An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[c.d.]

I agree that if the Schwartz incident really happened (and I think it did), then Fanny must have not been at her door at that time.

I think that is the case. The Schwartz/BS man incident must have been very short lived and I keep going back to the fact that Fanny had a sick husband and five children. Had she been inside tending to one of them she could very well have missed it.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

Hello Lewis C. I agree that Schwartz and Goldstein are not the same person. It is true that Schwartz reported seeing an incident. As a witness he has interpreted what he saw in his mind. But there is no reason to suggest he didnt see something.

i have suggested along with others that the distance of Mortimers house to the yard is short. Her house and consequently her viewing point lays level with the club and yard. I am not great at maths but what i am saying is that if she looks out of her window or out of her open front door without protruding her body or head it would be difficult if not impossible to see anything close to or in the yard entrance.

The entire Shwartz incident probably took seconds. If she was indoors for a short period and then went to the door or window and opened them and looked out the angle would allow her to see the other side of the street and to a point in the road or pavement in front of the yard but to see activity at the club yard entrance she would have to step well out of the house.

I may be speaking a load of rubbish (I am sure many are shouting yes)

but maybe its a suggestion as to how the Schwartz incident could have occurred without Mortimer seeing it.

NW

Hi New Waterloo,

I agree that if the Schwartz incident really happened (and I think it did), then Fanny must have not been at her door at that time. What I was getting at was that Fanny saw Goldstein, but she didn't see the Schwartz incident. Therefore, either Goldstein and Schwartz are 2 different people (by far the more likely scenario), or the Schwartz incident didn't happen.

Jeff gave a very good reason why Schwartz and Goldstein must have been 2 different people, good enough that in my mind, the matter is settled.

I have also raised doubt in the past about where exactly Fanny was when she was at her door. It seems to be generally believed that she was outside, but I'm not so sure. She went to the door for the purpose of closing it, and one doesn't need to go outside to close one's door. It's a question of some importance, because her range of vision would have been wider if she was outside than if she was inside, so if she was inside, it might explain some of the things that she didn't see.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that too much weight is given to quoted times. We have had timeline’s from Jeff, George, FrankO, Dusty and myself and they all work with the Schwartz incident and Mortimer (naturally they are all fairly similar). Things only get difficult if we begin narrowing down times until they are set in stone. I can’t recall who first made the suggestion (I think that it was either George, FrankO or Jeff) but the best way of viewing events in Berner Street is to do it without times simply because they just can’t be relied on. Plot the events…then add approximate times.

I really don’t think that anyone lied RD. Fanny was simply indoors when the incident occurred. It was short and not very loud. There’s no need for ‘faith’ in Schwartz anymore than we need faith in Morris Eagle or Joseph Lawende or Albert Cadosch. What we would need was evidence that he wasn’t there - which we don’t have, and a reason for him to have lied - which we don’t have. I just don’t see anything mysterious in someone not seeing or hearing something.

For me the only questions are…

1. Did BS man kill Stride?

2. Did someone kill her just after the incident?

3. Was the person that killed her Jack the Ripper.


I tend to favour

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. No.

But I wouldn’t bet much money on being right though.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi NW,

We know that Fanny Mortimer wasn’t on her doorstep all of the time because she didn’t see Parcelman and friend, PC Smith, Morris Eagle or Joseph Lave but we have no way of tying down what time she was or wasn’t on her doorstep as all of the approximated times have to have a + or - allowed. All that we know is that she spent some time indoors and that she didn’t see or hear the incident. Some would prefer us believe that this meant that Schwartz lied and placed himself at the seen of a knife murder with no one else around to confirm that he himself hadn’t killed Stride. So the far likelier explanation is that Fanny was indoors when the incident took place. As you rightly point out, this incident would have been of only a few seconds duration, and Schwartz said that the woman cried out but not very loudly. So there really isn’t a problem. Fanny was indoors. No doubt with the windows closed. She may even have been in the rear part of the house.

Except, that's not what Mortimer says.

We know that she couldnt have been at her door when...
Lave
Eagle
Pc Smith
Parcelman
Bs man
Pipeman
Schwartz or
Stride

....were in the street,, because she would have seen at least 1 of them.

However, she states she was at her door for nearly the whole time, ergo, between 12.30am to 1am

But that can't be true.

Based on all the above individuals, the only times Mortimer could have been at her door was...

12.41-12.44am

and/or

12.46am-12.58am

That's a maximum of just 15 minutes out of 30.

That's therefore only half the time between 12.30am - 1am.

So did Mortimer lie, was she mistaken, or did she embellish her statement when she claimed to have been standing by her door nearly the whole time?

Well..we know that Mortimer WAS at her door at some point, because she DID see a man with a black bag.

Her evidence is then proven correct, because Goldstein goes to the police to say that he was the man seen with the black bag.

The question therefore is; if Mortimer told the truth about seeing a man with a black bag, then when did she observe him?

Well, based on the times above, Goldstein could have only been passing at either...

12.41-12.44am or 12.46am-12.58am

in other words, Mortimer's evidence proves that Goldstein could NOT have been Schwartz.... because if she saw Schwartz, she would have seen Bs Man also, and possibly Pipeman.


We also have the witness Brown...who passes by the end of the street after having come out of the shop and who witnesses a couple on the corner of the board school around 12.45am.

But his timing must be wrong, because at the same time Schwartz, Pipeman and Bs man would have been visible to Brown as he passed.

So we have Mortimer exaggerating her time spent at her door and we have Brown also getting his times wrong because he doesn't see or hear Schwartz, Bs man, Pipeman, or any shout of LIPSKI etc...


Brown also doesn't see Schwartz running away from the scene or Pipe man following him.


So it seems that both Brown and Mortimer were both incorrect about their timings.

That leaves the Schwartz incident to occur at around 12.45am like he stated through an interpreter.


Now...

all of this seems rather convoluted; to the point where it could be said, that something doesn't feel right.


However... how peculiar is it, that when we omit Schwartz's statement, we then lose Bs man, Pipeman, the shout of Lipski, and the entire assault that was alleged to have taken place at the same time that Mortimer claims she was at her door (nearly the whole time between 12.30am-1am) and the time that Brown passes the end of the street and sees the couple on the corner of the board school.

If we then look again at the list of names above... Mortimer could have been at her door anytime between 12.41am - 12.58am.

That's now 17 minutes out of 30.

That's only 2 more minutes, but it covers the time through 12.45am when the Schwartz incident should have occurred.

Mortimer's statement proves that Goldstein and Schwartz could not have been the same man.

But it also clashes directly with Schwartz's account based on the respective timings.

Mortimer- sees or hears nothing except for Goldstein

Lave - sees or hears nothing suspicious

Eagle - sees or heard nothing suspicious BUT there were others in the street as he approaches the club.

Brown- sees the couple on the corner

At least 2 people sitting inside the kitchen by the open window of the club- hear nothing





Schwartz - witnesses and assault at the same time BOTH Brown and Mortimer should have at least heard the assault and/or the SHOUT of "LIPSKI!"

Schwartz also brings both Bs man and Pipeman to the party.

And yet nobody else either SEES or HEARS Bs man or Pipeman.

In fact, not one single word that Schwartz says occurred, can be corroborated by any of the other people in and around the yard at or near the time the assault was said to have taken place.

Nobody saw or heard Schwartz running away either.


But still...Schwartz's statement always takes precedence over any of the other witnesses that were there that night.

Always at the expense of Mortimer and Brown.

And always at the expense of everyone who stated they heard or saw nothing suspicious that night.

The faith in Schwartz has always baffled me.

And just because he didn't speak English at the police station, doesn't mean he COULDNT speak English.

Fascinating

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Lewis C. I agree that Schwartz and Goldstein are not the same person. It is true that Schwartz reported seeing an incident. As a witness he has interpreted what he saw in his mind. But there is no reason to suggest he didnt see something.

i have suggested along with others that the distance of Mortimers house to the yard is short. Her house and consequently her viewing point lays level with the club and yard. I am not great at maths but what i am saying is that if she looks out of her window or out of her open front door without protruding her body or head it would be difficult if not impossible to see anything close to or in the yard entrance.

The entire Shwartz incident probably took seconds. If she was indoors for a short period and then went to the door or window and opened them and looked out the angle would allow her to see the other side of the street and to a point in the road or pavement in front of the yard but to see activity at the club yard entrance she would have to step well out of the house.

I may be speaking a load of rubbish (I am sure many are shouting yes)

but maybe its a suggestion as to how the Schwartz incident could have occurred without Mortimer seeing it.

NW

Hi NW,

We know that Fanny Mortimer wasn’t on her doorstep all of the time because she didn’t see Parcelman and friend, PC Smith, Morris Eagle or Joseph Lave but we have no way of tying down what time she was or wasn’t on her doorstep as all of the approximated times have to have a + or - allowed. All that we know is that she spent some time indoors and that she didn’t see or hear the incident. Some would prefer us believe that this meant that Schwartz lied and placed himself at the seen of a knife murder with no one else around to confirm that he himself hadn’t killed Stride. So the far likelier explanation is that Fanny was indoors when the incident took place. As you rightly point out, this incident would have been of only a few seconds duration, and Schwartz said that the woman cried out but not very loudly. So there really isn’t a problem. Fanny was indoors. No doubt with the windows closed. She may even have been in the rear part of the house.

[JeffHamm]

Goldstein is reported (Llyods I think) as going to the Lemon Street police station to identify himself as the man seen by Mortimer on the day after the murder. In the Star, Schwartz is found after he went to the same police station to give his statement with the aid of an interpreter.

It is beyond belief that the same person would go to the same police station wanting to make a statement while pretending to be two different people, one of whom claims not to speak English. The probability of being recognized would be of such concern that to even contemplate such a rise would lead one to go to different police stations at the very least.

Moreover, by giving two statements covering the same time (both men say they were in Berner' about 12:45) further puts him at risk of falling under investigation, especially if his ruse were to become known.

I can see no reason to entertain the suggestion that Schwartz and Goldstein were the same person.

- Jeff

[New Waterloo]

Just had another thought. It an experiment we can all try if we live in a row of houses or can use a friends. Stand at the front room window or door without going out and see what your view is of the house/property 3 doors along. The more you walk outside the more view you get. I think.

[New Waterloo]

Hello Lewis C. I agree that Schwartz and Goldstein are not the same person. It is true that Schwartz reported seeing an incident. As a witness he has interpreted what he saw in his mind. But there is no reason to suggest he didnt see something.

i have suggested along with others that the distance of Mortimers house to the yard is short. Her house and consequently her viewing point lays level with the club and yard. I am not great at maths but what i am saying is that if she looks out of her window or out of her open front door without protruding her body or head it would be difficult if not impossible to see anything close to or in the yard entrance.

The entire Shwartz incident probably took seconds. If she was indoors for a short period and then went to the door or window and opened them and looked out the angle would allow her to see the other side of the street and to a point in the road or pavement in front of the yard but to see activity at the club yard entrance she would have to step well out of the house.

I may be speaking a load of rubbish (I am sure many are shouting yes)

but maybe its a suggestion as to how the Schwartz incident could have occurred without Mortimer seeing it.

NW

[Lewis C]

I don't think that Schwartz and Goldstein were the same man, but I believe it's the case that the only way that there's even an outside chance of that would be if Schwartz' story about BS man and Pipeman is a fabrication. Otherwise, Mortimer would have been aware of the Schwartz incident, wouldn't she?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wess told the reporter that the man being chased was believed to be the murderer. Did Schwartz or a mutual acquaintance tell Wess that he/Schwartz was the murderer?

Also, by suggesting a connection between Schwartz and Wess, and therefore the club, you have opened a Pandora's Box. This is what happens when theories are put forward to explain away anomalies - they end up creating bigger questions that the answers they supposedly provide.



Wess said the chasing man was not a member of the club. Kozebrodski was a member, as was Diemschitz. There is no evidence of this running ahead during the police chase. Repeating this made-up bit of evidence doesn't make it evidence.

The theory that Wess or someone talking to Wess got all confused, and Wess ended up telling a story to a journalist that by sheer coincidence sounded just like Schwartz running from a man at ~12:45, is curious, given that you've just said that Schwartz may have spoken directly to Wess about the incident on the street!



A Home Office marginal note on Swanson's Oct 19 report, includes the following.

The police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

The man was never identified but was not a suspect. It's likely that the inability to identify Pipeman was a reason for the eventual loss of interest in Schwartz's tale.

I’ve neither suggested or implied any ‘connection’ between Wess and Schwartz. Wess makes no mention of the Schwartz incident. He mentions someone being chased, someone that he described as “a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer.” So basically he’s saying that someone was chased up Fairclough Street and some people think that this might have been the murderer being chased.

The fact that Wess talks about people running up Fairclough Street at just the time that Diemschitz and Kozebrodski were doing exactly that, whilst shouting ‘murder’ stretches coincidence way past breaking point. Clearly there was confusion about Diemschitz and Kozebrodski running for a Constable.

This part is another confusion “The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.” I tend to think that this unnamed man was Edward Spooner. I reckon that Wess was told by one of the members that a man called Spooner had returned with Diemschitz. Wess, when asked later, couldn’t recall his name but he knew that he wasn’t a club member.

We know that Schwartz fled the scene well before Diemschitz returned. You are trying to create a mystery where none exists. Nothing mysterious occurred in Berner Street. There isn’t a single incident or event that can’t be explained. Berner Street is being turned into Dealey Plaza. It’s wearing thin.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz tells someone about what he’d seen either directly to Wess or via a third person.

Wess told the reporter that the man being chased was believed to be the murderer. Did Schwartz or a mutual acquaintance tell Wess that he/Schwartz was the murderer?

Also, by suggesting a connection between Schwartz and Wess, and therefore the club, you have opened a Pandora's Box. This is what happens when theories are put forward to explain away anomalies - they end up creating bigger questions that the answers they supposedly provide.

Someone tells Wess about seeing the men (Diemschitz and Kozebrodski) going for a Constable and yelling ‘murder.’ They mistake two men running for a Constable for one man chasing the murderer. This makes sense if Kozebrodski was up ahead with the guy that found the body running behind him.

Wess said the chasing man was not a member of the club. Kozebrodski was a member, as was Diemschitz. There is no evidence of this running ahead during the police chase. Repeating this made-up bit of evidence doesn't make it evidence.

The theory that Wess or someone talking to Wess got all confused, and Wess ended up telling a story to a journalist that by sheer coincidence sounded just like Schwartz running from a man at ~12:45, is curious, given that you've just said that Schwartz may have spoken directly to Wess about the incident on the street!

The police did arrest people. How do you know that they hadn’t located and questioned Pipeman?

A Home Office marginal note on Swanson's Oct 19 report, includes the following.

The police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

The man was never identified but was not a suspect. It's likely that the inability to identify Pipeman was a reason for the eventual loss of interest in Schwartz's tale.

[New Waterloo]

Hello Kattrup. No I can assure you I am not being sarcastic that would be inappropriate and no me at all. I apologise if my comments come across that way.

Perhaps puzzle is the wrong word but I would imagine that it is somewhat of a coincidence that Schwartz and Goldstein follow the same route at roughly the same time, both looking towards the club and both walking very fast as the walk by.

At the moment I am suggesting that there is no reason to suspect these are the same person. The evidence points as you say that they are two different people.

My point in a nutshell is that the only piece of evidence that separates Schwartz from Goldstein is that Goldstein was carrying a black bag.

My point is yes the evidence points to them being two separate people but we do not know if Schwartz was carrying a bag (as was Goldstein) and was the person Mortimer saw Goldstein or Schwartz.

If the man was Goldstein then where is Schwartz, if the man was Schwartz where is Goldstein. I think thats a reasonable question to ask.

I realise I am pushing at this a bit but don't mean to be opinionated just looking at what we have got. Mortimer only saw the one ‘walking man’

NW

[Kattrup]

just trying to solve this really difficult puzzle re Schwarz and Goldstein
NW

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic because there really is no puzzle at all, let alone a really difficult one.
Schwartz and Goldstein are two completely different people. There’s nothing to indicate otherwise.
A lack of information (i.e. not having a certain id of either later on) is not an admissible basis for a theory.

[New Waterloo]

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

[New Waterloo]

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.

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

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.

sorry if I