An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[c.d.]

That is my take on it as well, Herlock. I have never understood the Schwartz fixation especially when he never stated he saw Stride being killed. So we have a witness relatively new to the area, who was out at night, who only witnessed an encounter for a few seconds, who didn't understand English and who gave his evidence through an interpreter. Yet, for some posters, an inability to cross every t and dot every i is cause for suspicion. Can any witness in this case hold up to such intense scrutiny?

Cue the naysayers.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is my take on it as well, Herlock. I have never understood the Schwartz fixation especially when he never stated he saw Stride being killed. So we have a witness relatively new to the area, who was out at night, who only witnessed an encounter for a few seconds, who didn't understand English and who gave his evidence through an interpreter. Yet, for some posters, an inability to cross every t and dot every i is cause for suspicion. Can any witness in this case hold up to such intense scrutiny?

Cue the naysayers.

c.d.

And just to add, we haven’t a clue how he came to give his time as 12.45 or how that time was synchronised to other times.

[Abby Normal]

That is my take on it as well, Herlock. I have never understood the Schwartz fixation especially when he never stated he saw Stride being killed. So we have a witness relatively new to the area, who was out at night, who only witnessed an encounter for a few seconds, who didn't understand English and who gave his evidence through an interpreter. Yet, for some posters, an inability to cross every t and dot every i is cause for suspicion. Can any witness in this case hold up to such intense scrutiny?

Cue the naysayers.

c.d.

Totally agree cd and herlock

Plus youve got a club where people are singing, and a rainy night...so easily drowning any out noise from the bsman/stride encounter.

[The Rookie Detective]

Based on the timeline/chronological sequence, only a loooonnnnnng handful of people could have been the killer.

Bs man
Pipe man
Eagle
Lave
Parcel man
Overcoat man
Diemschitz
Spooner
Goldstein
PC Smith
Schwarz
The couple "on the corner."


How we try and fit Lechmere, Maybrick, Druitt or Kosminski into all this, I have no idea.

[Tom_Wescott]

IIRC PC Smith didn't have a watch. His sighting of Stride with the man was probably closer to 12:38.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

That is my take on it as well, Herlock. I have never understood the Schwartz fixation especially when he never stated he saw Stride being killed. So we have a witness relatively new to the area, who was out at night, who only witnessed an encounter for a few seconds, who didn't understand English and who gave his evidence through an interpreter. Yet, for some posters, an inability to cross every t and dot every i is cause for suspicion. Can any witness in this case hold up to such intense scrutiny?

Cue the naysayers.

c.d.

Over the years I've considered that Schwartz may have been lying. The reasons for this are that the Star report (a police plant, yes, but perhaps not entirely without some factual accuracy) has Schwartz living on Berner Street until that week. Schwartz goes to the police with his own interpreter, as did Goldstein (i.e. William Wess) and William Wess appears to have known about the Schwartz story as a muddled version of it appears in the press. This potential connection between Schwartz and the IWEC club opened the possibility of the anarchists doing some damage control by presenting the police with two obviously gentile suspects, replete with Semitic slur. There's also the fact that Schwartz disappears from not only the records, but the memories of police at about November 1st, 1888. I find that odd.

Having said all that, when I really dug deep into the evidence, it stood out to me that if Schwartz was lying, he was extraordinary lucky, because his lie depends on Berner Street being absolutely empty at around 12:45 for his story to not be immediately disproved. Low and behold, it turns out this was true. And Brown puts a man wearing a dark overcoat in the street at this time. Another remarkable coincidence if Schwartz's story had been bunk. What I ended up concluding is that while it's possible Schwartz's story is a hoax, the likelihood is something like what Swanson describes in his October 19th report did, in fact, take place. His description of the men is probably not spot on and more than the word 'Lipski' was likely spoken, but he couldn't understand it. But unless he was a remarkably fortunate liar, we have to take his story on board.

In any event, what he witnessed was not Stride's murder but some sort of prelude.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Tom,

Nice analysis. So if it was a "prelude" do you think the B.S. man went on to kill her? If so, was he the Ripper? If not, do you think her killer came on the scene after Schwartz left? If so, was he the Ripper?

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

Nice analysis. So if it was a "prelude" do you think the B.S. man went on to kill her? If so, was he the Ripper? If not, do you think her killer came on the scene after Schwartz left? If so, was he the Ripper?

c.d.

Thanks, CD. I do believe Stride was a Ripper victim. I also believe that Stride was killed very close to 1am and not at the time Schwartz was on the street. I suspect Brown's man was her killer. Was Brown's man BS Man, as Bern suggests, or Pipeman, or someone altogether different? That's the question. But odds are he was one of those two men. And he wore a dark overcoat.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You must do this deliberately Andrew because there can be no alternative explanation. Time and time again you do it. We keep talking about clocks being poorly synchronised so that we cannot assume all times are accurate but whenever it’s convenient to do so you impose this ‘all times are set-in-stone’ ruling. This kind of thing is what makes discussion with you so irritating and it’s why I say that you are always looking at situations with an attitude of “there must be something dodgy going on here…I just have to find it.”

Time and again I point out your illogic. You have never come to terms with the implications of Smith's beat, and his indication that his final beat before reaching the yard was within regulation.

My timeline has an estimated time of his passing at 12.36. He said that his beat took twenty five to thirty minutes..I’ve gone for thirty. This has him back at the corner of Commercial Road and Berner Street at approximately 1.06 but he said that it was 1.00. Answer..the clock that he used for his time was around 6 minutes or so slow.

What you don't accept, or perhaps understand, is that if his clock is slow by 6 minutes, it is slow at both ends. If you're going add 6 minutes to 1:00, you also have to add 6 minutes to the starting point. You want to make his starting point 12:36, so let's see if your sums add up.

If Smith was last in Berner St between 12:30 and 12:35 by his clock, we could say that he witnesses Stride in between those times. As she was closer to Commercial Rd than the yard at that point, Smith has a bit further to go when he returns to Berner St, so I'll say that his yard-to-yard round trip starts at 12:33. By regulation, Smith should reach the yard from 25 to 30 minutes later. That would mean 12:58 to 1:03, again by his clock. He tells us he is at the top Berner St at 1:00. At beat pace - remember he continues down Berner St at regulation pace - he is going to be entering the yard at very close to 1:02. That is a 29-minute beat - within regulation.

Now consider your adjustment to his time. Placing him at the top of the street 6 minutes later than his clock indicated, means he gets to the yard at 1:08. To remain consistent with the timespan of his final beat - not just his regulation timespan but also that which he stated under oath - he would have to last be in Berner St between 12:36 and 12:41. He would therefore have witnessed Stride at approximately 12:39. (In your timeline of #517, you have Fanny going to her door at 12.37.30.)

The problem now is that you have a beat lasting from 12:36 to 1:08. That's 32 minutes - outside of regulation and not compatible with Smith's testimony, even if his 6-minute early clock is accepted as reasonable. Granted, you're only about 3 minutes longer than Smith indicated, and only 2 minutes above regulation, so putting your timeline in order may not be too difficult if you can shave 2 or 3 minutes of activity.

[c.d.]

Thanks, Tom. Your insights are always appreciated.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I suspect you have lost the plot here Andrew. Smith can indeed be at the top of Berner St at an estimated police time, while Diemshitz is there on on a completely different clock time, such as the Harris clock. Hershburg and Kozebrodsky appear to be yet on another time - possibly that of the clock in the club that Eagle testified he didn't observe. Lamb has Eagle and Kozebrodsky reporting the murder before 1AM (police time), verified by the fixed point officer still being on duty.

This is true but irrelevant, or should I say it misses the point. The purpose of a timeline is not to point out the discrepancies between clocks and witness time estimates - it is the opposite - the purpose is to reconcile those ambiguous estimates and different clocks showing different times, into a cohesive sequence of events and times. That timeline can use a known clock/watch as a reference, or it can be based on true time. If Herlock decides Diemschitz timing is true timing, he cannot imply Smith would have been at the top of the street when Diemschitz arrives at the yard. Now that he has nominated Smith's final time to correct this error, he also needs to correct his initial time, otherwise he is fudging it.

It is interesting that you should promote Eagle as an example of your times theory. You quote him as saying:
Eagle: About one o'clock was the time that I first saw the body. I did not notice the time, but I have calculated it from the time I left home to return to the club.
What is this "time I left home to return to the club"? Is this some time before the meeting? That doesn't seem likely as he says "return to the club". Here is his reported statement to The Evening News dated 1 Oct:
"I had been in the club before that evening, and had left the premises at midnight in order to see my girl home, with whom I was keeping company. I saw my sweetheart to the door of the house where she was living, and then walked back to the club through little small streets.".

I don't have a theory as such. All I'm saying is that, in theory, witness times should be all over the place - in practice, they show remarkable consistency.

It could be noted that here he doesn't mention calling in at his home on the the way back, and his recollection of his departure time is 12 midnight rather than 11:30 to 11:45. Either Eagle is very poor at estimations of time intervals and recollections of his actions on that night, or he is covering up.

Someone else care to comment?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well I don't understand the point of this entire thread. Is it to establish the whereabouts of every single resident of Whitechapel at any given moment?
What conclusion or conclusions are trying to be reached? I think that goal got lost in the shuffle.

If it is to discredit Schwartz, I think the best you can do in that regard is to conclude that well, his story doesn't account for X. Maybe so, but that still doesn't tell us whether or not he was telling the truth (as he saw it). It can only cast doubt and then we are back to square one again.

My opinion.

c.d.

My opinion is that post #1 sets the purpose of any thread. So, George is on point in #531.

Why did Schwartz cross the road?
Who was the board school couple?
Where and when was Spooner, and what became of his lady friend?

These have all been discussed in this thread, none of which necessarily relate to discrediting Schwartz. I don't recall you posting on any of the above, but now that dear old Israel Schwartz is in a spot of bother again, you spring into action.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Totally agree cd and herlock

Plus youve got a club where people are singing, and a rainy night...so easily drowning any out noise from the bsman/stride encounter.

Including screams, I presume.

[c.d.]

I don't recall you posting on any of the above, but now that dear old Israel Schwartz is in a spot of bother again, you spring into action.

I have no dog in the fight with regard to Schwartz. Your comment is a bit strange seeing how any time anyone attempts to defend Schwartz you spring into action. Funny how that works, huh?

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What's funny is that, as of #203, I built a model of the Schwartz incident that stays faithful to all relevant reports and comments we have from the police and largely ignores the press account. I'm yet to read a single intelligent response. So far, just the usual accusations of attempting to manufacture mysteries, from the usual suspect.