An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[New Waterloo]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[GBinOz]

Interesting possibilities. Here's some thoughts.

Given the shouting, would JtR have seen this as an opportunity? Unlikely.
An opportunity where someone else was seen "ill-using" the victim and would be blamed for the murder.

If the man standing over the woman is still ill-using her, then he is obviously the culprit.
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.
If he is not touching her, but is shouting at a man across the street, then he shouted more than just 'Lipski'. We don't have any evidence for that, so it will have to be supposed that this detail was not included in Swanson's report. However, would he be so offended by this incident that he would postpone enjoying his pipe, for the purpose of chasing a man who did something to a woman that he didn't even witness?
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.
On the other hand, if it makes little sense for Pipeman to suppose Schwartz is the culprit, the problem we are now left with is, what caused Pipeman to run? Can we really suppose that two men ran off in fear, while the woman being assaulted was not even scared enough to raise her voice?
How could Pipeman know who was the culprit? I don't think Pipeman did "run".

If he has gone into the club, why not take her with him? Women were allowed into the club. Philip Krantz did not report anyone coming into the Arbeter Fraint offices until he was alerted to the murder.
He intended to be away only briefly, so didn't prevail on Stride to accompany him, particularly if he was headed towards the Loo.

Schwartz said he was chased through the streets. Still confused, George.

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

This thread is supposed to be addressing the black bag man, but continues to be yet another interminable Schwartz analysis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Schwartz said he was chased through the streets. Still confused, George.

Where does Schwartz say this? I can’t find it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't believe the standard model of the incident can account for Pipeman running.


.

Probably because there is no suggestion of Pipeman running.

“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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There can be only one (couple).

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

In the JTR sourcebook Page 186, Brown in his testimony says - I heard the woman say " Not tonight, some other night " . In his summing up Baxter says, Page 195, They last saw her alive at the corner of Fairclough and Berner st saying " Not tonight but some other night ". It follows on that Baxter was talking about Browns testimony and not they, since he almost directly quotes him . So it is highly likely Brown did see a couple at the corner of the board school in Berner st. Brown also says " That made me turn around and I looked at them , I am certain the woman was the deceased " Page 186.

I see little to doubt Brown and that he very probably saw Liz

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

Thanks for pointing that out. As you will tell from my previous post I made the mistake of not looking at Baxter’s summing up which does tell us that the couple were standing at the corner of Berner and Fairclough Streets.

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.

Was this couple Parcelman and Stride? Given the time that Smith might have seen them, around 12.35, and the fact that Brown was likely to have seen them then it appears very possible even very likely. The fact that neither Lave or Eagle saw them suggests that they stood slightly around the corner in Fairclough Street out of sight of anyone in Berner Street.

The other question is - who were the mysterious couple that Fanny spoke to? We can’t be conclusive but we have to ask ourselves how many young couples were around? What we do know is that Spooner was with a woman outside The Beehive and we know for a fact that Spooner ended up in Berner Street and so could have spoken to Fanny. So what’s to reject the suggestion that when Spooner ran round to Berner Street his lady friend didn’t follow him at a walking pace? After all it’s hardly unlikely that she would have been entirely incurious about this incident that caused men to run through the streets yelling “murder.”

Isn’t it therefore still likeliest that Fanny’s couple would have been Spooner and his female companion. They had returned from Commercial Road and had been at The Beehive since some time before 1.00 until a couple of minutes or so after 1.00 which would have led them to claim to have been around just before and just after the time of the murder. The only issue of course is Fanny Mortimer (this paragon of accurate information)

“A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street about twenty yards away before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me that they did not hear a sound.”

Brown saw no other couple when he went to and from the Chandler’s Shop. Diemschitz didn’t mention seeing anyone else, neither did Spooner and we have no record or hint of the police searching for this mysterious couple and they get no mention from Swanson (neither does Fanny of course which to me hints that Swanson had been told that she had simply got her times wrong) I reckon it likeliest that Fanny spoke to Spooner with his girlfriend and they told them that they had been standing on ‘the corner’ which probably meant the one by The Beehive but she assumed the corner of Berner and Fairclough which the reporter described as 20 yards away.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

New Waterloo was talking about the couple that Fanny talked to, not the couple that Brown saw. He is right that the woman that Fanny talked to couldn't possibly have been Stride, because Fanny talked to her after Stride had been murdered.

There can be only one (couple).

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This was also a puzzlement to me, until I considered the possibility that Mortimer saw the man with the black bag headed south, and a different woman, married to an artisan, saw a man with a black bag headed north, that might have been coming from the club. I should add that this theory has not gained any general support, but is at least on topic rather than Schwartz....again.

Supposing these are two different women, would cause havoc with timelines. Can't we just agree that reality has to fit our models of it, rather than the other way around?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Suppose Pipeman has just arrived and, due to the windy night he pauses to shelter in the alcove around the pub door to light his pipe. He hears a commotion in the direction of the yard and steps out to see a man standing over a woman shouting at another man headed south on the opposite corner to where he is standing. What is his assessment? It the man on the opposite side of the street escaping an assault on the woman, or is the man standing over her the culprit.

Or, he is JtR and avails himself of an opportunity.

Interesting possibilities. Here's some thoughts.

Given the shouting, would JtR have seen this as an opportunity? Unlikely.

If the man standing over the woman is still ill-using her, then he is obviously the culprit.

If he is not touching her, but is shouting at a man across the street, then he shouted more than just 'Lipski'. We don't have any evidence for that, so it will have to be supposed that this detail was not included in Swanson's report. However, would he be so offended by this incident that he would postpone enjoying his pipe, for the purpose of chasing a man who did something to a woman that he didn't even witness?

On the other hand, if it makes little sense for Pipeman to suppose Schwartz is the culprit, the problem we are now left with is, what caused Pipeman to run? Can we really suppose that two men ran off in fear, while the woman being assaulted was not even scared enough to raise her voice?

I don't believe the standard model of the incident can account for Pipeman running.

I don't think he is Parcel man, who is either in the toilet or in the club or in the printing office.

If he has gone into the club, why not take her with him? Women were allowed into the club. Philip Krantz did not report anyone coming into the Arbeter Fraint offices until he was alerted to the murder.

My theory is that immediately after he cuts her throat Parcelman returns and there is a chase through the streets. YMMV.

Schwartz said he was chased through the streets. Still confused, George.

[Darryl Kenyon]

It’s also worth pointing out that although he states that they couple were standing at ‘the corner of the Board School,’ there isn’t only one corner so why do we assume that it’s the one on the corner of Berner Street. It could have been ‘the corner of the Board School’ at the end of Batty Street.

Hi Herlock

In the JTR sourcebook Page 186, Brown in his testimony says - I heard the woman say " Not tonight, some other night " . In his summing up Baxter says, Page 195, They last saw her alive at the corner of Fairclough and Berner st saying " Not tonight but some other night ". It follows on that Baxter was talking about Browns testimony and not they, since he almost directly quotes him . So it is highly likely Brown did see a couple at the corner of the board school in Berner st. Brown also says " That made me turn around and I looked at them , I am certain the woman was the deceased " Page 186.

I see little to doubt Brown and that he very probably saw Liz

Regards Darryl

[Lewis C]

Brown said the woman he saw was almost certainly the deceased.

New Waterloo was talking about the couple that Fanny talked to, not the couple that Brown saw. He is right that the woman that Fanny talked to couldn't possibly have been Stride, because Fanny talked to her after Stride had been murdered.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Daily News, Oct 1st

A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound


Inquest:

James Brown: I live in Fairclough-street, and am a dock labourer. I have seen the body in the mortuary. I did not know deceased, but I saw her about a quarter to one on Sunday morning last.

The Coroner: Where were you? - 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.

…

So Brown saw this couple (one of whom he felt was Stride) at about 12.45 as he was returning from the Chandler’s Shop but they hadn’t been there a very few minutes earlier when he’d past that spot. If this couple was the same couple as Mortimer’s pair then clearly this couldn’t have been Stride. And again we can’t fail to notice that Brown is estimating his time.

It’s also worth pointing out that although he states that they couple were standing at ‘the corner of the Board School,’ there isn’t only one corner so why do we assume that it’s the one on the corner of Berner Street. It could have been ‘the corner of the Board School’ at the end of Batty Street.

Now, of course it will be said that Mortimer’s couple were, according to her, about 20 yards away at the corner of the street but what if they had told Fanny that they had been standing on the corner by the Board School (meaning at the end of Batty Street) but she had assumed that they had meant on the corner of Batty Street. Not exactly an unbelievable mistake.

So who could this couple have been? I agree with NW (who made this suggestion a while ago) that this couple might have been Spooner and his lady friend (how many couples were there standing around at that time?). They had been to a pub in Commercial Road but we don’t know where it was. I think it possible that they walked along Batty Street and arrived on the corner by the Board School after Brown had gone to the Chandler’s Shop. They stood chatting or kissing and where there Brown returned. After a while they walked up to The Beehive until Diemschitz and Kozebrodski passed.

When they later spoke to Fanny they were being truthful. They were on the corner since before the murder and had only moved a few yards by the time Diemschitz arrived. They assumed that an attack and murder must have been noisy so they expressed surprise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

PC Smith: It takes about 25 minutes to half an hour to go round the beat.

You implicitly have Smith arriving at the yard as early as 12:55, and no later than 1:00am. That would push the discovery back to no later than about 12:50, making a mess of your latest attempt at a timeline.

For a start, PC Smith wasn’t a train on a track. Are you claiming that he could never have taken 32 or 33 mins? So he could have passed at 12.33, his route on that particular circuit could have taken 32 mins having him back at 1.05.

Ive said numerous times that I don’t have a time fixation. We have to make allowances and yet the first criticism you make is always on times. These aren’t set in stone.

FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

Why can’t you let this go?

Does she refer to the couple you suppose left at around 12:31?

Can we stop re-quoting times? As long as one event can occur after the other then that’s all that we need.

The couple didn’t hear anything. There will be an explanation. Schwartz was there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The lack of witnesses to the 'Schwartz incident' would amount to no more than about half the issue with Schwartz's account. Of that half, the women in the kitchen would be of more relevance than Mortimer, and the couple at the corner are at least as relevant. They certainly seem to push the incident far enough back in time to make timelining the last half-hour, extra difficult. All other witnesses, both known and unknown, are also important. For example, Edward Spooner, who did not report seeing the chase down Fairclough St, mentioned by Woolf Wess. So, Fanny would amount to no more than about a quarter of a half of the total case against Schwartz. This one-eighth might be revised, dependent on assuming she is or is not the subject of the 3rd-person report, and the interviewed neighbour in the Evening News.

All the above is my opinion, of course. Others might suppose that Fanny Mortimer is of more relevance. If you have particular members in mind in claiming that Mortimer provides the bulk of the case against Schwartz, can I suggest that you quote one or more relevant posts, and we can take it from there ...

I used Fanny Mortimer because she gets quoted far more than any of those others that you mentioned.

Spooner did see the ‘chase.’ It was Diemschitz and Kozebrodski running for a Constable. Absolutely no doubt at all. And again, nothing that Wess said is of importance.

As for the couple Fanny allegedly spoke to. Who were they? Why is there no record of them? We can’t dispute or verify anything that someone else said that they might have said.

The woman in the kitchen were indoors with a door ajar. Probably all talking away with members singing upstairs whilst a woman makes three not very loud sounds out on the street.

No witness puts a proper dent on Schwartz testimony.