An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

It's almost as though Schwartz never even existed in the first place.

Swanson's mission on trying to push the killer having been a Jew by the assailant shouting "Lipski" outside a Jewish club, based on the belief that a gentile wouldn't have the balls to do so.

Imagine if an imaginary Schwartz and the GSG were both ruses to oust the real killer?

Or to put a Jewish killer into the spotlight, in a bid to cover for a deviant high-ranking copper with a penchant for carving up unfortunates?


Smoke and mirrors.


"Kosminski" was the suspect.


I call bull""""




RD

[The Rookie Detective]

The frustration of when you spend 45 minutes constructing a post that you feel is worthy of everyone reading...and then it somehow deletes as you try and post it.

If i had the money for a replacement, I would gladly smash my laptop to bits right now.

Livid

I hate tech more than I can put into words.

[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.