceived to be an attack on Stride, or a warning to BSMan that a witness was observing him?
These are the imponderables about which we can only speculate.

Cheers, George

Presumably you don't suppose there was a couple at the intersection, when the dispute got louder. If Pipeman objected to BS Man's behaviour, it would seem odd that not only did he not come forward to the police, but he was seemingly never even identified by them.

[GBinOz]

Before the witness [Dr Phillips] had concluded his evidence the inquiry was adjourned until Friday, at two o'clock.

That was on the Wednesday. What did Coroner Baxter do on the Thursday? I have it down to either:

A) He went to the first day of a test match, for which he and his wife had bought tickets weeks before.
Who was playing, and what was the result?

B) He took testimony from Israel Schwartz, in a session closed to the public and press.

I don't think that the statement regards his attendance at the inquest can be dismissed out of hand without supporting evidence. I would see the Thursday gap as a point in favour, but the fact that no record of his alleged evidence has been found is a point against.