An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

It has been debated before, and most people (including myself) seem to agree that it is the prisoner's statement that is not wholly accepted. Fascinating, as this would seem to imply that the prisoner is not denying being anywhere near the crime scene at around the time of the murder. Yet, the following day, it appears that doubts have moved from the prisoner, onto Schwartz. However, when we look at Swanson's report, there is no hint that either man described by Schwartz has been identified.

It has been argued, or perhaps just asserted, by members such as Abby Normal, that Schwartz would have been taking a terrible risk by lying about the incident, placing both himself and his family in jeopardy. However, the prisoner situation and the respective views of the Leman St police versus those at Scotland Yard, suggest that we have one man's claims contradicting those of another witness. There is no CCTV with which to adjudicate the issue. Therefore, the risk of providing misinformation is relatively minor.

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.

Pub was shut, and a man in that closed doorway would not have been visible to a man messing with a woman in the Dutfield's Yard gateway. Perhaps the Star got this bit wrong? Shudder the thought.

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

That would incredibly risky, given the possibility that shouting and screams would draw attention.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fanny confidently claimed to have been on her doorstep for nearly the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00 and is seen as the main reason why Schwartz gets disbelieved. And yet…at around 12.30-12.35 PC Smith passed and Fanny didn’t see him. Yes, she felt that she had gone onto her doorstep after he’d passed but it’s still a point to note. Then we have Parcelman and his companion standing across the road. How soon after Smith left the street did they do the same we have no way of knowing but Fanny didn’t see them either. We get around five different versions of what Joseph Lave did so he’s impossible to put any time to but he claimed to have, for a time at least, gone onto the street and yet Fanny didn’t see him either. Then we have Morris Eagle saying that he returned to the club at around 12.40. We don’t know if the police checked his story but it was certainly checkable. Fanny didn’t see him. And although we don’t know at what time, we do know that at some point before Diemschitz return Elizabeth Stride arrived at Dutfield’s Yard, again, entirely unseen by Fanny Mortimer. So, discounting Stride’s killer we have 6 people spending at least some time in Berner Street entirely unseen by the woman that is used to discredit Schwartz. The woman who was supposedly on her doorstep for ‘nearly the whole time’ between 12.30 and 1.00. This suggestion isn’t possible and so the question is why is she relied upon? So what actually happened?

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 ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I agree that Fanny Mortimers account is problematic. In particular her lack of a clear view of the gates or yard of the club whilst inside her house. Her timings regarding when she was actually on her doorstep are questionable.

Nevertheless there is no reason she was not genuine. It is also confusing when she states that the man walking past her house with the shiny bag (Goldstein) may have been coming from the club, as if he was then he would have crossed over the road for her to see him or she went out onto the pavement as he was walking towards the Nelson. Just cant figure that out.

Then it might be worth considering what others have said about this.

So genuine but a bit muddly.

The quote of Fanny Mortimer states that the man came from the Commercial Road. A man coming from there cannot also be coming from the club, especially if he is walking up (i.e. North on) the street.

As for the couple she says were on the corner and saw nothing just doesn't work out.

For example if it was an unknown couple and they were there for the whole period they MUST have seen something. We know with certainty that Diemschutz comes home at 1am (pretty much) So if they were genuine they are gone before his arrival.

James Brown: As I was going home I saw a man and woman standing against the wall by the board school in Fairclough-street.

Why MUST they have seen something, from Fairclough St?

The couple cannot be Stride and a partner as clearly she at some point in that period goes to the club gates and ends up dead inside before 1am

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think that the simplest explanation is the likeliest in this instance NW. I think that Fanny went onto her doorstep later than she believed that she had and that she had heard other footsteps and assumed that they were the beat Constable passing (which she would have known actually occurred at around 12.30 or so) So one suggestion - Smith passed at around 12.30 - the couple left at around 12.31 - Lave stands on the pavement at around 12.33 for a couple of minutes and goes back into the yard at around 12.35 - Eagle returns at around 12.37 - Woman arrives at the gateway at around 12.38 - BS man arrives at around 12.39 (with Schwartz behind him) - the incident occurs and is over by around 12.40 - Fanny comes onto her doorstep at around 12.41 to an empty street - she goes back indoors at around 12.59 (which still mean that she had spent 18 minutes out of 30 on her doorstep, which isn’t too far off her ‘nearly the whole time’ when we consider human judgment.)

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.

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.

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

[GBinOz]

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.
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.

Not sure how descriptions match but is pipe/knife man in fact Parcel Man/JTR hanging about
I don't think he is Parcel man, who is either in the toilet or in the club or in the printing office.

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)
I don't think he was her earlier partner, but presents as her present rescuer.

Kills her

NW

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

[GBinOz]

I agree that Fanny Mortimers account is problematic. In particular her lack of a clear view of the gates or yard of the club whilst inside her house. Her timings regarding when she was actually on her doorstep are questionable.

Nevertheless there is no reason she was not genuine. It is also confusing when she states that the man walking past her house with the shiny bag (Goldstein) may have been coming from the club, as if he was then he would have crossed over the road for her to see him or she went out onto the pavement as he was walking towards the Nelson. Just cant figure that out.

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.

[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.

[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.