An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[Abby Normal]

Another thread plummeting unavoidably into a conspiracy rabbit hole. Why do we bother? Some people are allergic to reason.

Schwartz walked along Berner Street an unknown distance behind BS man but on the same side of the road.

BS man stops to talk to the women. Some form of ‘disagreement begins.’

Schwartz sees this from a distance behind BS man (he didn’t collide with BS man as some are suggesting)

Schwartz crossed the road to avoid getting involved.

As he continues to walk south on the opposite side he a) sees Pipeman, and b) he hears BS man call “Lipski.”

He leaves the scene.

That is what happened.

Let’s stop wasting time with nonsense, inventions and subterfuge.

exactly herlock. couldnt agree more!

[Herlock Sholmes]

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=1568361547b35126&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&sxsrf=AHTn8zptzUohSVAW9nuse85n9nVvrrMVog:1745250754064&q=a+shop+doorway&udm=2&fbs=ABzOT_BF2BQKolEz0Jz2KKb_4ZjDW6GeweRMv5cKJmH4v19471OpJRur1e2Yx3AmQWD61915T1iwtN3RsOGFxDTGiQLBStCUm6VTk6H_7mhCdBfFw8asTaKtuuT27ARODFgq8ZdqpmTNTUstu-dBtMz_sOaQ85Bnv0B0ahVVK1VQ44OffuIERi6SjnBfaAoEeBgRv2nk-l0aib5Wrv77rR2K9Q_aAtq06K47A61H0h5GKtFmJFVwsDc&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixw_XZvemMAxXXUkEAHbITH1YQtKgLegQIFBAB&biw=1024&bih=1242&dpr=2#vhid=WBEMXA8I7_-1uM&vssid=mosaic

On the subject of the word ‘gateway.’ This is a shop ‘doorway.’ If someone was said to have been ‘standing in the doorway’ would anyone take this to mean that they had to have been standing right up against the door? Or could they have been standing on that white part of the step looking out. I’d suggest that would be ‘in the doorway’ too. Just as ‘in the gateway’ didn’t have to mean up against the actual gates.

Also, if she was waiting there for someone (unless she was just standing there for absolutely no reason [except perhaps for soliciting]) why would she have gone back into the entrance out of sight and where she couldn’t look up and down the street to see if the person that she was waiting for was coming.

The answer is that we don’t know if Schwartz saw the woman slightly before the incident but it’s possible. Maybe it was physically possible to have seen her but he hadn’t noticed her until BS man stopped to talk to her? Either way, absolutely nothing about the evidence indicates that Schwartz was virtually on top of BS man when he crossed the road. Indeed The Star reported that he was a distance in front of Schwartz and it’s unsurprising that Swanson didn’t mention this unimportant detail. So clearly there was a gap between them when Schwartz crossed the road.

[The Rookie Detective]

Another thread plummeting unavoidably into a conspiracy rabbit hole. Why do we bother? Some people are allergic to reason.

Schwartz walked along Berner Street an unknown distance behind BS man but on the same side of the road.

BS man stops to talk to the women. Some form of ‘disagreement begins.’

Schwartz sees this from a distance behind BS man (he didn’t collide with BS man as some are suggesting)

Schwartz crossed the road to avoid getting involved.

As he continues to walk south on the opposite side he a) sees Pipeman, and b) he hears BS man call “Lipski.”

He leaves the scene.

That is what happened.

Let’s stop wasting time with nonsense, inventions and subterfuge.

Respectfully, this is sometimes the response and tone taken when someone really doesn't like being disagreed with and feels the need to retain control by dismissing others views as stupid.

I've never been one for conformity though and I've felt compelled to ask questions regardless of how stupid, silly or pathetic they may sound.

I have always adhered to the belief that we should...

Accept nothing
Believe nobody
Challenge everything

The truth is that nobody knows what really happened throughout the series of murders; because we weren't there.

I will only add that when a statement says that the witness reached as far "as the gateway" before he sees an assault takes place; I would assume that logic and common sense would mean that the witness meant what he said and had got as far "as the gateway."

But based on your views on Schwartz, you clearly don't believe Schwartz got as far as the gateway. That is despite the official police statement; endorsed by Swanson and Abberline, saying that he did reach the gateway.

Quite literally.

And yet by me referring to & taking words directly from the actual police statement that underpins Schwartz's entire validity as a witness, it's somehow seen as irritating and my views on this are seen as both stupid and a waste of time.

I can appreciate we have different views & opinions on this. I would only have hoped for the same mutual reciprocative humility.

But maybe my views on this topic are wrong and I have no idea what the hell i am talking about.

If that really is the case, then I can only apologise for wasting everyone's time.
I can see that it is futile to try and navigate through the unwavering beliefs that some choose to take.

I really don't have the energy or will to do this anymore.

Regards to all


RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

One factor we should consider is the noise levels.

[Coroner] Was there much noise in the club? - [William Wess] Not exactly much noise; but I could hear the singing when I was in the yard.

[Coroner] If there was dancing and singing in the club you would not hear the cry of a woman in the yard? - [Morris Eagle] It would depend upon the cry.

[Coroner] Supposing a woman had screamed, would you have heard it? - [Phillip Krantz] They were singing in the club, so I might not have heard. When I heard the alarm I went out and saw the deceased, but did not observe any stranger there.

That's significantly more background noise than for the other murders.

Wess wasn't at the club at the time of the murder, Eagle was upstairs, and Krantz was down the back in the offices. Not the most relevant witnesses regarding noise, which were the women in the kitchen, behind a partially open door. Their comments to the press have been quoted here many times.

For me, the strongest point in favor of Schwartz' account is it makes Schwartz' look bad. At a minimum, he saw a woman being assaulted and not only did not help, he ran away.

The logical flaw in this argument should be obvious, but apparently it isn't. Saying "he saw a woman being assaulted" assumes the truth of Schwartz's story. The assault was not independently verified. No one heard or saw anything to back up this claim. Nothing about the state of the victim in the passageway, or in the medical examinations, hints at the assault described Schwartz. So, saying Schwartz's story must be true because of how he behaved, is faulty logic because it is only due to Schwartz that we suppose this assault actually occurred.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Respectfully, this is sometimes the response and tone taken when someone really doesn't like being disagreed with and feels the need to retain control by dismissing others views as stupid.

Agreed. The problem is that Herlock sees himself as a sort of guardian of the truth. That being his truth.

I've never been one for conformity though and I've felt compelled to ask questions regardless of how stupid, silly or pathetic they may sound.

I have always adhered to the belief that we should...

Accept nothing
Believe nobody
Challenge everything

The truth is that nobody knows what really happened throughout the series of murders; because we weren't there.

A commendable attitude.

I will only add that when a statement says that the witness reached as far "as the gateway" before he sees an assault takes place; I would assume that logic and common sense would mean that the witness meant what he said and had got as far "as the gateway."

But based on your views on Schwartz, you clearly don't believe Schwartz got as far as the gateway. That is despite the official police statement; endorsed by Swanson and Abberline, saying that he did reach the gateway.

Quite literally.

And yet by me referring to & taking words directly from the actual police statement that underpins Schwartz's entire validity as a witness, it's somehow seen as irritating and my views on this are seen as both stupid and a waste of time.

It's astonishing that an unambiguous phrase in an important report authored by the senior investigator of the case, has, by being taken literally, resulted in so much derision. It's not as though, by doing so, Schwartz is being dismissed as an unreliable witness. Rather it's about what exactly did occur, as best we can tell. Yet even that is too much for some to deal with.

I can appreciate we have different views & opinions on this. I would only have hoped for the same mutual reciprocative humility.

But maybe my views on this topic are wrong and I have no idea what the hell i am talking about.

If that really is the case, then I can only apologise for wasting everyone's time.
I can see that it is futile to try and navigate through the unwavering beliefs that some choose to take.

I really don't have the energy or will to do this anymore.

Regards to all


RD

Your views are appreciated by myself, and I'm sure others too.

It's unfortunate but I think you would have enjoyed this forum more in years gone by. If you look at old threads, you can see there were more people posting and sharing a wider range of views. It would have impossible years ago for one member to dismiss so many others as posting rubbish. This forum is not what it was.

[New Waterloo]

I don't think its that important in the case of the witness shwartz to determine exactly where he was in relation to the disturbance. Because there appears no doubt he saw the disturbance between Stride and BSM. He clearly wouldnt have wanted to get too close to the pushing and shoving so crossed the road. I think there is some strength to looking at angles as far as mortimer goes as clearly and without doubt if she wad INSIDE her house at the time of the BSM/Stride incident she wouldnt be able to see it.

The reports do open up the possibility (some distance ahead) of BSM entering Berner Street from Sanders Street just before Schwartz turns into Berner Street from Commercial Road. Possible even entering through Battys gardens but that is a bit far off in the dark (view wise)

Clearly Schwarz reports the disturbance but when they speak to the arrested persons? Its too confused. Perhaps has just misinterpreted what he sees. But in his mind he reports what he think happened.

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

Respectfully, this is sometimes the response and tone taken when someone really doesn't like being disagreed with and feels the need to retain control by dismissing others views as stupid.

I've never been one for conformity though and I've felt compelled to ask questions regardless of how stupid, silly or pathetic they may sound.

I have always adhered to the belief that we should...

Accept nothing
Believe nobody
Challenge everything

The truth is that nobody knows what really happened throughout the series of murders; because we weren't there.

I will only add that when a statement says that the witness reached as far "as the gateway" before he sees an assault takes place; I would assume that logic and common sense would mean that the witness meant what he said and had got as far "as the gateway."

But based on your views on Schwartz, you clearly don't believe Schwartz got as far as the gateway. That is despite the official police statement; endorsed by Swanson and Abberline, saying that he did reach the gateway.

Quite literally.

And yet by me referring to & taking words directly from the actual police statement that underpins Schwartz's entire validity as a witness, it's somehow seen as irritating and my views on this are seen as both stupid and a waste of time.

I can appreciate we have different views & opinions on this. I would only have hoped for the same mutual reciprocative humility.

But maybe my views on this topic are wrong and I have no idea what the hell i am talking about.

If that really is the case, then I can only apologise for wasting everyone's time.
I can see that it is futile to try and navigate through the unwavering beliefs that some choose to take.

I really don't have the energy or will to do this anymore.

Regards to all


RD

Let me be clear RD. When I said “ Let’s stop wasting time with nonsense, inventions and subterfuge” I said it because for years we have had the same debate, usually centred around Michael Richards theory that Schwartz was basically acting on orders of the club to give the police the impression that the killer was a gentile and therefore not a club member because the police might have closed down the club if a murder had been committed on its premises. Whilst I’m not saying that Andrew (or yourself for that matter) supports this theory we are still getting this idea that Schwartz was lying and it appears that every means is being used to propagate this. If I came across as irritable or intolerant then I apologise but after a while it can feel like I’m in a world where some people are trying to inject their own narrative just for the sake of it. Your posts certainly aren’t stupid or a waste of time.

I get accused of many things but one is that I’m some kind of ‘guardian of an official version.’ This is untrue. I just think that we need strong evidence to justify a suggestion that a witness was lying or that the version of events that we have is wrong. If there is a reasonable chance that they could be wrong it should be said openly and discussed openly but I think that we often get two things happening - we get some people coming up with a theory (or a suspect) then they feel the need to defend it at all costs, also, to me, it appears that some people think that because some version has become ‘established’ then it’s time that this was changed, so they invent a scenario and argue strongly that this knew scenario must be the case. I’m for caution..nothing more. I think that on the majority of occasions witness tell the truth as they see it and I think that people usually do or say things for a reason. I think that we have to make allowances for poorly synchronised timings, poor estimates of periods of time etc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed. The problem is that Herlock sees himself as a sort of guardian of the truth. That being his truth.

This is untrue. All that I’m doing is trying to warn against people flying off into flights of fantasy. Like someone suggesting that Mr Richardson might have been running a brother from her cellar in 29 Hanbury Street. And yet I get criticised for that. Why is caution such a dreaded word?

A commendable attitude.

True

It's astonishing that an unambiguous phrase in an important report authored by the senior investigator of the case, has, by being taken literally, resulted in so much derision. It's not as though, by doing so, Schwartz is being dismissed as an unreliable witness. Rather it's about what exactly did occur, as best we can tell. Yet even that is too much for some to deal with.

But you are arguing for something that you cannot prove and the evidence points away from it. So why go on about it?

Your views are appreciated by myself, and I'm sure others too.

Myself too.

It's unfortunate but I think you would have enjoyed this forum more in years gone by. If you look at old threads, you can see there were more people posting and sharing a wider range of views. It would have impossible years ago for one member to dismiss so many others as posting rubbish. This forum is not what it was.

Of course there were more. And those topics have largely been exhausted. It’s very easy for you to make me the bad guy here Andrew perhaps you should look at your own contribution’s. Have you ever for once considered that I might be correct on anything? Have you noticed that I’m not universally disagreed with on this topic? So…maybe I’m right. Who would have thought it? You accused me of having set ideas that I defend but I have to ask this question - why do you only really ever post on the subject of Berner Street? A bit of an obsession maybe?

[Herlock Sholmes]

On this particular issue we basically have four questions.

1. How far behind BS man was Israel Schwartz as he walked along Berner Street.
2. Where was Schwartz when the incident began.
3. Where was the woman standing.
4. Where was Schwartz, in relation to BS man, when he crossed the road.

We have two sources of information.

1. A general synopsis events from Donald Swanson.
2. An article in The Star.

So…

1. We have absolutely no way of putting a figure on this distance between the two men. Swanson makes no mention of it so he is of no help. The Star, however, does say: “As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.” Now, we can all agree that newspapers aren’t always the most reliably accurate sources of information but we can ask why they would simply invent this part? It doesn’t add any drama or insert anything that might add sensation to sell papers and it can’t be used as a chance of making the Police look bad. So there has to be a very reasonable chance that this part is correct and that there was a ‘some distance’ between them. Added to this we might ask ourselves if we often see two people, who don’t know each, walking down a deserted street but directly behind each other. If we saw that I’d suggest that it would look slightly strange. Therefore I believe that it’s very likely that there was a fair distance between the two men. How far? I don’t know. But it could have been ten or twenty or thirty yards.

2. In both Swanson’s synopsis and The Star we can see no reason to assume any notable gap of time between BS man stopping to talk to the woman and him putting his hand on her shoulder to pull/push her (according to which ever version we read) So if, as seems likely, there was a fair sized gap between the two men, and the actual incident began (as it appeared to) pretty much as soon as BS man spoke to the woman then it’s reasonable to assume that Schwartz couldn’t have walked far in a two or three seconds. So he could easily still have been twenty yards, or ten yards or even five yards behind him. We have zero reason to suspect that that either a) BS man and the woman chatted for a few seconds and then the ‘incident’ only occurred when Schwartz was adjacent to them, or b) or that Schwartz didn’t bother about the incident that was occurring up ahead until he’d walked to a position right next to them. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume, and is far more like to a point of close to certainty, that Schwartz was at least a few feet, maybe a few yards, back from BS man when the incident began.



3. The woman was said to have been standing in the gateway but was she standing back inside the passage next to the actual gate. Clearly not when BS man spoke to her or Schwartz wouldn’t have been able to see her. Also, if she was waiting for someone why would she stand back into the passageway where she wouldn’t have been able to see up and down the street? I’d suggest that it would make far more sense if we accept that ‘gateway’ as a figure of speech can be taken to mean the gap between the two buildings. And let’s not forget that it was Swanson who used the word ‘gateway.’ I’m unsure but had he ever visited Berner Street? Did he know that the gate sat back. So could she have been further out? According to The Star she stood at:” …the entrance to the alley way.” Just as I suggest as the likeliest location.




4. Schwartz crossed the road while there was still some distance between them. It might not have been much, but there would have been a distance.


Why is this an issue?

[Fiver]

Leon Goldstein is an interesting character and I have noticed there are some strange coincidences (I am sure they have been noticed before) Goldstein is said to live at 22 Christian Street. I believe Schwartz lived at 22 Ellen Street. In fact I think the number 22 comes up on another street in the area.

Charles Allen Cross lived at 22 Doveton Street. John Pizer lived at 22 Mulberry-street. Then there's the Batty Street Lodger at 22 Batty Street. One of the witnesses against Israel Lipski lived at 22 Fairclough Street.

Are these somehow clues.

NW

Probably not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On this particular issue we basically have four questions.

1. How far behind BS man was Israel Schwartz as he walked along Berner Street.
2. Where was Schwartz when the incident began.
3. Where was the woman standing.
4. Where was Schwartz, in relation to BS man, when he crossed the road.

We have two sources of information.

1. A general synopsis events from Donald Swanson.
2. An article in The Star.

So…

1. We have absolutely no way of putting a figure on this distance between the two men. Swanson makes no mention of it so he is of no help. The Star, however, does say: “As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.” Now, we can all agree that newspapers aren’t always the most reliably accurate sources of information but we can ask why they would simply invent this part? It doesn’t add any drama or insert anything that might add sensation to sell papers and it can’t be used as a chance of making the Police look bad. So there has to be a very reasonable chance that this part is correct and that there was a ‘some distance’ between them. Added to this we might ask ourselves if we often see two people, who don’t know each, walking down a deserted street but directly behind each other. If we saw that I’d suggest that it would look slightly strange. Therefore I believe that it’s very likely that there was a fair distance between the two men. How far? I don’t know. But it could have been ten or twenty or thirty yards.

2. In both Swanson’s synopsis and The Star we can see no reason to assume any notable gap of time between BS man stopping to talk to the woman and him putting his hand on her shoulder to pull/push her (according to which ever version we read) So if, as seems likely, there was a fair sized gap between the two men, and the actual incident began (as it appeared to) pretty much as soon as BS man spoke to the woman then it’s reasonable to assume that Schwartz couldn’t have walked far in a two or three seconds. So he could easily still have been twenty yards, or ten yards or even five yards behind him. We have zero reason to suspect that that either a) BS man and the woman chatted for a few seconds and then the ‘incident’ only occurred when Schwartz was adjacent to them, or b) or that Schwartz didn’t bother about the incident that was occurring up ahead until he’d walked to a position right next to them. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume, and is far more like to a point of close to certainty, that Schwartz was at least a few feet, maybe a few yards, back from BS man when the incident began.



3. The woman was said to have been standing in the gateway but was she standing back inside the passage next to the actual gate. Clearly not when BS man spoke to her or Schwartz wouldn’t have been able to see her. Also, if she was waiting for someone why would she stand back into the passageway where she wouldn’t have been able to see up and down the street? I’d suggest that it would make far more sense if we accept that ‘gateway’ as a figure of speech can be taken to mean the gap between the two buildings. And let’s not forget that it was Swanson who used the word ‘gateway.’ I’m unsure but had he ever visited Berner Street? Did he know that the gate sat back. So could she have been further out? According to The Star she stood at:” …the entrance to the alley way.” Just as I suggest as the likeliest location.




4. Schwartz crossed the road while there was still some distance between them. It might not have been much, but there would have been a distance.


Why is this an issue?

I’d like to add a point:

“As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.”

I seem to recall someone mentioning this point recently. I believe it was RD?

If this is correct (and I can see no reason for The Star to invent something so trivial although it’s possible that an error of translation may have occurred) then Schwartz hadn’t noticed BS man until he got into Berner Street which also implies a fair sized gap.

[New Waterloo]

Couple of observations.

1) when the Star reports the following on 1st October when talking of a person arrested after Schwartz description;

This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted. (That's why they need to make more enquiries because there is doubt)

I think they mean the prisoners statement has not been wholly accepted. The reporter states this to explain why he is being held (the prisoner ) for further enquiries. If it was related to Schwarz he would have ended the piece by saying 'the Hungarian mans statement is not wholly accepted' that's how it reads to me. I guess this has been debated before


2) Also when Schwartz describes a man coming out of the doorway of the pub this must be the small recess on the corner. Pub was shut.

Not sure how descriptions match but is pipe/knife man in fact Parcel Man/JTR hanging about

Schwartz clears off chased a bit, BSM clears off when seeing the knife.

Pipe/knife man returns takes Stride into yard.(he was her earlier partner so no worries in her mind)

Kills her

NW