An even closer look at Black Bag Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How do you know that they didn’t speak to Schwartz again after The Star article appeared? Or…perhaps the police to the sensible approach that I and others are taking on this subject. That Schwartz spoke no English. That the interpreters English or Hungarian might have been imperfect. That no English speaker would have used that phrase. That the important part of the phrase was “..not very loudly.”

If a non-English speaker had given a statement which said “I was walking across the field until I came to a small brook on the far side. I jumped under it and continued on my journey.” Would you assume that something dodgy was going on or would you assume the obvious - that the man had used ‘under’ when he meant ‘over?’ I know which one I’d go for.

If Schwartz used a word that did not imply loudness, he would not have to qualify it with the phrase "not very loudly". Who asked a question of Schwartz that resulted in this qualification being offered, the translator or Abberline? If the translator, he is telling Abberline what we see in Swanson's report, and Abberline is fine with it. If it were Abberline himself, he is initially puzzled but is then satisfied when the qualification is provided. Had he not been, he could have kept probing, but it seems he was happy to move on. This is the issue that yourself and the sensible others have to grapple with. Just agreeing with each other is not enough.

[Doctored Whatsit]

If Schwartz used a word that did not imply loudness, he would not have to qualify it with the phrase "not very loudly". Who asked a question of Schwartz that resulted in this qualification being offered, the translator or Abberline? If the translator, he is telling Abberline what we see in Swanson's report, and Abberline is fine with it. If it were Abberline himself, he is initially puzzled but is then satisfied when the qualification is provided. Had he not been, he could have kept probing, but it seems he was happy to move on. This is the issue that yourself and the sensible others have to grapple with. Just agreeing with each other is not enough.

We are not considering the idea that Schwartz needed to qualify his wording with "not very loudly". We are suggesting that the concept of a scream which was not very loud was coming totally from the translator, who presumably didn't know an appropriate English word for what Schwarz described. Nobody with a good vocabulary range would say someone screamed but not very loudly. The key wording is "not very loudly", as this explains why nobody else heard anything, which is what the police needed to know. They seem to have understood, and were satisfied.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We are not considering the idea that Schwartz needed to qualify his wording with "not very loudly". We are suggesting that the concept of a scream which was not very loud was coming totally from the translator, who presumably didn't know an appropriate English word for what Schwarz described. Nobody with a good vocabulary range would say someone screamed but not very loudly. The key wording is "not very loudly", as this explains why nobody else heard anything, which is what the police needed to know. They seem to have understood, and were satisfied.

So, the professional translator did not have the right word, and did not tell Abberline he did not have the right word? Yet Abberline remained satisfied with what he was hearing, which, according to yourself was due to his own internal translation which he did not put to paper.

Perhaps the translator was not a professional but instead was Schwartz's friend, as the Star stated. Let's hope that friend took a neutral approach and did his best to express Schwartz's descriptions in English, in spite of a limited vocabulary in that language.

[Fiver]

So, the professional translator did not have the right word, and did not tell Abberline he did not have the right word?

What professional translator?

And saying screamed, but not very loudly clearly shows that the amateur translator did not have the right word. Abberline wouldn't have needed even average intelligence to realize that.

[Fiver]

Thank you Abby and R.D. for your observations. I don't believe that anyone who spoke good English would ever say "She screamed, but not very loudly". It is a contradiction, as a scream is loud, and "not very loudly" means it was rather less than a scream. As I said previously, it is almost certainly the result of a translation by someone whose English vocabulary was limited. I see no reason for the club members to have particularly noticed a sound which wasn't very loud, and was probably fairly common around midnight in the East End in 1888.

We should also remember the scene was not silent.

[Coroner] Was there much noise in the club?
[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?
[Eagle] It would depend upon the cry.

[Coroner] Supposing a woman had screamed, would you have heard it?
]Krantz] They were singing in the club, so I might not have heard.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

If you would be so kind, could you apply your expertise to the whole damned "screamed" business? What is your take on it? Thanks.

c.d.

Hi CD, any expertise I may possess (and I claim none) doesn't appear to go very far on Stride threads. Nor do facts. But Schwartz said Stride cried out but not very loudly. If Schwartz's story is true, then so is this, and it doesn't stand to reason that anyone would have heard it or thought anything of it if they did. I'd wager BS Man's voice carried further and louder, but with the noise of the club I'd expect it all bled together in the ears of neighbors. Most neighbors didn't appear to hear Diemshitz and company crying out 'Murder!' and 'Police!'. That may be instructive.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Herlock Sholmes]

Response to post # 615

.
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
We can’t assume that he intended to mutilate if he wasn’t the ripper but the fact is that we would have to consider the time between him calling out Lipski and the moment that he killed Stride. Not a huge length of time but it might have been a thirty seconds or a minute or even longer. If no one had come out of the club in response to someone shouting Lipski then he would have been confident that he was ok.

So, what is Stride doing all the while - standing there sucking cachous?

Talking to BS man, the discussion continues for a short time until he killed her. If no one had come out of the club in that minute or two then he would have known that his “Lipski” hadn’t drawn attention.

There’s no evidence that Fanny Mortimer spent any more than a minute or so on her doorstep but do you doubt that she did spend longer? We can assume that anyone might have been lying.

This is an apples and oranges comparison. We could have physical evidence for Stride being thrown down. Someone standing in a doorway doesn't leave a physical trace.

As Stride was found lying on the ground we can assume that her skirt wasn’t exactly spotless. So how could any markings/dirt caused by her being on the floor during the incident have differed from that caused by her being on the ground after she had been killed.

How is it that one of the points that is constantly used against Schwartz honesty is the fact that Fanny didn’t see him (or the incident) so why shouldn’t we look at it from the other way. Why can’t we suggest that if she hadn’t seen Schwartz or Eagle or Smith or the couple or Lave or Brown then she might not have been on her doorstep for any great length of time? Might she not have been on her doorstep for only 5 minutes - enough time to see Goldstein and then lock up for the night.

As I said, we can ‘suggest’ that any witness was lying but it gets us nowhere if there’s no evidence for it. I don’t have figures but I’d suggest that witnesses are generally truthful, if often mistaken. I’d also suggest (and I’ll happily consider any info to the contrary) that most of whatever percentage of witnesses lie usually lie for a reason. If Schwartz lied then, as far as we know, he’d have been lying for no reason. What if the two men showed up and backed each other up in that neither laid a hand on Stride? What if they found the killer and he looked nothing like BS man? What if some neighbour had been looking out of a window, unknown to Schwartz, and then came forward to prove him a liar to the police?

The police already allowed for the possibility of BS Man not being the killer. Your other options are time-based. What about all those lectures on the lack of clock and watch synchronisation? Specifically, regarding two men showing up or being arrested, we see arrests in the Star that seem to be related to a loss of confidence in Schwartz's story.

I’m struggling to understand your point. The point I was making was about the risks that Schwartz would have been taking in lying about being present and witnessing the incident.

Andrew - Can you really see two men running off in fear while Stride does not even make enough sound to alert the women in the kitchen?

Herlock - Yes

I doubt such a scenario has ever occurred in world history.

That’s a remarkable statement. The men wouldn’t have run away because of Stride’s reaction. They would have run away because of BS man’s aggressive reaction to them

It’s just how he was described but we have no proper description. He’d have had to have been a very stupid attention seeker. What if Mortimer was just a self-important busybody who only spent a couple of minutes on her doorstep? What if PC Smith wasn’t as observant as he himself might have assumed and that the woman that he’d seen wasn’t Stride? What if Eagle had asked someone at his girlfriend’s house what the time was and he’d misheard the answer?

Not sure what your point is regarding Smith or Eagle. If Mortimer only spent a couple of minutes on her doorstep, what justifies calling her a self-important busybody?

I’m just suggesting how easy it to call someone a liar, or a bit stupid, or not very observant, or not very efficient.

[c.d.]

Thanks, Tom. That makes a lot of sense. Appreciate it.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

As a reminder, we do not have Schwartz's statement. We have Swanson's condensed version. And Schwartz's statement would have been prepared by police from notes taken during an interrogation. In other words, he probably didn't qualify his own statements, but was asked follow-up questions such as 'You say she screamed. How many times? How loud was it?' Any words spoken by BS Man, Stride, or Pipeman, would not have necessarily been understood or remembered by Schwartz, except 'Lipski'. Or perhaps this was the only intelligible word spoken. From the time Schwartz crossed the street to get away from BS Man to the time he fled would have amounted to mere seconds.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What professional translator?

And saying screamed, but not very loudly clearly shows that the amateur translator did not have the right word. Abberline wouldn't have needed even average intelligence to realize that.

Was that amateur translator also responsible for the Star account?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi CD, any expertise I may possess (and I claim none) doesn't appear to go very far on Stride threads. Nor do facts. But Schwartz said Stride cried out but not very loudly. If Schwartz's story is true, then so is this, and it doesn't stand to reason that anyone would have heard it or thought anything of it if they did. I'd wager BS Man's voice carried further and louder, but with the noise of the club I'd expect it all bled together in the ears of neighbors. Most neighbors didn't appear to hear Diemshitz and company crying out 'Murder!' and 'Police!'. That may be instructive.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

William Marshall heard it from 64 Berner St.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Talking to BS man, the discussion continues for a short time until he killed her. If no one had come out of the club in that minute or two then he would have known that his “Lipski” hadn’t drawn attention.

Talking to BS Man after he'd thrown her to ground?

Can we expect to see this minute or two in your next timeline?

How is it that one of the points that is constantly used against Schwartz honesty is the fact that Fanny didn’t see him (or the incident) so why shouldn’t we look at it from the other way. Why can’t we suggest that if she hadn’t seen Schwartz or Eagle or Smith or the couple or Lave or Brown then she might not have been on her doorstep for any great length of time? Might she not have been on her doorstep for only 5 minutes - enough time to see Goldstein and then lock up for the night.

Five minutes is radically different to what she claimed. Does that make you feel uneasy?

I’m struggling to understand your point. The point I was making was about the risks that Schwartz would have been taking in lying about being present and witnessing the incident.

My point is that, in practice, nobody cares about the unsynchronised clock issue. Your hypothetical person looking through window is a classic example.

That’s a remarkable statement. The men wouldn’t have run away because of Stride’s reaction. They would have run away because of BS man’s aggressive reaction to them

I didn't say they ran off due to Stride's reaction - you just made that up.

He was aggressive to Stride, not the men. Yet we are supposed to believe that she hung around while they ran off. The standard story is arse over head, and frankly naive. I think our 'frightened onlooker' got more involved than he cared to admit.

[Tom_Wescott]

William Marshall heard it from 64 Berner St.

Marshall said he 'heard about the murder shortly after one o'clock'. That's all he said. EVERYONE heard about the murder after one o'clock. Even PC Smith eventually figured out something was amiss on his beat.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[New Waterloo]

Although frustrating I think the Stride case tells us so much.
i think its reasonable to suggest that one of the ‘actors’ we all discuss is the murderer.
To suggest that an unknown mystery man, not accounted for is the murderer is a stretch to far.
what does this tell us?

it tells us that if we believe that the man we know as JTR killed Stride then we have him!

Its a long list. But he is there in front of us. You know the characters.

it is easy to say well yes but we dont know which one but consider this. What it tells us is who JTR isnt.

iJTR is not Gull, a Royal, a woman, a very tall man, blotchy man, a well off man with an Astrakhan coat. Can you imagine him strutting about unseen.

The good news is that if it was JTR hes there in front of us. The bad news is if it was JTR then it kicks lots of suspects into touch!