An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hello NotBlamed and all. You make very good points and I am trying not to focus on any theory I have but trying to look at what evidence we have. mortimer sees somebody walking very fast carrying a black bag and looking towards the club. We cannot say who this person is. Wess believes it to be Goldstein and he and Goldstein tell this to the police and the press who Wess says accepts that it is Goldstein and his story checks out. I accept that could be the case.

however it really hangs on the evidence that Goldstein is carry a bag and is walking through Berners street at the time.

There is no mention of a bag being carried by Schwartz in his report to the police. Why would there be. If i witnessed something like an assault i would report what I saw. I wouldnt give my own description. Do any of of our other witnesses in this case give their own descriptions. Do Brown, Marshall, Spooner, Best and Gardner describe their own descriptions or what they were carrying.

One of the problems is that we don't actually have the police report on Schwartz, so we can't say for certain why he was on the street at that time, let alone if he was carrying a bag of any description.

I am just trying to say that it is feasible that Schwartz was carrying a bag and that the man Mortimer saw was him.

Having said that, if Schwartz had indeed gone out for the day, evening, and well into the night, it would seem likely that he did have a bag of some sort. Did he eat and drink in all that time, only at pubs and takeaways?

Wess could be defending Goldstein because he was a good chap in the area at the time with his black bag and worried that he could be implicated in the murder.

there could be lots going on including conspiracies at the club. Plenty of conspiring to protest against the authorities and anarchist activities I am sure but I am just trying to see where the statements from witnesses like Mortimer take us before forming any thory of my own at the moment.

When does Wess defending Goldstein and/or the club cross over into conspiracy?

Sorry if i am seeming difficult just trying to solve this really difficult puzzle re Schwarz and Goldstein

It's difficult, and I commend you for trying. No need to apologise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Question - is this really the same man?


Lawende - age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair, fair moustache, medium build, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor.


Schwartz - age about 30 ht. 5 ft. 5in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s interesting that in Swanson’s October 19th report he adds a marginal note saying: “The use of ‘Lipski’ increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew”.

So he thinks that because the word came from the man that he believed was the murderer this meant that the murderer was Jewish.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

I’m not suggesting that Fanny Mortimer was a liar because I have no reason to, but we might ask which is the likelier?

a) A man lies and falsely places himself at the scene of a knife murder and, because he was never there, he had no one to confirm that he wasn’t involved in that murder. Added to this we can think of no sensible reason why he might have told such a lie.

b) A woman, whether mistakenly or deliberately, exaggerated the amount of time that she was on her step that night.


And, I’d refer everyone to this post by Jeff on how poor we are at estimating periods of time.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ion#post851477

My take: East End resident starstruck disease.

By Stride, the case in the media was in full bloom. Poor, uncelebrated souls come out of the woodwork, hoping their forced 15 minutes of fame might translate to coins in their pocket.

Hence 1.0: putting one's self at the scene when no such occurrence happened, being at the scene but exaggerating their involvement - zero having to do with being Jack or seeing Jack.

Hence 2.0: we are left with eye witness soup - tasty, minimal to zero nutrition.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We’ve been here before on this point RD. People tend think instinctively that Schwartz must have been required as a witness but this would only have been the case in a trial. An inquest has very specific aims. This is from - https://www.judiciary.uk (the numbers were added by me)

The purpose of the inquest is (a) to identify the medical cause of death, and (b) to answer four questions: 1. who died, 2. when and 3. where did she die, and (perhaps most important of all) 4. how did she come by her death, and (c) come to a conclusion about her death

a) The duty of the Doctor.
b1) Whoever could identify that the victim was called Elizabeth Stride - not Schwartz.
b2) The Doctor.
b3) The Doctor and the police I’d have thought.
b4) The Doctor, the police and the jury I’d have thought.

Schwartz wasn’t an important witness as far as an inquest goes. If it had been a trial he’d have been an important witness.

I just needed to add that b2 doesn’t mean the ToD. It meant the day of the death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not suggesting that Fanny Mortimer was a liar because I have no reason to, but we might ask which is the likelier?

a) A man lies and falsely places himself at the scene of a knife murder and, because he was never there, he had no one to confirm that he wasn’t involved in that murder. Added to this we can think of no sensible reason why he might have told such a lie.

b) A woman, whether mistakenly or deliberately, exaggerated the amount of time that she was on her step that night.


And, I’d refer everyone to this post by Jeff on how poor we are at estimating periods of time.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/general-discussion/research-related/851477-converting-a-witness-statement-of-duration-to-an-estimate-of-the-actual-duration#post851477

[Lewis C]

Brown, Spooner, Eagle etc... none of them claim to have seen anything particularly relevant in terms of action or drama.
Brown believes he saw Stride with a man on the corner of the street by the board school, and Mortimer speaks of a couple who spoke to her after the body had been found and who told her they heard nothing despite being on the corner.

Mortimer validates a couple on the corner
Brown validates a couple on the corner
The couple in the corner speak to Mortimer.
Mortimer sees Goldstein
Goldstein comes forward after being seen and is cleared.

But we have nothing to validate Schwartz.

Hi RD. I don't think that it can really be said that Brown and Mortimer validated each other when Brown said that he was almost certain that the woman he saw was Stride, and the woman that Fanny talked to definitely wasn't Stride.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

I know that we’ve been here before but I just don’t think that there is anything suspicious about Leon Goldstein. As a man seen in the area ‘around’ the time of the murder he would have been checked out by the police.

Agree. A nothing-to-see-here burger.
The only lingering question: How nosy is Fanny Mortimer?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only answer is that he either wasn't as reliable a witness as the police first thought, or that he was THE Jewish witness who didn't want to testify against another Jew.
The only problem with that is... Bs Man is never described or referred to as Jewish, and he also shouts "Lipski" which was regarded as an antisemitic slur; although I accept this may not have been the case.

I think that it’s also worth pointing out that we have evidence of the word ‘Lipski’ being used as an insult by a Jewish person toward another Jewish person. So we shouldn’t confine ourselves this to be only from a Gentile.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that Schwartz also required a translator, means that any translation is open to scrutiny.
If the translator conveniently mistranslated the word "scream" so as to try and justify why a woman being attacked didn't instinctively cry out for help and/or why she wasn't heard by anyone else within earshot, then the same can be applied to the location and time that Schwartz claimed he witnessed the assault.

Requiring a translator doesn't help his integrity as a potentially crucial witness.

There’s nothing ‘convenient’ about it RD because no one is suggesting that the translator ‘mistranslated’ to achieve a purpose. I’d suggest that Schwartz used a word from his own language, perhaps the equivalent of something like ‘called’ and the translator used ‘screamed.’

Not being heard is not a mystery. Things occur that aren’t heard all the time

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ultimately, the biggest question is...

If Schwartz was such an important key witness, who claimed to have seen a man assault the victim within 5 yards of where she was found murdered less than 15 minutes later; why didn't he then appear at the inquest?

The only answer is that he either wasn't as reliable a witness as the police first thought, or that he was THE Jewish witness who didn't want to testify against another Jew.
The only problem with that is... Bs Man is never described or referred to as Jewish, and he also shouts "Lipski" which was regarded as an antisemitic slur; although I accept this may not have been the case.

I know that not all witnesses are called to the inquest, but surely a man who claimed to have seen what he did, would have been compelled to attend the inquest to give evidence.

We’ve been here before on this point RD. People tend think instinctively that Schwartz must have been required as a witness but this would only have been the case in a trial. An inquest has very specific aims. This is from - https://www.judiciary.uk (the numbers were added by me)

The purpose of the inquest is (a) to identify the medical cause of death, and (b) to answer four questions: 1. who died, 2. when and 3. where did she die, and (perhaps most important of all) 4. how did she come by her death, and (c) come to a conclusion about her death

a) The duty of the Doctor.
b1) Whoever could identify that the victim was called Elizabeth Stride - not Schwartz.
b2) The Doctor.
b3) The Doctor and the police I’d have thought.
b4) The Doctor, the police and the jury I’d have thought.

Schwartz wasn’t an important witness as far as an inquest goes. If it had been a trial he’d have been an important witness.

[c.d.]

The fact that Schwartz also required a translator, means that any translation is open to scrutiny.
If the translator conveniently mistranslated the word "scream" so as to try and justify why a woman being attacked didn't instinctively cry out for help and/or why she wasn't heard by anyone else within earshot, then the same can be applied to the location and time that Schwartz claimed he witnessed the assault.

How did everything become so damn "convenient" all of a sudden, R.D.?

How convenient that Fanny includes the word nearly in her statement.

How convenient that Diemschutz's horse held up when it did.

How convenient that Anderson didn't actually name the Ripper.

How convenient that Swanson didn't give the Ripper's first name.

How convenient that Macnaghten did not give a source for his information on Druitt.

How convenient that Druitt had a cricket match so soon after the murder.

The list goes on and on.

c.d.

[c.d.]

If Schwartz was such an important key witness, who claimed to have seen a man assault the victim within 5 yards of where she was found murdered less than 15 minutes later; why didn't he then appear at the inquest?

The only answer is that he either wasn't as reliable a witness as the police first thought, or that he was THE Jewish witness who didn't want to testify against another Jew.

How did you you determine that that could be the only answer, R.D.? How did you go about eliminating every other possibility? Maybe Schwartz had horrible body odor and Baxter didn't want him at the inquest for that reason? Of course I am being facetious but the point is that any reason is up for grabs because no one knows why he was not called.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

I would argue you are evaluating the witness based upon how important the content of their statement is rather than based upon the context of their situation. Schwartz's context is similar to many, maybe even most, witnesses of the series. It is the content which is most (potentially) important. While I agree that the content means we need be extra careful about drawing g conclusions too quickly, I don't think the content can be dismissed as lies simply because it is potentially important.

If you don't trust Schwartz why do you dismiss him based upon witnesses who are no more supported, but who offer less case relevant information? Are you sure it is not because Schwartz is simply inconvenient?

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

Who saw Deimshitz arrive, or Fanny on her doorstep or Brown with his supper or Spooner with his girlfriend or ....

And most are not giving precidence to Schwartz because they don't try to claim others are lying, rather they are trying to work out how all witnesses fit together, allowing for typical errors in the details like time estimations and recollections. If anything, those who find Schwartz inconvenient give precidence to equally unobserved people by using their statements without consideration of error in order to dismiss him entirely.

- Jeff

Ah yes, but you're perhaps missing the point.

Brown, Spooner, Eagle etc... none of them claim to have seen anything particularly relevant in terms of action or drama.
Brown believes he saw Stride with a man on the corner of the street by the board school, and Mortimer speaks of a couple who spoke to her after the body had been found and who told her they heard nothing despite being on the corner.

Mortimer validates a couple on the corner
Brown validates a couple on the corner
The couple in the corner speak to Mortimer.
Mortimer sees Goldstein
Goldstein comes forward after being seen and is cleared.

But we have nothing to validate Schwartz.

The mistake he made was by adding Pipe man and the shout of "Lipski!" from Stride's alleged assailant.


Schwartz is ambiguous about the address he gives; not sure if his wife has moved etc...
Swanson also mentions specifically that Schwartz ran as far as the train line.
That only works if Schwartz witnessed an assault in Backchurch Lane or Christian Street.

So either Swanson is wrong, mistaken or lying (which by proxy obliterates Kosminski as a suspect) or Schwartz wasn't in Berner Street at all.

I personally believe that Schwartz may have been heading south down Christian Street and may have witnessed Spooner have an argument with his gf close to the junction with Fairclough and Christian Street and that he identified the wrong woman in Stride.
That would explain why Spooners timings don't fit with anyone else's.

Spooner then had to shape his story so as not to be considered a suspect in the murder of Stride, after having been seen assaulting his gf.
Hence why he got his timings all wrong.

Instead of turning right and heading west, Schwartz instead runs south down Christian Street as far as the train line at the eastern end of Pinchin Street.

Spooner is essentially BS man.

The murder of Stride being a coincidence completely unrelated to the assault that Schwartz witnessed.

In other words; whatever Schwartz claimed to have witnessed, it didn't take place in Duffield's yard, because the couple on the corner seen by Brown and validated by Mortimer, plus the woman in the kitchen around 5 yards from the murder site, with an open window and a partially open side door.... at least one of them would have heard either the assault and/or the shout of "LIPSKI!"

But nobody did.

Ultimately, the biggest question is...

If Schwartz was such an important key witness, who claimed to have seen a man assault the victim within 5 yards of where she was found murdered less than 15 minutes later; why didn't he then appear at the inquest?

The only answer is that he either wasn't as reliable a witness as the police first thought, or that he was THE Jewish witness who didn't want to testify against another Jew.
The only problem with that is... Bs Man is never described or referred to as Jewish, and he also shouts "Lipski" which was regarded as an antisemitic slur; although I accept this may not have been the case.

I know that not all witnesses are called to the inquest, but surely a man who claimed to have seen what he did, would have been compelled to attend the inquest to give evidence.

The fact that Schwartz also required a translator, means that any translation is open to scrutiny.
If the translator conveniently mistranslated the word "scream" so as to try and justify why a woman being attacked didn't instinctively cry out for help and/or why she wasn't heard by anyone else within earshot, then the same can be applied to the location and time that Schwartz claimed he witnessed the assault.

Requiring a translator doesn't help his integrity as a potentially crucial witness.