An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[The Rookie Detective]

For some reason it’s being suggested that Schwartz wouldn’t have been able to see the woman standing in the gateway from his position on the pavement behind BS man. Nothing suggests that she was out of site and we have no way of knowing how far away Schwartz would have been able to see her from.

But we do, if we choose to apply the sight lines/field of vision to the map of Berner Street.

We can quite literally draw lines to see and measure the precise angles within which it would have been possible for Schwartz to have seen her standing in the gateway.

We then look at a range to see the minimum and maximum distance possible and then can prove within which space Schwartz could have been when he first saw her.

For example, if he's walking down Berner Street and sees Bs man, but doesn't mention Stride until after Bs Man is seen stopping and talking to her, we can reasonableness certain that Stride was not standing on the pavement level with Schwartz's of sight as he walks forwards.

He only mentions seeing Stride after he has seen Bs man stop and talk to her.


This indicates that Stride was standing behind the line of sight of the pavement that covered Schwartz's field of view as he walked down the street.


It's a matter of maths and physics.

We then look at varying parameters to see what can work and what is physically impossible.

For example, when Schwartz was walking down Berner Street and drew level with number 30 (the Letchfords) it would have been physically impossible for him to have seen Stride standing in the gateway.

Nobody can see around corners.

And so, at what point/location in space time COULD Schwartz have seen Stride as he walked down the road?

It's not a theoretical question; but rather a question of physics.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no ‘model’ required. What is going on here is a quote deliberate attempt to re-write history solely for the sake of being able to claim that something ‘new’ has been found. Some aren’t reading evidence they are trying to recreate it.

Schwartz walked along Berner Street an unknown distance behind BS man but on the same side. This is a fact. Any attempt to dispute it is an act of dishonesty. He was on the SAME side of the street. In the Swanson version Schwartz saw BS man stop and talk to a woman in the gateway but it’s not stated whether Schwartz noticed the woman before BS man spoke to her. The Star however suggests that he saw the woman before BS man spoke to her but it’s not entirely clear that this was the case due to the wording.

So we just can’t know for certain if he’d seen the woman first but it’s really unimportant. The evidence favours that he hadn’t noticed her though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It suggests she was not on the footway, even partially. She was just inside the yard. This would require Schwartz to have reached the gateway when he sees the man stop and talk to her, and that is exactly what Swanson tells us.



Does the plot include Schwartz giving evidence at the inquest?

Swanson: “..he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.”

Not a single hint of her being ‘just inside the yard’

The Star: “he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way”

Schwartz was a distance behind him, clearly on the same side of the road and the woman was in the entrance and there is no suggestion of her precise positioning or that she would have been out of sight.


You are simply making things up like the script of a play.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It doesn't particularly bother me as it is of little to no consequence. Whether or not Schwartz could see her in advance depends entirely on exactly where she was standing in the gateway in relation to the street alignment. If she was slightly inside the street alignment then she would not have been visible to Schwartz (or Mortimer) until he was reasonably close - not right on the gateway but close enough to decide that he didn't want to be involved in what was taking place. I'm not seeing a plot here...?

For some reason it’s being suggested that Schwartz wouldn’t have been able to see the woman standing in the gateway from his position on the pavement behind BS man. Nothing suggests that she was out of site and we have no way of knowing how far away Schwartz would have been able to see her from.

[GBinOz]

Andrew, since you believe that Stride was being violently assaulted and thrown to the ground, how do you account for the low volume of her screams. This takes place at a time of unspeakable murder/mutilations so any woman being attacked should have been screaming at maximum volume. I would entertain the possibility that a more suitable translation might have been that she scolded three times, but not very loudly. JMO.

[GBinOz]

Do you mean, the situation escalated after Schwartz had walked away, and the first man calls/shouts 'Lipski' to Schwartz and/or the second man? That was all it took to strike fear into these men?
When the situation escalated I believe that both Schwartz and Pipeman were unsure of what was going on. Schwartz said that Pipeman made a move towards him and this is what prompted his fear and prompted his exit from the situation.

Just to be clear, you believe the couple remained oblivious to all the goings on?

I think that the timing of all the events doesn't preclude the possibility that they were not there when the goings on were going on.

[GBinOz]

Who was the onlooker who observed the chase, and whose name ended up being told to Wess? Presumably it was Pipeman. Did the police know who Pipeman was?

Even more importantly, if Parcelman chased BS Man, who has just murdered Liz, who chased Israel Schwartz? Are you suggesting that Schwartz had broad shoulders?

Now then Andrew, I would look on it as a courtesy if you refrained from putting words in my mouth.

If Parcelman returned to find Stride slain there are a few obvious players that could be involved, namely BSMan, Pipeman and Schwartz, although I would personally exclude Schwartz from this consideration. BSMan could be considered, IMO, as a non-JtR suspect such as Kosminski. Pipeman I would look on as an possible opportunistic JtR posing as a rescuer. But I would add to the list the names of Eagle and Goldstein. I would quickly add that I have no proof in their regard, just nagging suspicions.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz sees her prior to her being thrown onto the footway and crucially... BEFORE he crosses the road.

That means that Schwartz is still walking on the same side of the road when he sees Bs man stop to talk to Stride.

It also means that he needs to cross the road BEFORE Bs man tries to pull her into the street, because if he doesn't then he would either be virtually in line with the assault, or he would have needed to have already walked PAST the gateway when the assault occurs.

If he needs to do that then your model is wrong, because Swanson implies that the crossing of the street occurs AFTER the violence.

For this to happen, Schwartz would need to have looked back and witnessed what was going on, ot he would have needed to have stopped wither before or after the gateway.

If you (or anyone else) suppose that Schwartz had reached the gates, or almost so, when he spots Stride, but does not stop or at most pauses very briefly while they are talking, pulling, resisting, turning around, throwing down, screaming three times, then by that time, Schwartz has gone well past the gateway. That means his crossing of the road would then be redundant, if the purpose is to avoid the fracas. But of course, he does cross the road! So, I suggest someone radios Houston to tell them we have a problem.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

IMO she was waiting for Parcelman to return, either from a visit to the toilet in the yard or from some business in either the Club or the printing office. I think he returned to find her on the ground with her throat cut and her killer standing over her, and then gave chase of him down Fairclough, as reported. I think that he failed to come forward afterwards because he was married or engaged.

Who was the onlooker who observed the chase, and whose name ended up being told to Wess? Presumably it was Pipeman. Did the police know who Pipeman was?

Even more importantly, if Parcelman chased BS Man, who has just murdered Liz, who chased Israel Schwartz? Are you suggesting that Schwartz had broad shoulders?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't think there was a high level of fear or concern at that stage. The fear developed when Schwartz was at the intersection and the situation escalated.

Do you mean, the situation escalated after Schwartz had walked away, and the first man calls/shouts 'Lipski' to Schwartz and/or the second man? That was all it took to strike fear into these men?

While I don't rule out Michael kidney, I would have in mind Kosminski as a player in this scenario only. The proximity of the homes of his relatives and the obvious path between them down Berner St raises questions in my mind as to whether he may have been seen by Schwartz in the role of BSMan. This may have been the basis of the Anderson conclusions, whether they were right or wrong. JMO, YMMV.

Okay

I think there was a couple at the intersection - the couple referred to by Mortimer.

Just to be clear, you believe the couple remained oblivious to all the goings on?

However, I am entirely in agreement with Herlock when he points out that all deliberations regarding times have to be tempered with the presumption that the lack of synchronisation of the clock renders all time statements subject to substantial error in either direction. In that period a clock that was within 10 minutes of GMT was considered to be satisfactory. A plus and minus conflict could render a 20 minute difference. Added to this is the "guessing" errors of time intervals (see Jeff's treatise on this subject) applied to uncertain starting points and time estimates become irrelevant.

Fine, but I don't think anything anyone believes the clocks and watches of the time had GPS accuracy.

[The Rookie Detective]

According to Wikipedia, the paper "was a weekly digest of articles from evening newspaper The Pall Mall Gazette". Is this website your source...? https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.ed...ial%20archive.



A journalist may have been told that.



Nice work!

I took the article direct from the newspaper itself.

There was the Pall Mall Gazette AND the Pall Mall Budget.

I took the article direct from the Pall Mall Budget and not the Gazette.

[The Rookie Detective]

It doesn't particularly bother me as it is of little to no consequence. Whether or not Schwartz could see her in advance depends entirely on exactly where she was standing in the gateway in relation to the street alignment. If she was slightly inside the street alignment then she would not have been visible to Schwartz (or Mortimer) until he was reasonably close - not right on the gateway but close enough to decide that he didn't want to be involved in what was taking place. I'm not seeing a plot here...?

Exactly my point George.

How could Schwartz see Stride standing in the gateway unless he was within the physical field of vision and by proxy; within relatively close proximity to the gateway itself?

In other words, what is the earliest possible time and furtherst possible distance away from the gateway for it to be physically and literally possible for Schwartz to have seen Stride standing in the gateway?

It's believed he walked on the same side of the road.
It's believe he only saw Stride AFTER he sees Bs Man.

Therefore Stride cannot be standing in the street, or on the pavement level with the west side of the street, because Schwartz would have seen Stride as he walked down the road.

Note that if Mortimer was standing at her door at no.36, she would not be able to see anyone standing in the gateway from her position.

And so, if Schwartz walked along the same side of the road, and presumably walking in the middle of the pavement I.e. half way between Mortimer's door and the road, then at what point would Schwartz be able to see Stride?

Schwartz sees her prior to her being thrown onto the footway and crucially... BEFORE he crosses the road.

That means that Schwartz is still walking on the same side of the road when he sees Bs man stop to talk to Stride.

It also means that he needs to cross the road BEFORE Bs man tries to pull her into the street, because if he doesn't then he would either be virtually in line with the assault, or he would have needed to have already walked PAST the gateway when the assault occurs.

For this to happen, Schwartz would need to have looked back and witnessed what was going on, ot he would have needed to have stopped wither before or after the gateway.

Of course, perhaps the truth lies in the idea that Schwartz's account was a lot of smoke and mirrors.

We can be assured from the lack of follow up after the statement taken by Schwartz, that the police at some point lost faith in it's value.

initially it was reported that a man thought he was witnessing a domestic and so walked away. It doesn't name Schwartz at the time.
On that basis, perhaps the police took the story and elaborated arrocordingly in a bid to try and oust the killer.

The purpose?

To make the real killer believe the net was closing in on him.

Did the police try and call the Ripper's bluff?

Did they take the initial true story of a couple seen arguing and then took ownership of it to try and make the killer believe that there was a key witness who saw him?

I believe there's a chance that the couple seen arguing had nothing to do with Stride.

Perhaps It was Spooner and his elusive GF having a tiff in the street.

Perhaps Spooner was the elusive BS man.

And perhaps Spooner's eagerness to attend the murder scene was in part due to the fact he had been physically violent towards his GF close to that spot only 15 minutes beforehand.

The fact that he physically touched Stride and that his are the only timings to be clearly way out with everyone else's...speak of a man with something to hide.

It may also be possible that the "couple" seen on the corner of the board school, was Spooner and his GF.

Sponner then gets his GF to rejoin him and they make an effort to tell Mortimer that they had been standing on the corner the whole time and heard nothing, both before and after the murder.
Perhaps they weren't there as long as they claimed to be.

But I digress...


It would be intrugung to have an authentic map of Berner Street at the time, and then work out precisely both WHERE Schwartz needed to have been to be able to see Stride, and WHEN the earliest possible time he could have seen her based on his physical position in the street, covering his maximum field of vision.

As Herlock says...Schwartz never said he identifed Stride.

But he did claim to have SEEN her standing...in the gateway.


More to unravel here despite the unpopularity surrounding it.

[GBinOz]

Which begs the question - is that what she would do if soliciting or waiting for someone?

IMO she was waiting for Parcelman to return, either from a visit to the toilet in the yard or from some business in either the Club or the printing office. I think he returned to find her on the ground with her throat cut and her killer standing over her, and then gave chase of him down Fairclough, as reported. I think that he failed to come forward afterwards because he was married or engaged.

[GBinOz]

This is reasonable enough. However, the scenario you have depicted would suggest that Stride was not particularly fearful of her predicament. In that case, Schwartz was unlikely to be fearful, also. Ditto Pipeman.
I don't think there was a high level of fear or concern at that stage. The fear developed when Schwartz was at the intersection and the situation escalated.

An issue for the domestic hypothesis is that the police found no man who might have been a candidate for it. If the man was not Michael Kidney, what might the domestic be in regard to?
While I don't rule out Michael kidney, I would have in mind Kosminski as a player in this scenario only. The proximity of the homes of his relatives and the obvious path between them down Berner St raises questions in my mind as to whether he may have been seen by Schwartz in the role of BSMan. This may have been the basis of the Anderson conclusions, whether they were right or wrong. JMO, YMMV.

Presumably you don't suppose there was a couple at the intersection, when the dispute got louder. If Pipeman objected to BS Man's behaviour, it would seem odd that not only did he not come forward to the police, but he was seemingly never even identified by them.

I think there was a couple at the intersection - the couple referred to by Mortimer. However, I am entirely in agreement with Herlock when he points out that all deliberations regarding times have to be tempered with the presumption that the lack of synchronisation of the clock renders all time statements subject to substantial error in either direction. In that period a clock that was within 10 minutes of GMT was considered to be satisfactory. A plus and minus conflict could render a 20 minute difference. Added to this is the "guessing" errors of time intervals (see Jeff's treatise on this subject) applied to uncertain starting points and time estimates become irrelevant.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It doesn't particularly bother me as it is of little to no consequence. Whether or not Schwartz could see her in advance depends entirely on exactly where she was standing in the gateway in relation to the street alignment. If she was slightly inside the street alignment then she would not have been visible to Schwartz (or Mortimer) until he was reasonably close - not right on the gateway but close enough to decide that he didn't want to be involved in what was taking place. I'm not seeing a plot here...?

Which begs the question - is that what she would do if soliciting or waiting for someone?

Perhaps she was temporarily hiding, having stolen cachous and grapes. That may not be a nice suggestion, but these were very tough times.