Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Abby Normal]

Nope - I didnīt remember that. Then again, I had her 160 centimeters tall, and she was but 152!
Even if we move her out somewhat, she will still be obscured by the door, Joshua. And of course, the door angle may have been acuter too. There are plenty of viable angles that support the view that she may have actually have been out of sight for Richardson.

I donīt think anybody has made this kind of drawing before. It is quite instrumental in explaining how Richardson could well have missed her, I believe.

move her out two feet from the wall at the back of the house fish and she would have been clearly in view. and even assuming the door would be leaning against him, would not block her body from view IMHO. she would have been literally at his feet. Plus hes looking down at his foot/boot to cut away a piece of leather.


Now that being said-wouldn't it have been completely dark at that time?

how is he checking the padlock-he said he checked it without leaving the stairs? Was there a lamp nearby? was he carrying a light?

[Fisherman]

move her out two feet from the wall at the back of the house fish and she would have been clearly in view. and even assuming the door would be leaning against him, would not block her body from view IMHO. she would have been literally at his feet. Plus hes looking down at his foot/boot to cut away a piece of leather.


Now that being said-wouldn't it have been completely dark at that time?

how is he checking the padlock-he said he checked it without leaving the stairs? Was there a lamp nearby? was he carrying a light?

Yes, do move her out two feet, and see whether that makes her visible - it does not! And as I pointed out to Joshua, the angle of the door may have been acuter.
It is very easy and very simple to see that she may well have been entirely hidden, Abby. People cannot see through doors!
Draw a straight line from Richardsons eyes past the doorblade, and you will see how much he saw if he was in that angle - and he could have been in a LESS useful angle to see her!

As I said before, it was murky, not yet light but in the process of getting light. Dawn, with the sun waiting to rise over the horizon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Concerning Richardson, I made a crude drawing, depicting from above the part of the backyard with an 80 cm wide door, and Richardson sitting on the step. I have the door open, it is (of course) also 80 centimeters.
The door swung back on itīs hinges and closed itself, Richardson said, so it is reasonable to suggest that it would have leaned against him as he sat on the step.
I have him turned slightly to his right, since his interest was in the padlock on that side.
Behind the door, lying on the ground, I have drawn in a 160 centimeter figure with the legs drawn up.

Take a look at how much the door hides. From where he sits, it is impossible to see Chapman. And it is still kind of dark too!

Here is the link to my - crude - drawing:

https://ibb.co/mfMk3U

Fish,

Her’s the image that we all know so well.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=29+hanbury+street&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYqLSW-ZLdAhXOTcAKHWVfDvoQ_AUIEigC&biw=1024&bih=1251#imgrc=4DJDAtaBAdV1ZM:

1. That the door swung back by itself (as per Richardson) is fair enough. But, as this picture and others show, if someone wanted to sit on the doorstep they only had to push the door back toward the fence and it’s stayed open on its own. So it’s not even probable that he would have had the door against his left thigh as your drawing depicts. Richardson, as a regular in the yard, would have known this.

2. The figure in your drawing is turned to the left as if looking at the cellar (which was of course his main reason for that mornings visit.) However that can’t mean that he sat rigidly only looking in the one direction. It’s quite reasonable to believe that he might have looked across the width of the garden.

3. Wouldn’t your suggestion that he had the door leaning against his left thigh have been slightly awkward for him as he attempted to repair his shoe? I assume that we don’t know if he was right or left handed but he would have had to have used both hands (gripping the shoe and working the knife) and this would have had him with his elbows sticking out pushing against the door. Why cope with this awkwardness when he could have just opened the door until it stayed open? It makes little sense.

4. Now I can’t be certain on this point because I don’t have access to any books at the moments but do we know the exact position of the body? I recall the picture with the silhouette but I can’t recall who positioned the it? How can you be certain, as per your drawing, that Annie’s head was right up against the house? You may be correct Fish but I’d always assumed that it wasn’t as close as that?

5. Then of course we have Richardson himself saying that he had a full view of the garden and that he couldn’t possibly have missed Annie's body had it been there.

6. Would Richardson have lied? I can’t see how he could and have expected the police to have believed him.

7. Even in your drawing Fish he would only have had to have pushed the door back a matter of 6 inches or even a foot and he’d have seen the body (or at least some blood for eg) beneath the huge gap from the bottom of the door to the ground.

8. With the narrow gap between the step and the fence Annie’s shoulder in your drawing would have pretty much rested on the step. Look at the huge gap below the door.

[Fisherman]

move her out two feet from the wall at the back of the house fish and she would have been clearly in view. and even assuming the door would be leaning against him, would not block her body from view IMHO. she would have been literally at his feet. Plus hes looking down at his foot/boot to cut away a piece of leather.


Now that being said-wouldn't it have been completely dark at that time?

how is he checking the padlock-he said he checked it without leaving the stairs? Was there a lamp nearby? was he carrying a light?

Here, Abby - I did the work for you: https://ibb.co/jnjuV9

As you see, a dead giraffe could have lain there undetected...

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Her’s the image that we all know so well.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=29+hanbury+street&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYqLSW-ZLdAhXOTcAKHWVfDvoQ_AUIEigC&biw=1024&bih=1251#imgrc=4DJDAtaBAdV1ZM:

1. That the door swung back by itself (as per Richardson) is fair enough. But, as this picture and others show, if someone wanted to sit on the doorstep they only had to push the door back toward the fence and it’s stayed open on its own. So it’s not even probable that he would have had the door against his left thigh as your drawing depicts. Richardson, as a regular in the yard, would have known this.

We only know he said that he did not close the door, since it took care of that detail itself! So apparently, it was not in a position where it stayed open. Plus the picture you rely on is of later date, I believe, with a new fence and perhaps a new door too - we donīt know.

2. The figure in your drawing is turned to the left as if looking at the cellar (which was of course his main reason for that mornings visit.) However that can’t mean that he sat rigidly only looking in the one direction. It’s quite reasonable to believe that he might have looked across the width of the garden.

He was there two minutes only and cut his boot during that time. Where is the sightseeing time, Herlock? And much as he could look forward, he still would not see the body if my drawing is correct.

3. Wouldn’t your suggestion that he had the door leaning against his left thigh have been slightly awkward for him as he attempted to repair his shoe? I assume that we don’t know if he was right or left handed but he would have had to have used both hands (gripping the shoe and working the knife) and this would have had him with his elbows sticking out pushing against the door. Why cope with this awkwardness when he could have just opened the door until it stayed open? It makes little sense.

See the above - he sat there two minutes, and then the door closed itself. Did he whistle on it, or was it against his body?

4. Now I can’t be certain on this point because I don’t have access to any books at the moments but do we know the exact position of the body? I recall the picture with the silhouette but I can’t recall who positioned the it? How can you be certain, as per your drawing, that Annie’s head was right up against the house? You may be correct Fish but I’d always assumed that it wasn’t as close as that?

Two feet from the wall with the head, six to nine inches from the steps, on her back, legs drawn up. Read the preceding posts and look at my next drawing!

5. Then of course we have Richardson himself saying that he had a full view of the garden and that he couldn’t possibly have missed Annie's body had it been there.

He never said he had a full view of the garden (or backyard). He said he could see all over the place, but he could not see through the door, could he?

6. Would Richardson have lied? I can’t see how he could and have expected the police to have believed him.

He does not need to lie to have Chapman out of sight. He MAY have lied, since he changed his story.

7. Even in your drawing Fish he would only have had to have pushed the door back a matter of 6 inches or even a foot and he’d have seen the body (or at least some blood for eg) beneath the huge gap from the bottom of the door to the ground.

But why would we predispose that he pushed the door back? He was occupied carving at his shoe, and the door was no obstacle.

8. With the narrow gap between the step and the fence Annie’s shoulder in your drawing would have pretty much rested on the step. Look at the huge gap below the door.

She was six to nine inches from the steps. Richardson would have to lean down to see under the door, unless he pushed it wider open. And why would he do that...? Any reason?

It is time it is acknowledged that Richardson must not have seen her at all. It is actually long overdue.

[Fisherman]

In addition to this, Iīd like to say that I am not trying to prove that he could not see the body. I am trying to prove that he MAY not have seen the body (and to my mind, he likely did not).
So suggesting that he may have felt awkward about the door being up against him is not useful in this discussion - we canīt tell whether he did or not, but we can tell that the door may have been against him nevertheless, obscuring Chapman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. That the door swung back by itself (as per Richardson) is fair enough. But, as this picture and others show, if someone wanted to sit on the doorstep they only had to push the door back toward the fence and it’s stayed open on its own. So it’s not even probable that he would have had the door against his left thigh as your drawing depicts. Richardson, as a regular in the yard, would have known this.

We only know he said that he did not close the door, since it took care of that detail itself! So apparently, it was not in a position where it stayed open. Plus the picture you rely on is of later date, I believe, with a new fence and perhaps a new door too - we donīt know.

The door looks pretty ancient to me Fish and we have more than one photograph of it staying open by itself. Richardson, by saying that the door closed on its own, could simply have meant that, like many doors, when pushed all the way back it stayed open but when it was pulled only 3 or 4 inches it then closed all the way on its own.

2. The figure in your drawing is turned to the left as if looking at the cellar (which was of course his main reason for that mornings visit.) However that can’t mean that he sat rigidly only looking in the one direction. It’s quite reasonable to believe that he might have looked across the width of the garden.

He was there two minutes only and cut his boot during that time. Where is the sightseeing time, Herlock? And much as he could look forward, he still would not see the body if my drawing is correct.

Richardson himself said that he looked around the yard and couldn’t have missed the body. Why would he lie? Also Fish we cannot assume that your drawing is correct. I’m not saying it’s dishonest Fish I’m just saying that we cannot assume that it’s correct as you are making a very specific statement about how he would have had to have sat to mot have seen the body.

3. Wouldn’t your suggestion that he had the door leaning against his left thigh have been slightly awkward for him as he attempted to repair his shoe? I assume that we don’t know if he was right or left handed but he would have had to have used both hands (gripping the shoe and working the knife) and this would have had him with his elbows sticking out pushing against the door. Why cope with this awkwardness when he could have just opened the door until it stayed open? It makes little sense.

See the above - he sat there two minutes, and then the door closed itself. Did he whistle on it, or was it against his body?


If it sprung shut as Richardson said then it would indeed have rested against his left leg. If you’re doing some task requiring two hands why would you want your left arm knocking against a door when it could easily have been avoided, even for 2 minutes?

4. Now I can’t be certain on this point because I don’t have access to any books at the moments but do we know the exact position of the body? I recall the picture with the silhouette but I can’t recall who positioned the it? How can you be certain, as per your drawing, that Annie’s head was right up against the house? You may be correct Fish but I’d always assumed that it wasn’t as close as that?

Two feet from the wall with the head, six to nine inches from the steps, on her back, legs drawn up. Read the preceding posts and look at my next drawing!


In your drawing Fish, by no stretch of the imagination is the head 2 feet from the wall. 6 inches at most I’d say. So the body would need to be a foot and a half further from the house.

5. Then of course we have Richardson himself saying that he had a full view of the garden and that he couldn’t possibly have missed Annie's body had it been there.

He never said he had a full view of the garden (or backyard). He said he could see all over the place, but he could not see through the door, could he?

This is quibbling Fish. He said that he couldn’t have missed a body. He couldn’t have seen through a door but he could have seen beneath one with a 2 foot or so gap.

6. Would Richardson have lied? I can’t see how he could and have expected the police to have believed him.

He does not need to lie to have Chapman out of sight. He MAY have lied, since he changed his story.


I would say that the door couldn’t completely have obscured the body unless he was consciously trying not to see it.

7. Even in your drawing Fish he would only have had to have pushed the door back a matter of 6 inches or even a foot and he’d have seen the body (or at least some blood for eg) beneath the huge gap from the bottom of the door to the ground.

But why would we predispose that he pushed the door back? He was occupied carving at his shoe, and the door was no obstacle.

When you open a door with the intention of sitting on a step I’d suggest that pretty much everyone would open the door fully. If the door stuck out far enough it would have been knocking against his left elbow as he worked. Opening it fully would be a perfectly natural thing to do. It hardly took a great effort.

8. With the narrow gap between the step and the fence Annie’s shoulder in your drawing would have pretty much rested on the step. Look at the huge gap below the door.

She was six to nine inches from the steps. Richardson would have to lean down to see under the door, unless he pushed it wider open. And why would he do that...? Any reason?

I would have taken that to mean 6 to 9 inches from the end of the step down into the garden and not across toward the fence as the gap between the steps and the fence couldn’t have been more that a foot and a half to two feet at best. So 6 to 9 inches from an imaginary line parallel to Richardson’s heels. Leaving the body sticking well out from behind the door.



It is time it is acknowledged that Richardson must not have seen her at all. It is actually long overdue.


I don’t understand then Fish why you say in your next post that he only might not have seen her body

It’s my opinion that it’s as near to impossible that we could get for Richardson not to have seen Annie’s body if it was there at that time.

[Fisherman]

It’s my opinion that it’s as near to impossible that we could get for Richardson not to have seen Annie’s body if it was there at that time.

In short: Richardson was asked by the coroner whether he closed the back door as he left. His answer was a no. He said he didnīt have to, since it closed itself. That clinches that it was NOT opened up to a position where it stayed open as he sat on the steps. If it had been, then Richardson would have had to close it, but he actively denied doing so.

You also keep saying that he must have seen her if she was further out from the wall. Did you not see my second drawing? He must not have seen her at all. She could have been two yards further out and he would not have seen her, if he was in the position I suggest.

It is not a discussion that should be prolonged. I set out to prove that Chapman could have been obscured from his view, and I have proven that. You have not proven that she could not have been, and you cannot come anywhere near proving it, it is that simple. The drawings speak for themselves - there could have been a massive area hidden from Richardsons sight, large enough to obscure two or three Chapmans. There is no practical denying that, as the drawings tell us.

That suffices for me. No slanging match needed, point proven. If you find the facts hard to swallow, itīs your problem, not mine.

I note that you donīt understand that I am not categorically saying that he could not have seen her. Thatīs because I try to be discerning - I will not jump on the kind of train you travel with, stating it as a near fact that he must have seen her, although you have been presented with clear evidence how it may not have been so. Without having any idea of what happened, you claim that he must have opened the door fully, because that is how we all do it, apparently.
That, my friend, tells the whole story. So much for an open approach.

Goodnight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In short: Richardson was asked by the coroner whether he closed the back door as he left. His answer was a no. He said he didnīt have to, since it closed itself. That clinches that it was NOT opened up to a position where it stayed open as he sat on the steps. If it had been, then Richardson would have had to close it, but he actively denied doing so.

You also keep saying that he must have seen her if she was further out from the wall. Did you not see my second drawing? He must not have seen her at all. She could have been two yards further out and he would not have seen her, if he was in the position I suggest.

It is not a discussion that should be prolonged. I set out to prove that Chapman could have been obscured from his view, and I have proven that. You have not proven that she could not have been, and you cannot come anywhere near proving it, it is that simple. The drawings speak for themselves - there could have been a massive area hidden from Richardsons sight, large enough to obscure two or three Chapmans. There is no practical denying that, as the drawings tell us.

That suffices for me. No slanging match needed, point proven.If you find the facts hard to swallow, itīs your problem, not mine.

I note that you donīt understand that I am not categorically saying that he could not have seen her. Thatīs because I try to be discerning - I will not jump on the kind of train you travel with, stating it as a near fact that he must have seen her, although you have been presented with clear evidence how it may not have been so. Without having any idea of what happened, you claim that he must have opened the door fully, because that is how we all do it, apparently.
That, my friend, tells the whole story. So much for an open approach.

Goodnight.

Deja-vu.

No matter how politely I debate with you it still ends up i with the same stance.

“Point proven.” - Fish is always right. Stop arguing

“So much for the open approach.” - Just because I argue reasonably you still believe that I should end up accepting that you are correct. You are also saying that I’m not open minded.

“Thatīs because I try to be discerning - I will not jump on the kind of train you travel with“ - and of course, I’m not discerning.

“That suffices for me. No slanging match needed, point proven.If you find the facts hard to swallow, itīs your problem, not mine.” - Typically insulting arrogance. I’ve tried to be polite with you Fish but you simply do not deserve politeness.

That Richardson said that the doors closed by itself proves zero. It probably did when pulled which meant that he didn’t have to wait around to check that it had closed properly but the evidence of the photographs show that the door could stay open on its own. Unless, as you suggest, future residents took of the old door and replaced it with an equally ancient one that did stay open. Something that there’s not a scintilla of evidence for.

Yes I saw your second drawing. Which, like the first one, considerable exaggerated the gap between the wall and the steps by around 50% as per the evidence of the photograph.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=29+hanbury+street&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2aaclpPdAhWmKMAKHSu8Cn8Q_AUIEigC&biw=1024&bih=1251#imgrc=YJFepqFFU8jNuM:

I would ask everyone to look at this photograph. Look at the second step that Richardson sat on. I’d even suggest that it was slightly worn down on the side of the cellar. But look at the gap between the bottom of the door and the ground. I’d suggest that with Richardson on the second step there would even have been a very reasonable chance that the door would have swung over the top of his knees. It would have been close. Either way, it’s ludicrous to suggest that as he opened the door and then he sat down that he wouldn’t have been able to see a mutilated corpse under the door!.

As far as I’m concerned it is indeed game over. The chances of Richardson not seeing the corpse when genuinely viewed logically, and not from the point of view of desperately needing the corpse not to have been there to keep a theory alive, are next to impossible. Your posts have showed that it’s you that isn’t open minded, not me. I’ll ignore the insults because I’m used to them. I won’t ignore the facts however.

[Herlock Sholmes]

People who are killed 5.30 do not turn totally cold in an hour or less, nor do they develop rigor, Abby. "Very confident" is therefore a judgement that may need some afterthought. What is more likely to be vague? Contradicting evidence or the processes of death?

Estimation of Time since Death
Ranald Munro BVMS, MSc, DVM, Dip Forensic Medicine, DipECVP, MRCVS, Helen M.C. Munro BVMS, MRCVS, in Animal Abuse and Unlawful Killing, 2008
Rigor mortis
Fully developed rigor mortis is an easily identifiable and reliable indicator that death has occurred. The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2–4 hours) after death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Rigor Mortis

Rigor mortis, from the Latin for "stiffness of death" is the rigidity that develops in a body after death. This rigidity may begin shortly after death—within 10–15 minutes—or may not begin until several hours later, depending on the condition of the body at the time of death and on environmental factors, such as moisture content of the air and particularly temperature. A colder temperature promotes a slower onset of rigor mortis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

With the condition of Annie’s body it doesn’t appear impossible that rigor could have set in earlier than thought by a Victorian doctor.

It doesn’t appear to be as black and white as suggested? I.e. there appears to be room for doubt.

Unlike the gap under the back door of 29 Hanbury Street. And the gap between the steps and the fence. And the fact of the door staying open. And the drop to the second step.

Things that we can see in real photographs......things that can’t be doubted.......unlikely a drawing (unless of course it was an accurate drawing by someone that was there with Richardson to confirm its accuracy).

[Fisherman]

Estimation of Time since Death
Ranald Munro BVMS, MSc, DVM, Dip Forensic Medicine, DipECVP, MRCVS, Helen M.C. Munro BVMS, MRCVS, in Animal Abuse and Unlawful Killing, 2008
Rigor mortis
Fully developed rigor mortis is an easily identifiable and reliable indicator that death has occurred. The time of onset is variable but it is usually considered to appear between 1 and 6 hours (average 2–4 hours) after death.

Exactly - in normal cases, the process begins to be seen after around 2 hours. And the colder it is, the less quick the process will be. Which is why there may be cases that commence earlier if the body is very warm, for internal or external reasons. If it is instead cold, that tends to slow the process down. So Phillips will have expectedrigor to be slowed down in Chapmans case, and in line with that, since he saw commencing rigor in Chapman, he acknowledged that in the extreme case, it could perhaps be that she had died only two hours before, but reasonably she had been dead longer. That is one of the reasons he said "probably longer".
Here is the scientifically worded version:
"In general, high environmental temperature will accelerate the onset, whereas low ambient temperatures have the opposite effect. The duration of rigidity is extended in dry cold conditions. Although the details of the relaxation process are not clear, it is generally accepted that the dissolution of rigidity is associated with early decomposition or denaturisation of muscle."

[Fisherman]

Deja-vu.

No matter how politely I debate with you it still ends up i with the same stance.

“Point proven.” - Fish is always right. Stop arguing

“So much for the open approach.” - Just because I argue reasonably you still believe that I should end up accepting that you are correct. You are also saying that I’m not open minded.

“Thatīs because I try to be discerning - I will not jump on the kind of train you travel with“ - and of course, I’m not discerning.

“That suffices for me. No slanging match needed, point proven.If you find the facts hard to swallow, itīs your problem, not mine.” - Typically insulting arrogance. I’ve tried to be polite with you Fish but you simply do not deserve politeness.

That Richardson said that the doors closed by itself proves zero. It probably did when pulled which meant that he didn’t have to wait around to check that it had closed properly but the evidence of the photographs show that the door could stay open on its own. Unless, as you suggest, future residents took of the old door and replaced it with an equally ancient one that did stay open. Something that there’s not a scintilla of evidence for.

Yes I saw your second drawing. Which, like the first one, considerable exaggerated the gap between the wall and the steps by around 50% as per the evidence of the photograph.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=29+hanbury+street&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&prmd=minv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK2aaclpPdAhWmKMAKHSu8Cn8Q_AUIEigC&biw=1024&bih=1251#imgrc=YJFepqFFU8jNuM:

I would ask everyone to look at this photograph. Look at the second step that Richardson sat on. I’d even suggest that it was slightly worn down on the side of the cellar. But look at the gap between the bottom of the door and the ground. I’d suggest that with Richardson on the second step there would even have been a very reasonable chance that the door would have swung over the top of his knees. It would have been close. Either way, it’s ludicrous to suggest that as he opened the door and then he sat down that he wouldn’t have been able to see a mutilated corpse under the door!.

As far as I’m concerned it is indeed game over. The chances of Richardson not seeing the corpse when genuinely viewed logically, and not from the point of view of desperately needing the corpse not to have been there to keep a theory alive, are next to impossible. Your posts have showed that it’s you that isn’t open minded, not me. I’ll ignore the insults because I’m used to them. I won’t ignore the facts however.

As I said before, I am not entering another slanging match with you. I have proven my point. The fact that you donīt like it, and that you once again try to make it out as if I claim that I cannot be wrong is something we have grown used to out here.

It is not a case of me not being able to admit when I am wrong. It is a case of you claiming so to obscure that you actually have been proven wrong. Which means that you are now doing exactly the thing you proudly claim not to do: ignoring facts.

One such example is the twaddle about me having to have Chapman in place in the backyard when Richardson was there "to keep a theory alive". Explain to me why Lechmere could not have passed Hanbury Street and killed her at 5.30 if that was the case? Not that the suggestion is half realistic, but anyway!

Some little help:

You write "Yes I saw your second drawing. Which, like the first one, considerable exaggerated the gap between the wall and the steps by around 50% as per the evidence of the photograph."

The wall and the steps are at a ninety degree angle, so there can be no "gap" there. You presumably mean the gap between the FENCE and the steps?
If so, it is common knowledge that the fence was replaced by a new fence some time after the murder, and that this new fence was probably closer to the steps than the old one. The police described the position of the corpse as having the head around two feet from the wall, and the body was somewhere between six and nine inches from the steps that she was lying alongside. And just by chance, that is the kind of distance I have in my drawing too.
These are things that are quite useful to know about before you enter a discussion, not least if you are going to accuse somebody of having exaggerated things.
I made the wall section between the door opening and the fence around 70 centimeters. If you take a look at this picture (provenance unknown), you can see that it is about what we have:

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/heritage/jack-the-ripper/5-30am-september-8-1888-woman-s-mutilated-body-found-in-hanbury-st-backyard-shock-2nd-murder-in-9-days-1-2367166

As I say, I donīt know the provenance of the picture, but I do know that there was room for the body to be in place and to be 6-9 inches from the steps, instead of lying upon them, since the police described it like that.

Here is a contemporary sketch, where you can see that there is another fence in place than the one in your picture. Note the gap.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the-rear-of-20-hanbury-street-brick-lane-spitalfields-where-the-body-105277698.html

And here on Casebook, we have another contemporary sketch. Here you can see where the fence touched the wall back in September 1888 quite clearly, leaving a considerably sized gap to the steps.

You cannot, should not, ought not use material that is irrelevant when trying to make a point. You must use the relevant material, and you must aquire full knowledge about something before you try to nullify another posters points. If you fail to do so, it will not look good, Herlock. And that just happened. It is an understandable mistake, but it is nevertheless a very unfortunate one.

[Fisherman]

Forgot the link to the Casebook pic:

https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4921/20115.jpg

Note that there is a roof over the cellar door. It is not there in the picture you want to rely upon. The reason is the same - the yard looked different back in 1888. Your photo is not admissible as evidence, Iīm afraid.

If you want to read up on the matter, I recommend this thread from 15 years ago. Time flies!

https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4921/6961.html