An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It is clearly BS man who ‘stopped’ and was ‘level with the gateway.’ Schwartz was behind BS man on the same side of the road but an unknown distance behind him.

Israel Schwartz is the subject of the sentence. The reaching of the gateway pertains to him.

Abberline used the word ‘stopped’ but we have no record of Schwartz using this and, in my opinion, it was just an inaccurate figure of speech.

As we have no record of anything Schwartz was quoted as saying, this is disingenuous.
So, in corresponding with the Home Office, it is your humble opinion that Abberline used an inaccurate figure of speech. Right.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Are you immune to the concept of someone making an error?

You need to be careful who you are attributing text to. Most of the text you have quoted was of c.d. quoting TRD.

[The Rookie Detective]

If you can prove that Schwartz’s 12.45 was the same as Brown’s then I’ll grant that an issue exists. But you can’t, so there isn’t one.

Or...


If it can be proven that Schwartz's 12.45am was the same as Brown's 12.45am... Mortimer's being at her door's 12.45am ("nearly the whole time") and the couple seen by Brown on the corner, and Mrs Diemschitz sitting in the kitchen by the open window and door ajar, then there may be an issue.


It's essentially...


Schwartz VS Brown, Mortimer, Mrs Diemschitz and the young couple.


(that's 1 against 5)


And so why is it always the minority of Schwartz who has their times set at 12.45am, but all the others are then either moved or explained away in some other manner?


Has anyone tried supporting the majority and moving Schwartz's time?


Schwartz's 12.45am is clearly wrong.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why do we need to overcomplicate? The suggestion that Schwartz attended the inquest came from one person. There is no record of him attending the inquest. Answer - the person that mentioned his attendance was mistaken. He made an incorrect assumption.

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.

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why not go with Swanson who doesn’t mention stopping?

Swanson implies that Schwartz stopped. When Schwartz has reached the gateway, he sees the first man stop. Schwartz watches what happens and then crosses the road. We can infer that Schwartz watched while stationary. Abberline's memo confirms this. I'm even inclined to believe that by the time the two men have reached the level of the gates, Schwartz has taken a narrow lead, so to speak. That is because Schwartz's goal is to get home, whereas the man has been distracted by the woman.

Why not go with The Star who doesn’t mention stopping?

Funny how your attitude to the Star account has changed.

What is odd about that account, is that Schwartz does seem to act rather cowardly, yet at the same time he is depicted as an intruder who 'justifies' an aggressive response. As stated previously, this makes sense if Schwartz crosses toward the first man, as opposed to away from him.

Why not view the likelihood of him stopping in light of his preceding behaviour - scarpering?

Not sure what you're on about here. His preceding behaviour consists of walking down the street.

You are, yet again, quite deliberately trying to make this incident last longer than it actually could have (just as Michael used to try and stretch the time between Diemschitz finding the body and him going for a PC) because you have an ongoing agenda to create a mystery (something that you have form for) You are trying to reduce the subject to a spy novel with your approach. We KNOW what happened with Schwartz because he told us.

In #203 I described a scenario I believe explains issues with the story I have personally found troubling, none of which relate to the timespan issue. It's interesting that Schwartz can be moved to the other side of the street, and then cross to the club side, without running into any obvious logical errors. None that I'm aware of yet, anyway. Not much I can do if you think this is all part of ploy to make the event last too long.

He walked along Berner Street with BS man an unknown distance in front of him. An incident began and so Schwartz, who naturally wanted to avoid getting close, crossed over the road and continued passing the incident. As he gets to the other side he sees Pipeman (neither he nor us know where he came from though it’s possible that he stopped in the doorway of the beer house to enable him to light his pipe) Schwartz kept looking across, probably in glances (hoping not to antagonise the man) but the man sees him looking and calls out ‘Lipski’. Schwartz leaves the scene. We don’t know what happened in Berner Street next.

No one lied. Errors in witness testimony are always possible.

My interpretation is closer to the police reports than yours is. If you have total confidence in Schwartz, accept those reports literally.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, you accept that things don't work with the times as is - you need to call on your leeway to make it all work. It's interesting how this leeway always goes the 'right' way. In some press accounts, James Brown is returning from the shop at 12:45, rather than heading toward it. That leaves even less time to squeeze everything in. Reasonable margins-of-error in witness times go in both directions, not just to whatever's convenient.

Any leeway has to be a + or -. No one can be taken seriously if they don’t accept this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Israel Schwartz is the subject of the sentence. The reaching of the gateway pertains to him.

How can you possibly conclude that?

”12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [i.e. Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at that hour on turning into Berner St from Commercial Road & had 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…”

So Schwartz sees a man stop and speak to woman who was standing in the gateway. Therefore it is impossible that Schwartz could have been in that gateway too.

“As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her.”

How could this be more obvious? Why are you disputing this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, in corresponding with the Home Office, it is your humble opinion that Abberline used an inaccurate figure of speech. Right.

Obviously.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

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

Your imagination has escaped.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Swanson implies that Schwartz stopped. When Schwartz has reached the gateway, he sees the first man stop. Schwartz watches what happens and then crosses the road. We can infer that Schwartz watched while stationary. Abberline's memo confirms this. I'm even inclined to believe that by the time the two men have reached the level of the gates, Schwartz has taken a narrow lead, so to speak. That is because Schwartz's goal is to get home, whereas the man has been distracted by the woman.

No he doesn’t. You’ve simply invented that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is odd about that account, is that Schwartz does seem to act rather cowardly, yet at the same time he is depicted as an intruder who 'justifies' an aggressive response. As stated previously, this makes sense if Schwartz crosses toward the first man, as opposed to away from him.

Another baseless fantasy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Swanson implies that Schwartz stopped. When Schwartz has reached the gateway, he sees the first man stop. Schwartz watches what happens and then crosses the road. We can infer that Schwartz watched while stationary. Abberline's memo confirms this. I'm even inclined to believe that by the time the two men have reached the level of the gates, Schwartz has taken a narrow lead, so to speak. That is because Schwartz's goal is to get home, whereas the man has been distracted by the woman.



Funny how your attitude to the Star account has changed.

What is odd about that account, is that Schwartz does seem to act rather cowardly, yet at the same time he is depicted as an intruder who 'justifies' an aggressive response. As stated previously, this makes sense if Schwartz crosses toward the first man, as opposed to away from him.



Not sure what you're on about here. His preceding behaviour consists of walking down the street.



In #203 I described a scenario I believe explains issues with the story I have personally found troubling, none of which relate to the timespan issue. It's interesting that Schwartz can be moved to the other side of the street, and then cross to the club side, without running into any obvious logical errors. None that I'm aware of yet, anyway. Not much I can do if you think this is all part of ploy to make the event last too long.

My interpretation is closer to the police reports than yours is. If you have total confidence in Schwartz, accept those reports literally.

There’s only one interpretation. The real one and yours.

[c.d.]

"Stopped." "Slowed down." "Paused." -- Is there a big difference between those descriptions? And again, we are dealing with a translation.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

”12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [i.e. Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at that hour on turning into Berner St from Commercial Road & had 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…”

So Schwartz sees a man stop and speak to woman who was standing in the gateway. Therefore it is impossible that Schwartz could have been in that gateway too.

BOLD is my emphasis




It literally says that...

...Israel Schwartz...had got as far as the gateway...where the murder was committed...he saw a man stop and speak to a woman...who was standing in the gateway.

Israel Schwartz saw Stride standing in the gateway.

That would be physically impossible unless Schwartz was within very close proximity to the gateway.

Mortimer for example was not able to see anyone standing in the gateway from her position at her door of number 36. Her line of sight from the same side of the road would not allow her to observe anyone standing inside the gateway.

Meaning that Schwartz was already passed Mortimer's door when he observed Stride.

Now, if someone was on the opposite side of the road, then their line of sight could allow them to physically observe someone standing in the gateway from a wider angle; ergo, they could see them sooner than someone walking on the same side of the road.

It is literally impossible for Schwartz to have seen Stride in the gateway unless he was either...

1 - Walking on the same side of the road and had got within a range of 5 yards or so from the gateway, including BS man and Stride herself, or...

2 - Walking on the opposite side of the road and observed Stride earlier and from a longer distance.


This is because the physical angle and field of view from the opposite side of the road is wider and so Schwartz may not have been as far as level with the gateway before he could see them both.


But the statement specifically says that Schwartz SEES Stride standing in the gateway.

I suggest that someone uploads an accurate map of Berner St with precise measurements and then looks at the mathematical angles from which it would be physically possible for Schwartz to have to seen Stride standing in the gateway.

Maths and physics are precise and once those field of view lines are drawn, it will illustrate where in the street Schwartz could have been when observing Stride.

In other words; any areas of the street from which the gateway is not observable and lays outside the field of vision lines, will also prove where Schwartz could NOT have been when he saw Stride standing in the gateway.


Either Schwartz was on the same side of the road and within a few yards of the couple, and then quickly crossed the road when it all kicked off (as per the statement) or Schwartz was on the other side of the road and saw Stride both slightly earlier and from a wider field of vision that would have been possible from the opposite side of the road.


To say that Schwartz was on the same side of the road, could see Stride standing in the gateway, but wasn't within a few yards of her, is both physically and literally impossible.


Cue the... Perhaps the interpreter got it wrong card...

[Herlock Sholmes]

BOLD is my emphasis




It literally says that...

...Israel Schwartz...had got as far as the gateway...where the murder was committed...he saw a man stop and speak to a woman...who was standing in the gateway.

Israel Schwartz saw Stride standing in the gateway.

That would be physically impossible unless Schwartz was within very close proximity to the gateway.

Mortimer for example was not able to see anyone standing in the gateway from her position at her door of number 36. Her line of sight from the same side of the road would not allow her to observe anyone standing inside the gateway.

Meaning that Schwartz was already passed Mortimer's door when he observed Stride.

Now, if someone was on the opposite side of the road, then their line of sight could allow them to physically observe someone standing in the gateway from a wider angle; ergo, they could see them sooner than someone walking on the same side of the road.

It is literally impossible for Schwartz to have seen Stride in the gateway unless he was either...

1 - Walking on the same side of the road and had got within a range of 5 yards or so from the gateway, including BS man and Stride herself, or...

2 - Walking on the opposite side of the road and observed Stride earlier and from a longer distance.


This is because the physical angle and field of view from the opposite side of the road is wider and so Schwartz may not have been as far as level with the gateway before he could see them both.


But the statement specifically says that Schwartz SEES Stride standing in the gateway.

I suggest that someone uploads an accurate map of Berner St with precise measurements and then looks at the mathematical angles from which it would be physically possible for Schwartz to have to seen Stride standing in the gateway.

Maths and physics are precise and once those field of view lines are drawn, it will illustrate where in the street Schwartz could have been when observing Stride.

In other words; any areas of the street from which the gateway is not observable and lays outside the field of vision lines, will also prove where Schwartz could NOT have been when he saw Stride standing in the gateway.


Either Schwartz was on the same side of the road and within a few yards of the couple, and then quickly crossed the road when it all kicked off (as per the statement) or Schwartz was on the other side of the road and saw Stride both slightly earlier and from a wider field of vision that would have been possible from the opposite side of the road.


To say that Schwartz was on the same side of the road, could see Stride standing in the gateway, but wasn't within a few yards of her, is both physically and literally impossible.


Cue the... Perhaps the interpreter got it wrong card...

No…cue the common sense.

This is so simple.

“..had 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 stopped and talked to a woman who was actually standing in the gateway. So BS man and the woman were in the gateway so how could Schwartz have been in the gateway too? Are you suggesting that Schwartz walked along, without looking where he was going, and walked straight into BS man.

The meaning is obvious. When it says that he had got as far as the gateway it meant that he had just got to a position where the gateway (and those two people) were just in front of him. All three of them couldn’t have been in the gateway at the same time.

Why do obvious things become difficult?