An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi George.

Hi Andrew,

I tend to agree with cd's later post in that a lot can be lost or mis-interpreted in translation. My interpretation is that when Schwartz turned into Berner St he noticed a man, who was perhaps a little tipsy, walking down the street in front of him. Due to the man's condition he may have gained on him, but I interpret what he said as when the man reached the gateway rather than when he (Schwartz) reached the gateway. A confrontation occurred between the man and a woman standing in the gateway. IMO, Stride was not thrown to the ground, but pulled away from the attempt to pull her into the street, overbalanced and fell. I see the "three screams that were not very loud" as a translation error for some protestation and I do not believe that Stride, at that stage felt herself in danger.

For me to agree or disagree with your interpretations, I'd need to have a better idea as to why you hold some of them. For example, the police summary states the man tried to pull the woman into the street. This implies he failed to do so - our Liz must have been deceptively strong. Only then does he turn her around and throw her down. By replacing this with her falling due to overbalancing when pulled, what problem are you trying to solve?

Regarding the three not very loud screams, well that is an oxymoron to some extent, so in this case it makes sense to suppose that the translation is not quite right. However, we have to accept that as those words appear in Swanson's report, Abberline likely accepted this description. It made sense to him.

I think that Schwartz was still some yards from the incident and, if he paused at all, it was only momentarily. IMO he then crossed diagonally and proceeded to walk southward on the eastern side of the road. The scale of the situation is deceptive. Having crossed the road diagonally he is only seconds, not minutes from the intersection. He notices Pipeman and a few seconds later, as he is about to step off the kerb in Fairclough St, turns to see the source of a further commotion at the yard. At this stage he and Pipeman are about equidistant from BSMan. There is a conflict here in reports of whether BSMan shouted "Lipski" at one or the other of the men at the intersection, or whether Pipeman shouted a warning to or at BSMan. At that stage Schwartz decided he had had enough of the situation and removed himself in an expeditious manner.

That's how I see it. YMMV.

Cheers, George

I think if Schwartz stopped momentarily - barely a pause - it would hardly be worth mentioning by him, let alone in a police memo. We tend to imagine this incident as being very short because the highly condensed police report makes it sound so, and timeline authors struggle to fit the incident in. However, the police report implies that Schwartz stopped to observe, and Abberline states this explicitly. The man initially talks to the woman and at some indeterminate point after that, he gets violent with her. One could ask, why did Schwartz stop to watch a man and woman speak - what's it to him? That is a question for another post, though. For now, I'll ask a similar question as the one above: Why not accept what the police are telling us about Schwartz stopping? What problem are you trying you trying to solve by replacing this with, at most, a momentary pause?

Regarding Schwartz's location when 'Lipski' is called out, you are right that a diagonal crossing from club to school side places Schwartz almost at the corner. He had been much closer to BS Man. For me, this begs the question - why not let him go? Why wait until Schwartz is walking away, to draw him into the situation that he is now paying much less attention to? Something is not right with this scenario.

[GBinOz]

Here's a thought experiment for people to contemplate. Reference below.

Schwartz made it clear he had reached the gateway when he stopped to watch the altercation in the gateway between the man and the woman. After the man throws the woman onto the footway, Schwartz crosses the street. I've always found this rather odd. If Schwartz had reached the level of the gateway after turning into the street on the club side, he would be mere feet away from the man and woman - essentially at reach out and touch distance. How could this level of proximity not invite drawing him into the fracas?

On crossing he sees Pipeman, who it seems is the intended recipient of the first man's call of 'Lipski'. At that point Schwartz walks away, presumably south as that is the direction of both 22 Ellen St, and the nearest railway arches. I've always found this crossing of the street rather odd, also. If Schwartz wants to proceed to 22 Ellen St, he should stay on the club side of Berner St. On the other hand, if he is going to an address in Berner St that his wife has not moved from in his absence (referring to the Star account), he should still stay on the club side as, South of Fairclough St, that is the side with all the residential addresses (e.g. William Marshall).

There is a way of 'getting around' both of these oddities. Suppose that, instead of turning into Berner St on the club side, so that Schwartz virtually comes face-to-face with the quarrelling couple, he actually turns in on the opposite side - the board school side - and observes the man and woman from across the street. Then, when the woman is thrown to ground, Schwartz crossed the road toward the gateway, not away from it. Presumably, Schwartz is intending to confront the man. Sensing this confrontation, the man calls 'Lipski' to his buddy, who then proceeds toward Schwartz with intent. At this point, Schwartz 'thinks twice' about proceeding with the confrontation, and walks away instead, but finding the second man continues to follow him, he begins to run.

So, in this scenario, Schwartz is not just a passive observer, he intentionally becomes involved. Note how this fits with the press account, in which he is described as an intruder:

... a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

No doubt this scenario will generate as many questions as it provides answers, but I think it's worth some thought.

---

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having 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 tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. 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 so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. [Here there is a marginal note. 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'.] Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

Hi Andrew,

I tend to agree with cd's later post in that a lot can be lost or mis-interpreted in translation. My interpretation is that when Schwartz turned into Berner St he noticed a man, who was perhaps a little tipsy, walking down the street in front of him. Due to the man's condition he may have gained on him, but I interpret what he said as when the man reached the gateway rather than when he (Schwartz) reached the gateway. A confrontation occurred between the man and a woman standing in the gateway. IMO, Stride was not thrown to the ground, but pulled away from the attempt to pull her into the street, overbalanced and fell. I see the "three screams that were not very loud" as a translation error for some protestation and I do not believe that Stride, at that stage felt herself in danger.

I think that Schwartz was still some yards from the incident and, if he paused at all, it was only momentarily. IMO he then crossed diagonally and proceeded to walk southward on the eastern side of the road. The scale of the situation is deceptive. Having crossed the road diagonally he is only seconds, not minutes from the intersection. He notices Pipeman and a few seconds later, as he is about to step off the kerb in Fairclough St, turns to see the source of a further commotion at the yard. At this stage he and Pipeman are about equidistant from BSMan. There is a conflict here in reports of whether BSMan shouted "Lipski" at one or the other of the men at the intersection, or whether Pipeman shouted a warning to or at BSMan. At that stage Schwartz decided he had had enough of the situation and removed himself in an expeditious manner.

That's how I see it. YMMV.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Once we read Abberline stating that Schwartz stopped, there is no leeway.

... I am of opinion it [Lipski] was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

Why hurl an insult after Schwartz crosses the street, going away from the gateway, after Schwartz had been at the gateway watching? It makes little sense. However, if he calls the insult when Schwartz approaches, it makes more sense, as does Abberline's reason for supposing it was called to Schwartz, and not Pipeman.

[c.d.]

Well Schwartz gave his statement through an interpreter. We don't know how proficient he was. Could Schwartz have said something like I was nearing or approaching the gateway or something along those lines? Seems like there is a lot of leeway there.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What is the exact wording of Schwartz's statement regarding his proximity to the gateway?

c.d.

Neither Schwartz's statement nor his inquest testimony survives, as you know. All we have is Swanson's report and later comments from Abberline.

... turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having 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.

Schwartz made it very clear, by placing himself level with the gateway, that he knows exactly where the incident occurred. Could Schwartz have observed the fracas from the same footway that Liz was thrown onto, or was he across the street at the time?

Think about this - the man ill-using the woman calls 'Lipski' just after Schwartz is crossing the road and sees the second man. Why bother with the intruding Jew, if he is walking away from the gateway? Is it because our supposedly timid and frightened witness is actually crossing toward the gateway, and thus the first man, and not away from him as has always been supposed?

[c.d.]

What is the exact wording of Schwartz's statement regarding his proximity to the gateway?

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

On the question of whether or not Schwartz stopped walking, even if we take Abberline's statement literally, he didn't say how long Schwartz stopped. If he stopped for 2 or 3 seconds, it wouldn't significantly affect the timeline anyway.

Blood has been removed from the stone.

I realise that the difficulty with this issue is that, for many of us, admitting that Schwartz stopped has the potential to wreak havoc with preferred timelines, and even threaten the viability of Schwartz's story. However, his stopping at the level of the gateway has other implications, unrelated to time. I discuss these in #203. I believe that post answers several questions about the incident. If anyone disagrees with those answers, please explain and perhaps offer alternatives.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I also find it bizarre that there's a seemingly random reference to Schwartz's evidence being heard at the inquest.
If it was, then he certainly didn't give it in person.

If' that's the case, then he must have seen the murderer and/or the murder, and was shielded by the police from attending the inquest in person.

"Must have been." Are you saying there could not be any other explanation, R.D.?

c.d.

The more fundamental question is, did Schwartz give evidence at the inquest?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The other scenario exists whereby Schwartz wasn't his name, and the police changed his name for fear of him being targeted by the killer.

Wouldn't it be weird if Goldstein was the man who actually saw the murder, but in a bid to protect him and oust the killer, the police then changed his name to Schwartz in a bid to make the killer believe that Goldstein hadn't actually seen him murder Stride.

How does that work, given the following?

The Star re Schwartz: He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them.

The name 'Israel Schwartz' wasn't publicly known, after the double event.

Or, perhaps Schwartz's witnessing of the attack on Stride was a deliberate ruse to oust the killer, by inventing an assault that never happened and thus lead the killer into a sense of false security.

So, why do we see doubts reported in the Star, Oct 2?

The assault was first mentioned in the press as an assault that was seen taking place, but was left alone as the witness thought it was a domestic between a couple. Zero mention of Schwartz.

Right, so why the need for a name change?

But what if Goldstein informed the police that he saw the killer, but was fearful of his brethren targeting him. He then goes to the police under duress with Wess, who ensures that Goldstein doesn't say too much.

But unbeknown to Wess, Goldstein has already been to the police prior to this; to state he saw the killer.

The police then need to protect their asset by inventing a new "witness" who had come forward to say he saw an assault.

This then gives Goldstein some indirect protection against retaliation from the club, because as far as Wess knows, Goldstein only tells the police what he tells them in Wess's presence.

As an informant, the police are protecting Goldstein because Wess and Co now think that a man called Schwartz saw an assault on the victim.
When in reality, Goldstein saw the whole thing, and could identify none other than club member Kozebrodski as the killer.

"Kosebrodski was the suspect"


Can you imagine...

I can imagine that if this were true, it would be reflected in Swanson's report, which it isn't.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Who? We don’t know who she was.

If not, it was the couple referred to in #174. Take your pick and adjust your timeline accordingly. Brown did not see a man being pursued at 12:45, or a man standing at the door of the Nelson, and Eagle did not see a woman standing in the gateway at 12:40. By the time Brown exits the chandler's shop, the couple are there and claim to have heard no unusual noises.

I'm sure you can make it work.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the question of whether or not Schwartz stopped walking, even if we take Abberline's statement literally, he didn't say how long Schwartz stopped. If he stopped for 2 or 3 seconds, it wouldn't significantly affect the timeline anyway.

Good point Lewis. It could have been a second. If someone is walking away and they turn to look back at something behind them they might halt for a second rather than carry on walking without looking where they’re going. Or they might just slow down a little which imo is more likely.

[Lewis C]

On the question of whether or not Schwartz stopped walking, even if we take Abberline's statement literally, he didn't say how long Schwartz stopped. If he stopped for 2 or 3 seconds, it wouldn't significantly affect the timeline anyway.

[c.d.]

So are you saying there could be no other possible explanation or are you saying you believe your explanation best fits the evidence? There is a big difference between the two. That is my point.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

I also find it bizarre that there's a seemingly random reference to Schwartz's evidence being heard at the inquest.
If it was, then he certainly didn't give it in person.

If' that's the case, then he must have seen the murderer and/or the murder, and was shielded by the police from attending the inquest in person.

"Must have been." Are you saying there could not be any other explanation, R.D.?

c.d.

If the police stated his evidence was heard at the inquest, but there's no record of him attending, then there is a conflict there that needs explaining.

He either didn't attend; meaning his evidence wasn't heard in 1st person
Or he did attend and gave evidence.

There's no evidence of the latter.

And so if he didn't attend the inquest, but the police stated his evidence was heard there; then we have a puzzle to unravel there.

Either someone else (the police) told the inquest of a man who witnessed an assault but thought it was a domestic, or his evidence wasn't heard at all.

If it wasn't heard, then it doesn't explain why it wasn't considering what Schwartz claimed he saw.

In other words, he should have been the key witness.

So either his evidence amounted to nothing and wasn't considered relevant to the official inquest into her death, or the police needed to shield him from attending in person.

He was either important, or he wasn't.

If he was important then there's no reason why he couldn't attend IF the police were correct in stating that his evidence WAS heard at the inquest.

So either the police were lying about his evidence being heard at the inquest, or they were telling the truth, but needed to keep Schwartz from physically attending in person.

Hope that explains the reasoning to my point.

[c.d.]

I also find it bizarre that there's a seemingly random reference to Schwartz's evidence being heard at the inquest.
If it was, then he certainly didn't give it in person.

If' that's the case, then he must have seen the murderer and/or the murder, and was shielded by the police from attending the inquest in person.

"Must have been." Are you saying there could not be any other explanation, R.D.?

c.d.

Edit - make that "Must have seen."

c.d.