An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I wondered about this too, especially since Andrew's post was a response to my post, which was a response to this post of his: "Brown said the woman he saw was almost certainly the deceased." The implication there seemed to be that if Brown said that, then the woman probably was Stride, otherwise, why mention it? I'll say it again: if Brown really did see Stride, then the couple that Fanny talked to had to have been a different couple, because when she talked to them, Stride was dead.

I don't think it was Stride, but I could be wrong. I posted that more as a reminder, than to indicate my opinion.

Brown's timing correlates well with the following. Daily News, Oct 1:

A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

If the end of that 20 minutes marks the beginning of the commotion that Fanny was alerted by, the beginning of the period is around 12:45. That would mean the Schwartz stuff likely occurs before then, yet Eagle does not report seeing a woman standing in the gateway.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Echo, Oct 1: From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart. "We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."

Good post, NW. But I'm not sure we can put a long overcoat on BSM, can we? As I demonstrated in Ripper Confidential, Fanny Mortimer did not see a young couple. She (and some reporters) spoke to a young woman outside the Dutfield Yard gates following discovery of the murder. The young woman told Mortimer she and her beau had been standing out on the corner around the time the murder was committed which, for some reason, they assumed was around midnight. The young woman told a reporter (who had also spoken to Mortimer) that she and her young man were standing at the opposite end of Berner Street (not the Fairclough corner) around midnight but had split up and gone home long before 12:45.

This is questionable for several reasons.

- The woman knows where the body was subsequently found, but otherwise the report says nothing about the murder, so there is no reason to suppose the couple assumed anything about the time of the murder.

- After meeting at midnight, the couple walk along Commercial Rd and then down and up Berner St, before saying their goodnights. They do very little standing, by their own account, so hard to see why anyone would be confusing them for a couple standing anywhere, let alone at the board school corner.

- Fanny said the couple "were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away". Twenty yards is the approximate distance to the Berner/Fairclough intersection. Commercial Rd is considerably further.

- We cannot say for sure where and when Mortimer spoke the couple. Fanny and a couple standing nearby could all conceivably have ended up inside the gates when they were locked, and talked then. Supposing that Mortimer spoke to the couple after sunrise, is therefore, another assumption.

The 'walking couple' looks like a different couple, to me. However, I would concede that Fanny probably didn't see the couple before turning in for the night.

Regarding Spooner, Brown was looking out his window when the clubmen approached Spooner yelling 'Murder!' and 'Police!' Brown watched as Spooner accompanied the men back to the yard. Brown mistook Spooner, who he probably only saw in shadow, for a constable.

Spooner didn't have a constable's uniform, so what was it about him that gave Brown that impression?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The problem is that there is nothing to talk about with black bag man. We know his name, where he’d been and where he was going. He was absolutely uninvolved in these events. Of all of the names mentioned in connection to Berner Street Goldstein is the least significant.

This assumes there was only one black bag of note.

You've previously noted that references to up versus down Berner St, could be explained as journalistic error or are interchangeable, but the reference to a man possibly coming from the club is not so easy to explain away. Fanny made it clear that her black bag man came from Commercial Rd. Houston, we have another problem.

[Tom_Wescott]

So, you believe Schwartz, mostly due to his credibility with senior policemen. Yet, you do not believe what these senior officers tell us about multiple points of the incident. Seems you are in the process of creating your own, preferred reality.

Come on, Pot. Be nice to Kettle

I'm joking. But since you brought it up, I want to point out that there is actual source material on all of this. And most of it really isn't that complicated to interpret. There was no Mortimer couple on Berner Street. I disproved that myth in 2017. James Brown said himself he didn't notice a flower on Stride's chest because the man had his arm against the wall block his view. But he did see her face. Brown left his house 'about 12:45' and saw the couple five or more minutes later. Even Begg, an ardent traditionalist (my observation, not his), acknowledges this in 'The Facts'. This makes Brown the last reliable (though not infallible) witness to have seen Stride alive. He didn't get a good enough look at the man to have had any value to police, but they believed him and he appeared at the inquest.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NotBlamedForNothing]

An opportunity where someone else was seen "ill-using" the victim and would be blamed for the murder.

Blamed by who?

I don't think he was ill-using her to start with, but at this stage he is only seeing a woman on the ground with a man standing over her.

Perhaps I should add Abberline's reference to ill-using, to the list in #390.

I think that his initial impulse may have been towards Schwartz, but followed by a thought that he would be better to sort out what actually happened. By this time Schwartz had scarpered, not looking back to see if someone was following.

If Pipeman is thinking that, he is not following Schwartz let alone pursuing him. So, Schwartz's scarpering becomes a causeless effect.

How could Pipeman know who was the culprit? I don't think Pipeman did "run".

If he didn't see anything happen, due to (supposedly) being in the Nelson doorway, he couldn't even assume someone was a culprit, let alone who it was. A woman is on the ground - does he conclude that one of the men did a bad, bad thing? Maybe, but if so, it would likely be the man standing over the woman, not the man across the road. However, if Schwartz crossed the road in the opposite direction to that always assumed, then the confusion that Wess refers to in the Echo report becomes understandable, as does the otherwise inexplicable reference to an intruder, in the Star report.

Schwartz presumed that he may have been pursued. He didn't look back so he was unsure. I look toward the report by Wess.

Didn't you say the situation escalated when Schwartz walked away, and that is why he became fearful and ran off? Wouldn't that fear have him glancing over his shoulder? If Schwartz imagined being pursued, but really wasn't, can we say he is a reliable witness?

[Tom_Wescott]

By Brown being mistaken that the woman he saw was the deceased.

Except that Fanny's couple were at the other end of Berner Street and had separated well before 12:45 a.m.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Probably because there is no suggestion of Pipeman running.

Except for the 'suggestion' I provided in #335.

“The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.”

Schwartz walked away with Pieman walking behind him. When Schwartz looked around and saw Pipeman walking in the same direction he (Schwartz) began to run.

Perhaps you could discuss with George regarding Schwartz looking around or not.

Pending that debate, let's take stock of all the things you believe senior police officers got wrong about Schwartz. You claim:

- He had not reached the gateway when the man stopped to talk to the woman.

- He did not stop to watch.

- The woman did not scream.

- Pipeman did not run.

So, you believe Schwartz, mostly due to his credibility with senior policemen. Yet, you do not believe what these senior officers tell us about multiple points of the incident. Seems you are in the process of creating your own, preferred reality.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Can you explain that please? How could the couple that Fanny allegedly spoke to have been the couple that Brown saw?

By Brown being mistaken that the woman he saw was the deceased.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Herlock,

On pp. 229-230 of Ripper Confidential, Tom addresses the question of whether Brown saw the couple on his way to the chandler's shop or on the way home. Of the 4 sources that he quotes, The Times is the only one that says that Brown saw the couple on his way to the shop. The Daily Telegraph, The Morning Advertiser, and The Star all say that he saw the couple on the way home from the shop. And I'd say that not only could the Telegraph version be read to mean that Brown saw the couple on the way back, I think that's the only way it could be read. Here's their wording: "I was going from my house to the chandler's shop at the corner of the Berner-street and Fairclough-street, to get some supper. I stayed there three or four minutes, and then went back home, when I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School. I was in the road just by the kerb, and they were near the wall."

It's important to mention that even The Times has him leaving his house at 12:45...not seeing the couple at this time. His trip to the chandler chop would take 1 to 2 minutes, then he said he spent 3 or 4 minutes inside the shop before leaving and then crossing the street to walk past the couple. This would place the sighting around 12:50 a.m.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

On pp. 229-230 of Ripper Confidential, Tom addresses the question of whether Brown saw the couple on his way to the chandler's shop or on the way home. Of the 4 sources that he quotes, The Times is the only one that says that Brown saw the couple on his way to the shop. The Daily Telegraph, The Morning Advertiser, and The Star all say that he saw the couple on the way home from the shop. And I'd say that not only could the Telegraph version be read to mean that Brown saw the couple on the way back, I think that's the only way it could be read. Here's their wording: "I was going from my house to the chandler's shop at the corner of the Berner-street and Fairclough-street, to get some supper. I stayed there three or four minutes, and then went back home, when I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School. I was in the road just by the kerb, and they were near the wall."

Hi Lewis

I wouldn’t dispute that one. I think I might have fallen into the trap of assuming that The Telegraph version must fit The Times one and that it was just down to the way that it was worded.

It still allows for Stride to have walked to the gateway after Brown passed and we don’t know how his 12.45 estimate stood against other timings. So I won’t write off my suggested scenario at the moment.

I’ve been intending for a while to have a re-read of Tom’s work on Berner Street. I don’t have many ripper books on kindle but Confidential is one of them.

[Lewis C]

Can you explain that please? How could the couple that Fanny allegedly spoke to have been the couple that Brown saw?

I wondered about this too, especially since Andrew's post was a response to my post, which was a response to this post of his: "Brown said the woman he saw was almost certainly the deceased." The implication there seemed to be that if Brown said that, then the woman probably was Stride, otherwise, why mention it? I'll say it again: if Brown really did see Stride, then the couple that Fanny talked to had to have been a different couple, because when she talked to them, Stride was dead.

[Lewis C]

I also see that I have made an error on Brown’s statement by only reading The Telegraph version which, due to the poor wording, can be read to mean that Brown saw the couple on the way back from the Chandler’s Shop. A lesson learned (hopefully)…don’t skim read and check more than one version.

So…Brown saw a couple on the corner of Berner and Fairclough Street, near the Board School, as he was going to the Chandler’s Shop at approximately 12.45 according to his estimate. As he doesn’t mention them being there on his return it’s reasonable to suggest that they weren’t there and when we add the fact that he’d heard the woman say: “Not to-night, but some other night,” it further points to them parting company just after he’d passed. Considering the approximate time it increases the likelihood that this was indeed Stride and that as she had rejected the man on the corner to go and stand in the gateway of Dutfield’s Yard this would also appear to suggest that she had a pre-arranged meeting at that spot. Who with…we don’t know but BS man and Pipeman would have to be contenders.

Hi Herlock,

On pp. 229-230 of Ripper Confidential, Tom addresses the question of whether Brown saw the couple on his way to the chandler's shop or on the way home. Of the 4 sources that he quotes, The Times is the only one that says that Brown saw the couple on his way to the shop. The Daily Telegraph, The Morning Advertiser, and The Star all say that he saw the couple on the way home from the shop. And I'd say that not only could the Telegraph version be read to mean that Brown saw the couple on the way back, I think that's the only way it could be read. Here's their wording: "I was going from my house to the chandler's shop at the corner of the Berner-street and Fairclough-street, to get some supper. I stayed there three or four minutes, and then went back home, when I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School. I was in the road just by the kerb, and they were near the wall."

[Tom_Wescott]

Thank you Tom,

It doesn't look like we can put a long coat on BSM but I suppose I was thinking that he is an extra person to account for I suppose. We have a man wearing a shorter style coat (cutaway/morning/frock which I am guessing is a bit more of an expensive coat than most would wear) and the man seen by Brown with Stride with a long coat.

If Schwartz is to be believed (which I do but think he may have misinterpreted something) then we have Parcelman, BSM and Browns long coat man in the area at roughly the same time.

I see him as a separate suspect because of the coat and I thought this is starting to sound silly which is why I thought he could be BSM. I think Herlock suggested that BSM could have made up with Stride after the row/event and chatted on the corner with her. Or he was chatting with her, walked away and then walked back and had the disagreement.

We also have Goldstein walking fast through the middle of all this.

I think Schwartz and Goldstein are different people but some of the 'actors' in all of this are the same people if you see what I mean.

Hang on I am getting myself confused. As always!!

There were slews of men in the area, but anyone before 12:45 should (IMO) be discounted as a suspect. This leaves us BS Man, Pipeman, and Overcoat Man. Both Pipeman and Overcoat Man wore long overcoats, so may be the same person. Of course, we have to leave our minds open to a killer who was never witnessed or described. As for Schwartz, I believe the police would have properly translated him, but I'm relatively sure the Star report was a police plant intended to draw Pipeman and/or BSMan out as a witness. The reporter was a dupe who asked his questions and, because Schwartz couldn't speak English, the interpreter 'friend' Schwartz had with him fed the story. Certain editorial comments made in the Start following the publication of that interview indicate they became aware they'd been used. Nevertheless, the biographical data about Schwartz in the Star report may be accurate.

Was Schwartz telling the truth? I've wavered a bit on this but concluded he was either truthful for very, very lucky in his lies. Witnesses such as Mortimer, Goldstein, and Brown, indicate the streets were suddenly dead between 12:45 and 1am. If Schwartz were a liar, he couldn't have known that. If he was friendly with the club, which is possible if not probable, he MAY have concocted the story (via William Wess) to throw suspicion off the clubmen. But Abberline appears to have been convinced by him (same with Hutchinson, so a little salt over the shoulder may be appropriate), and we've no actual reason to doubt his veracity (I've looked for it). Having said that, it bothers me that he completely disappears from police memory after November 1st. As if he never happened.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[New Waterloo]

Thank you Tom,

It doesn't look like we can put a long coat on BSM but I suppose I was thinking that he is an extra person to account for I suppose. We have a man wearing a shorter style coat (cutaway/morning/frock which I am guessing is a bit more of an expensive coat than most would wear) and the man seen by Brown with Stride with a long coat.

If Schwartz is to be believed (which I do but think he may have misinterpreted something) then we have Parcelman, BSM and Browns long coat man in the area at roughly the same time.

I see him as a separate suspect because of the coat and I thought this is starting to sound silly which is why I thought he could be BSM. I think Herlock suggested that BSM could have made up with Stride after the row/event and chatted on the corner with her. Or he was chatting with her, walked away and then walked back and had the disagreement.

We also have Goldstein walking fast through the middle of all this.

I think Schwartz and Goldstein are different people but some of the 'actors' in all of this are the same people if you see what I mean.

Hang on I am getting myself confused. As always!!

[Tom_Wescott]

I too believed that Brown saw his couple on the way back from the chandler's shop.
i believe Brown is a good witness and Herlock is right when he states that he does not see any other couple on his way out and his way home. Only the one couple.
The very important thing about Brown is that he lives next door to the Beehive Pub which means its safe to say there was only one couple on that stretch of Fairclough on his walk.
Spooner states he and his girlfriend were by the Beehive so could have been just around into Christian Street out of Browns sight.

One Press report has Spooner saying that they went to a pub on the corner of Commercial Road and Settle street. I think it may have been called the Gloster Arms. (Spelled that way)
not far from where Stride may have been in the Bricklayers just up the road.

I think if we add in a couple for Mortimer it is stretching things too far.

i dont believe there were 3 couples between Berner street junction and the Beehive.

Browns man is wearing a long coat. Other witnesses including Marshall describe a short coat (cutaway/frock/morning)

if Brown is correct about Stride. Then we have another man to fit in to the mix. Unless the man he sees with Stride is BSM.

NW

Good post, NW. But I'm not sure we can put a long overcoat on BSM, can we? As I demonstrated in Ripper Confidential, Fanny Mortimer did not see a young couple. She (and some reporters) spoke to a young woman outside the Dutfield Yard gates following discovery of the murder. The young woman told Mortimer she and her beau had been standing out on the corner around the time the murder was committed which, for some reason, they assumed was around midnight. The young woman told a reporter (who had also spoken to Mortimer) that she and her young man were standing at the opposite end of Berner Street (not the Fairclough corner) around midnight but had split up and gone home long before 12:45.

As for Brown, accepting that he said he saw his couple several minutes after 12:45 is not a question of faith, it's just what he said. It's not a contentious issue.

Regarding Spooner, Brown was looking out his window when the clubmen approached Spooner yelling 'Murder!' and 'Police!' Brown watched as Spooner accompanied the men back to the yard. Brown mistook Spooner, who he probably only saw in shadow, for a constable.

It's worth noting the difficulty men had in finding a constable following both the Hanbury Street and Berner Street murders. If men screaming 'Murder!' have trouble catching anyone's attention, then a fleeing murderer would have had no problem.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott