An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Lewis C]

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.

That can't be proven. In fact, IIRC there are conflicting accounts about where Brown was at 12:45. (Is that when he left his house, or is that when he spotted the couple on the corner?) If we accept that Fanny was at her door nearly the whole time, then she conflicts not only with Schwartz, but also with PC Smith and Eagle, and maybe others. With Mrs. Diemschutz, the question is whether she could have not heard it, doesn't have anything to do with time.

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?

We've been through this before. Of course it's just as likely that allowances need to be made for Schwartz' time as for anyone else's. No one's denying that. Timelines have been constructed in which the Schwartz incident isn't at precisely 12:45.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You and Andrew are over thinking this massively RD. BS man stopped and talked to a woman in the gateway. We have no idea if Schwartz saw her before BSMan stopped to talk to her. He might only have seen her when he stopped. It’s beyond simple. Schwartz was probably 10 or 20 feet behind BS man (something like that…it could have been more it could have been less) He sees BS man stop. There’s a woman there and the incident begins. Schwartz crosses the road, unless you and Andrew are suggesting he just walked on and collided into them?

Why is this so hard? I feel like I’m in an alternate universe.

Schwartz and BS man began on the same side of the road - this is a fact.

As soon as the incident began (which was as soon as BS man met the woman) Schwartz crossed the road.

He continued walking, the shout went out and he spotted Pipeman.

He left.

Thats it.

[The Rookie Detective]

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?

It's not about Schwartz walking into them, it's about what Schwartz could physically seen from his position.

Schwartz says he saw Stride standing in the gateway.

Literally.

So where was Schwartz when he saw her?


Well if he was on the same side of the road, then he had to have been already past Mortimer's residence, because someone standing (or walking) outside Mortimer's residence would not be able to see anyone standing in the gateway.

The only physical way that Schwartz could have SEEN Stride standing in the gateway, is if he had already past Mortimer's door.

This means the furthest away that Schwartz could have been away from Stride and to have SEEN her, he couldn't have been further away than Mortimer's door.

The distance from the pavement outside Mortimer's house to the gateway consisted of number 38 and the club itself (number 40)

So if we apply maths and physics, we can ask the question... What is the furthest possible distance from which Schwartz could have physically seen Stride standing in the gateway, based on his own physical position when walking (and moving towards) on the same side of the road as the gateway?

For example; could Schwartz have seen Stride standing in the gateway when turning the corner into Berner Street? - answer - NO.

Could he have seen Stride standing in the gateway from number 30? (the Letchford's; situated on the northern corner of the covered alleyway leading into Backchurch Lane) answer - NO.


Could have seen Stride standing in the gateway from outside Mortimer's house at number 36? answer - NO.


The gateway was set back from the street and if Stride was indeed standing in the gateway, then unless Schwartz was walking on the other side of the road, it would require him to have been within a few yards of Stride when she was observed by him...standing in the gateway.


But of course, Schwartz is moving...and so we also need to factor in...


Schwartz sees a man stop and talk to a woman standing in the gateway.

He doesn't say... a man walked over and assaulted her. Bs man first engages with Stride before attacking her. This adds only 2 or 3 seconds, but those 2 or 3 seconds are crucial because Schwartz is moving towards them.

Schwartz sees a man stop and talk to a woman standing in the gateway.

He sees a man stop and talk to a woman standing...in...the gateway.

In order for Schwartz to see Stride standing...in the gateway, he must be within a physical field of vision for him to be able to see that. He can't see through walls or around corners.


So based on what is in the statement, Schwartz is walking south along Berner Street and sees a man ahead of him. This proves BS man was not in the gateway when Schwartz first sees him, because otherwise he would have seen Stride also when first seeing BS man.
As he walks south he gains ground on the apparently tipsy man ahead of him. As he walks past Mortimer's at number 36 (because he can't see Stride before that) and gets within just a few yards of the gateway, he is then able to then and only then witness the man stop and talk to a woman...standing in the gateway.

In other words, this is the first time he is able to physically see Stride...standing in the gateway.

Schwartz then sees Bs man seemingly try to pull the woman into the road.

This movement is crucial because the time from when Bs man is seen (by Schwartz) stop and talk to Stride, to the point when BS man throws her to the floor, may be only a matter of 5 seconds.

5 seconds.

But let's not forget that Schwartz is still walking and moving south from the time he sees BS man stop and talk to Stride, through to him witnessing her being thrown to the floor.

And so, if Schwartz claimed he saw Stride standing in the gateway from where he was positioned in the street, and he is still walking, then how long would it take a man to walk from outside Mortimer's residence at number 36, to be level with the gateway?

Essentially, to walk the width of number 38 and the club combined.

5 seconds?


And so we have a scenario whereby Schwartz is within 5 yards of the assault on Stride.

How is this possible?


Well, that's what the statement suggests and implies if you take the wording seriously and contextually.

Schwartz's entire credibility and integrity rests on that 3rd hand version of his statement.

If his statement is not credible, then it's relatively worthless.


But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and go with what the statement actually says...

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


From where?


Now of course, IF Schwartz was walking on the other side of the road, then he could observe Bs man stop and talk to a woman standing in the gateway from a few seconds earlier and from a far greater distance away from the gateway, because his field of vision would be greater when looking over to see her standing in the gateway.


This extra time and distance would explain why Bs man didn't end up throwing Stride into Schwartz's path as he walked south.


The statement doesn't state which side of the road he was walking on.

But let's stick to him having been on the same side of the road as the gateway (which is generally accepted)


Now there is another explanation based on what the statement says.


Bs man doesn't initially see Schwartz (or hear him) approach the gateway from the north, and so when he stops to talk to Stride and then suddenly attacks her and tries to pull her into the street, he is unaware that there's a witness walking within a few yards of him.

On seeing BS man suddenly grab Stride, Schwartz then tries to avoid them both by quickly trying to cross the road in a diagonal pathway (as someone would if they were still walking forwards)

As Schwartz steps off the curb, Bs man alters the trajectory of where he intends to pull Stride (towards the street) and instead swings her around and throws her down onto the footway that leads into the yard.
In the mind of Bs man, Schwartz is physically in the way of him being able to drag Stride into the street, and so he throws her to the floor in the opposite direction instead.

As Schwartz crosses he sees Pipeman further along, who has also stirred after having heard the commotion.

Bs man then shouts "LIPSKI!" at Schwartz because he is both drunk and angered by the fact that Schwartz got physically too close to him at the point he tried to pull Stride into the street.

Of course, if Schwartz did stop, then it may have been to keep at least 5 yards away from what he thought was a domestic, and then chose to cross the road when he realised he would be walking directly into the couple's path.

The moment from when Schwartz turns the corner into Berner Street, to the point when he runs off, could have been all done and dusted within 90 seconds.


But whether it lasted 90 seconds, or 5 minutes; it doesn't change the fact that there are some physical and literal anomalies that need to be explained.


I go back to the key point here...


If Schwartz did indeed see a man stop and talk to Stride who he saw was standing in the gateway; then whereabouts in physical time-space was Schwartz when he saw her?

And if he was still walking when he saw her, then how did he not physically walk into either Bs man and/or Stride, when he got level with the gateway and BS man attempted to drag her into the street?


Ultimately, if Schwartz's account is correct, or more importantly; credible, then how could he have seen Stride standing in the gateway IF he wasn't within 5 yards of the gateway and/or wasn't within the physical field of vision required to have been able to see her in the first place?


It's all answered if Schwartz was walking on the other side of the road.

But this is unlikely, because why would he then cross the road and move physically closer to the assault?



I think Bs man didn't realise that Schwartz was there, and so when he tried to pull Stride into the street, he almost threw her into Schwartz, meaning he quickly span her around and threw her down onto the footway situated in the opposite direction.

That would then explain why BS man then saw Schwartz and hurled some abuse at him; essentially for getting in his way. The work and words of a man getting angry after a few too many alcoholic beverages.

Hardly the work of the Ripper.

[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?

[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...

[c.d.]

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

c.d.

[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.

[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.

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

[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]

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

Obviously.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.