An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[GBinOz]

Good point. There is a hint that Spooner was allowed to leave early. In the past I've suggested that that was because Spooner was part of the WVC. The notion wasn't well accepted, so presumably Spooner was locked in the yard for hours, like everyone else.

I wouldn't conclude in that direction. Spooner is testifying under oath that he left after both having assisted Lamb to close the gates and being examined by Phillips. This is inconsistent with the evidence and would have to be considered as, at least, being careless with the truth.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I wouldn't conclude in that direction. Spooner is testifying under oath that he left after both having assisted Lamb to close the gates and being examined by Phillips. This is inconsistent with the evidence and would have to be considered as, at least, being careless with the truth.

I understand that point of view, but how does it seem when we look at the Daily Telegraph?

Spooner: When Police-constable Lamb came I helped him to close the gates of the yard, and I left through the club.

That's it? No, but look who steps in now ...

Inspector Reid: I believe that was after you had given your name and address to the police? - Yes. And had been searched? - Yes. And examined by Dr. Phillips? - Yes.

On the Friday, Reid said: A thorough search was made by the police of the yard and the houses in it, but no trace could be found of any person who might have committed the murder. As soon as the search was over the whole of the persons who had come into the yard and the members of the club were interrogated, their names and addresses taken, their pockets searched by the police, and their clothes and hands examined by the doctors. The people were twenty-eight in number. Each was dealt with separately, and they properly accounted for themselves.

Were the 28 people allowed to go one-by-one, or all at once? If the later, Spooner left hours after he had closed the gates. Otherwise, he might have been one of the first to be interrogated and allowed to leave.

[GBinOz]

I understand that point of view, but how does it seem when we look at the Daily Telegraph?

Spooner: When Police-constable Lamb came I helped him to close the gates of the yard, and I left through the club.

That's it? No, but look who steps in now ...

Inspector Reid: I believe that was after you had given your name and address to the police? - Yes. And had been searched? - Yes. And examined by Dr. Phillips? - Yes.

On the Friday, Reid said: A thorough search was made by the police of the yard and the houses in it, but no trace could be found of any person who might have committed the murder. As soon as the search was over the whole of the persons who had come into the yard and the members of the club were interrogated, their names and addresses taken, their pockets searched by the police, and their clothes and hands examined by the doctors. The people were twenty-eight in number. Each was dealt with separately, and they properly accounted for themselves.

Were the 28 people allowed to go one-by-one, or all at once? If the later, Spooner left hours after he had closed the gates. Otherwise, he might have been one of the first to be interrogated and allowed to leave.

Blackwell: My assistant was present all the time. Dr. Phillips arrived from 20 minutes to half an hour after my arrival, but I did not notice the exact time.
The CORONER. - Could you see there was a woman there when you went in?
Witness. - Yes. The doors were closed when I arrived.

I struggle to see your point here. Spooner says he left after helping Lamb close the gates, but not before Phillips had examined him. The gates were closed when Blackwell arrived and Phillips arrived after Blackwell. How could he have been examined by Phillips 20-30 minutes before Phillips arrival? The charitable view is that Spooner was confused. The realistic view is that he was lying. The wonderous view is that why was this was not observed at the time.

[GBinOz]

Are we at the stage where we have to consider the possibility of Spooner as a suspect?

A claimed girlfriend that no one claims to having seen. A person that enters upon a crime scene and immediately presumes to handle the body. A man who claims to have left the crime scene after having assisted the police to close the gates, claiming this was after being examined by a doctor who is 20-30 minutes away from being present at the time.

For consideration.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I struggle to see your point here. Spooner says he left after helping Lamb close the gates, but not before Phillips had examined him. The gates were closed when Blackwell arrived and Phillips arrived after Blackwell. How could he have been examined by Phillips 20-30 minutes before Phillips arrival? The charitable view is that Spooner was confused. The realistic view is that he was lying. The wonderous view is that why was this was not observed at the time.

My point is that at best, Spooner seems to have forgotten about those 20-30 minutes and his examination by the police and doctor, and didn't recall until Reid reminded him. That period may have even been longer, depending on how long the search of the yard and houses took (which preceded the personal examinations). At worst, Spooner was in the yard for hours before leaving. It does seem odd, and I'm pretty much with you - maybe he was confused (drunk?), but we also have to consider his honesty.

I lean toward him lying about his purpose for being on the street. He wanted to hide his association with the vigilance committee, for security or other reasons.

The hours of work varied. At their height, the Mile End Vigilance Committee had 50 men on their books 12 of these men an intimate knowledge of the area and were chosen to lead these patrols. Patrols were noted, routes planned and anything suspicious pencilled in a notebook. Beats were undertaken as soon as the men finished their working day. These beats were finnished around 4 or 5am, in some cases when day broke. Now some of these men had a days work, these chaps tended to finish earlier, however those who could commit to a daybreak finished did so. These men equipped themselves with lanterns, sticks and something the Police never had, rubber soled boots.

PC Lamb: I went into the gateway of No. 40, Berner-street and saw something dark lying on the right-hand side, close to the gates. I turned my light on and found it was a woman.

What did Spooner see on entering the yard, supposedly without a lantern?

Spooner: I stopped them and asked what was the matter. They replied, "A woman has been murdered." I then went round with them to Berner-street, and into Dutfield's yard, adjoining No. 40, Berner-street. I saw a woman lying just inside the gate.

Perhaps Spooner saw what he was expecting to see, but he couldn't have known where to expect to see her.

[GBinOz]

If I may be permitted to present a scenario based on nothing more than speculation and conjecture:

Eagle leaves the club between 12:30 and 12:45 to accompany his lady to her home. Eagle married Kate Kopelansky on 23 Dec 1888, who lived at her parent's home at 183 Whitechapel Road. Presuming this is the lady in question, the return trip to this address is approximately 30 minutes. Eagle states that "I saw my sweetheart to the door of the house where she was living, and then walked back to the club". This provides Eagle with a little time to indulge in some libations on the way back and appear a little tipsy as he proceeds down Berner St on his return to the club.

He encounters Stride standing in the gateway awaiting the return of Parcelman from an urgent visit to the Loo in the yard. Presuming her to be there for immoral purposes he tries to encourage her to leave, but she breaks free of his grasp and falls on the ground. Schwartz, who is walking behind Eagle, observes a presumed domestic, crosses the road and walks towards the intersection with Fairclough St. By this time Stride is objecting to Eagle's interference, knowing that Parcelman will return at any moment, and informs Eagle in no uncertain terms. Eagle sees that two men are observing the proceeding and shouts at them, after which Pipeman approaches Schwartz, who is then spooked and leaves "incontinently".

Pipeman then approaches Eagle who desists in his objection to Stride's continued presence and enters the club by the side door. So is Spooner actually Pipeman, and offers to accompany Stride to the safety of the club and kills her in transit. Or is Spooner actually Parcelman, and Stride is the mentioned girl friend, and he returns from the Loo and kills Stride. Spooner is interrupted and retreats down Fairclough, but when he hears Diemshitz + one running down Fairclough he confronts Diemshitz and accompanies him back to the yard.

Arriving at the yard he goes straight to Stride's body to make sure that there is no evidence that could incriminate him, such as the grapes, which he removes if he is Parcelman.

I find myself at a loss as to why he would say that he left after helping close the gates but then add that he had been examined by Phillips who wasn't yet there.

An unlikely story, perhaps, but there it is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can suppose he had both feet on the curb; there is still no public house a few doors off.

There was a beer house called The Nelson which was a few yards away. You are nitpicking over a beer house being called a public house.

If instead you prefer to have the man appearing when Schwartz begins crossing, then not only are you are changing the evidence to suit an argument, but you're creating at least one new problem. As you support the press account and suppose Schwartz crosses prior to reaching the gateway, if Pipe/Knifeman has spotted him at this point, and rushes at Schwartz or even just begins moving toward him, Schwartz would have scampered straight back up Berner St, away from Ellen St and the railway arches to the South.

You are using over-complication as a means of obfuscation. Swanson: “On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.” The Star: “..he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors..”

Regarding the confusion in the press account, I think Schwartz was talking about a doorway or something like a doorway, and the reporter thinks he means the Nelson. There is no mention of the Nelson by the police. Swanson's report has Pipeman somewhere on the street, but he is totally unspecific about the location, other than to say that he followed Schwartz after Schwartz crossed the street, implying that he came from a relative North location. That would exclude the Nelson.

So Swanson says that Schwartz saw the man after he’d crossed the street but The Star adds a minor detail in that Schwartz had stepped off the kerb as he was returning to the club side before he saw the man.

As Schwartz arrived near the gateway (at the commencement of the incident) he would have been a few yards, or a few doors away from The Nelson. Why you see this as a mystery would be baffling if we didn’t all understand your overwhelming need to create a mystery where none exists. As per usual.

A and B are extremely unlikely, not only for the coincidence of his leaving the pub in the short period in which Schwartz is on the street,

Can you really try and pass this off as logic. Just because two things occurred at the same time they are unlikely to have been true!

but because he would have been easy enough to identify, and there is no sign that he was. C is just a rephrasing of "just as he stepped from the kerb" - already discussed.

An entirely sensible and reasonable suggestion. I think that we can all see why it doesn’t appeal to you.

I don't suppose Pipeman had been on the street when Schwartz walked down it. I think he originated from a location that made him invisible to Schwartz at that point. Possibly Hampshire Court. Walking through that court would take one to the Red Lion on Batty St.

Why the complication? Isn’t the likeliest suggestion that he’d walked around the corner from Fairclough Street. Too obvious?

Sure, it's simple, but that doesn't make it right. My model is based on everything we have from the police. Yours is based on the press account.

Yours is based on a desire to shape the evidence to create a mystery.

Same again - I'm with the police on this matter; you're with the press.

I’m following the evidence but I’m doing it with a dose of reason and common sense and without an agenda of trying to create the plot of a novel.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There was a beer house called The Nelson which was a few yards away. You are nitpicking over a beer house being called a public house.

At the moment Schwartz steps from the kerb, there is no beer house a few doors off.

I’m following the evidence but I’m doing it with a dose of reason and common sense and without an agenda of trying to create the plot of a novel.

So, why did you change "a few doors off" to "a few yards away"? If your argument is so rational and mine so based on ulterior motive, why are you changing the evidence from an already questionable press report, while I'm offering a model based on all the reports and comments we have from the police?

Yours is based on a desire to shape the evidence to create a mystery.

On the contrary, my model of the incident explains existing mysteries - it does not create any new ones. As yet, I haven't seen evidence that you fully understand what I'm putting forward, even after multiple simplifying explanations. That would explain your preference for playing the man and not the ball.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At the moment Schwartz steps from the kerb, there is no beer house a few doors off.

THE NELSON!!!!

So, why did you change "a few doors off" to "a few yards away"? If your argument is so rational and mine so based on ulterior motive, why are you changing the evidence from an already questionable press report, while I'm offering a model based on all the reports and comments we have from the police?

“Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off..”

I didn’t substitute, I simply pointed out that it was just a few yards away. Again…nitpicking.

The Nelson was a few doors off from the scene of the quarrel.

On the contrary, my model of the incident explains existing mysteries - it does not create any new ones. As yet, I haven't seen evidence that you fully understand what I'm putting forward, even after multiple simplifying explanations. That would explain your preference for playing the man and not the ball.

No. You are quite deliberately pursuing your own agenda which has nothing to do with any pursuit of truth. You are wrong. You should admit that you are wrong and stop nitpicking. This is such a tiresome exercise in time wasting.

We know what happened. Petty pointless, nitpickings over wording gets us nowhere.


Schwartz walked directly behind BS man on the same side of the road - FACT

He saw the incident begin - FACT

He crossed to the opposite side to the club - FACT

He walked on for a short but unrecorded distance - FACT

At some point he saw Pipeman - FACT

He couldn’t be certain where he came from but assumed/speculated that it was The Nelson - FACT

BS man yelled “Lipski” - FACT

Schwartz crossed back over the road and headed home - FACT

He looked behind him and saw Pipeman who was heading in the same direction - FACT


End of story, game over, everything sorted….now we can move on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What information can we get from Swanson and The Star by simply reading and applying common sense and without just assuming one version correct and one incorrect.

Swanson: “.. on turning into Berner St from Commercial Road.”

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


Swanson is just summarising events and so would have no inclination or reason to describe every single nuance so it’s not unreasonable to suggest that The Star were reflecting here what Schwartz actually told them. Newspapers can certainly lie and exaggerate but it’s difficult to imagine why they would do so on such a trivial point. If this is the case, and I’m merely suggesting that it’s a reasonable inference to make, then it points to a distance between the two men. If they were closer together then surely it would have been likely that Schwartz would have noticed BS man before they turned into Berner Street?

Although we have no way of estimating the size of the gap between it’s reasonable to infer that it wasn’t as little as, say 10 feet, as Schwartz would surely have seen BS man in Commercial Road. So there is a fair sized gap between them. And remember, in the article it’s described as: “..some distance..”


Swanson: “.. had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed..”

The Star: “..He walked on behind him..”


Again Swanson pays no attention to this trivial detail but The Star has Schwartz ‘behind’ BS man. So ‘behind him’ strongly implies that they were on the same side of the road. As The Star were giving a fuller account of events and mentioned the two men entering Berner Street isn’t it likely that they would have mentioned if Schwartz had been on the opposite side of the road?


Swanson: “.. had 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 Star: “..and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her..”


The Star suggests that Schwartz had seen the woman before BS man got to her which may well have been the case or they may have just assumed this. Either way, it’s not important. Basically BS man stopped and spoke to her.


Swanson: “.. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway..”

The Star: “.. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage..”


There is a difference in pull and push but it’s possible that there could have been a bit of both which might account for the difference in emphasis. It’s still the case though that The Star doesn’t mention the woman being on the floor or anything about her calling out. I have no definitive explanation as to why the part about her being on the floor or the crying out wasn’t mentioned except that they just described the whole thing as a quarrel. I have to admit that it’s not a particularly satisfying explanation though. Schwartz would have been pretty stupid if he had told a significantly different version of events to the police and the Press so perhaps this is down to translation. After all, is it likely that they had a Hungarian interpreter to hand? Or were they relying on whoever was around at Schwartz address at the time. I think that the latter is likelier. So maybe someone who spoke Hungarian but imperfect English or someone that spoke another language but a smattering of Hungarian? I think that this is a much likelier possible explanation.


Swanson: “.. 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’..”

The Star: “..feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel..”


Both version have Schwartz crossing to the opposite side of the road although The Star has Schwartz hearing the quarrel after he’s walked on a while whilst Swanson has BS man calling out “Lipski” when Schwartz is across the road. The point at which Schwartz first heard the quarrel isn’t particularly important, but again it’s not really likely that he would have two versions that were different in any important sense because he couldn’t possibly have gotten away with it. I think that we would be on fairly safe ground to suggest that this minor discrepancy can again be put down to the language barrier.

What has to pointed out though is that The Star make a point of ‘why’ Schwartz crossed the road. Clearly he had told them it was because he wanted to avoid getting mixed up in the quarrel which of course meant that he crossed ‘away’ from the incident. He crossed from the club side to the other side of the road.


Swanson: “.. 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 as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

The Star: “.. but just as he stepped from the kerb 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..”


So Swanson has Schwartz seeing Pipeman as he’d just crossed the street while The Star has this just as he stepped from the kerb. Can this really be of importance? I can’t see how..just as he’d stepped off the kerb or a very few steps later. Insignificant details that have no bearing on anything. Swanson doesn’t mention the public house because it’s unimportant to his summary of events. The Star, fleshing out a story, do mention it, but only in that he came out of the doorway. Perhaps this was a mistaken impression from Schwartz because the man was near to the doorway or perhaps the man had stood in the doorway to light his pipe. What is noticeable though is that he only said that he came from the doorway. He didn’t say that he came out of the pub which he surely would have had that been the case.

The most significant difference of course is in The Star version where Pipeman has a knife and shouted at BS man in a threatening way. Again, is it likely or believable that Schwartz would simply add the part about a knife, at the location of a throat-cutting murder, but withhold it from the police? Wouldn’t the police have contacted Schwartz again to ask “why didn’t you mention the knife?” We have no evidence of this of course but I suggest/suspect that Schwartz might have had a follow-up visit from the police or even a second interview after they had seen what The Star printed, where it was found that the ‘knife’ and the part about Pipeman threatening BS man was down to poor interpretation.

So, although we can’t be exact, we can get a fair picture of what occurred..I’d suggest..


Schwartz turned into Berner Street with BS man 20 or 30 yards ahead of him. He saw him stopped and speak to a woman in the gateway but this quickly, perhaps immediately, turned into a scuffle. Schwartz, wanting to avoid getting up close and personal, cross to the other side of the road. When he got there he saw Pipeman lighting his pipe near to the door of The Nelson. BS man shouts “Lipski” as he sees Schwartz looking over at him. Schwartz, now further along the street with BS man yards behind, he crosses back over and heads home. Pipeman thinks better of confronting BS man further and so walks off in the same direction as Schwartz (who, looking back over his shoulder, sees him and fears that he’s following him, so he runs)