Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

I have had my morning coffee now, and so I am more reasonable and less grumpy. And I took another look at "the picture we all know so well", as you describe it, and I realized that going by that one, it would seem very odd if someone sitting on the steps did not see a dead body on the ground beside him. Not impossible, but decidedly odd.
It dawned on me that it would seem that your whole argument seems to have been built on this picture. And if so, it is understandable that you would not accept what I propose. Moreover, maybe many, many of those who agree with you, are the victims of the same thing - putting trust in a picture that is actually not representative of how the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street looked in September 1888.
It would explain why I am being pictured as proposing something outlandish, and it would explain why you say that it is almost impossible for Richardson to have missed out.
In which case, we are brawling for a stupid reason.

I urge you to read the thread I linked to, and then we can perhaps renew the discussion. There are more pictures in it, showing the real layout and the distance between steps and fence.

[Fisherman]

One more point - Colin described the hinges on the door as being designed to make the door swing back after having been opened. I think that in the drawings and pictures where it is open, it will be attached to the fence by means of a latch or string. That is what people with these kinds of doors will do, in case they need the door to stay open as they pass through carrying things, for example. Once they are done, they release the latch or the string and the door slams shut again.
Just a suggestion, of course. But since Richardson said he did not close the door since it did so by itself, I donīt think he had it latched to the fence. If he did, then de-latching it would equal closing it, and he said he didnīt. Plus it would be odd if he felt he needed to open the door and latch it for an errand that took but very short time.

[Harry D]

It doesn't look like there's enough room between the steps and the fence to miss the body. Like Fish said, it's not impossible, but you'd have to be pretty damn oblivious to miss it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I also don’t intend a slanging match but I’ll say this. Anyone is free to read back and see that I said nothing insulting or disrespectful. The insults came, without provocation, from you. I also believe that I have proven my point.

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.

It’s not me that’s prioritising your drawing over actual photographs.

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!

As Lechmere began work at 4am on 31st August it’s extremely likely that he would have started work at that time every day. Therefore if Chapman was still alive at 4.45 it puts doubt on whether he could have killed her.

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

My use of the ‘wall’ instead of ‘fence’ was an obvious error.

The police said that Annie’s head was 2 feet from the wall and yet in your drawing it’s no more than 6 inches so she would have been a foot and a half further down.

It’s also noticeable that in your drawing Annie is lying tucked up. Weren’t her legs open?

You say a new fence was ‘probably’ closer in. How can you justify such a leap for which there is zero evidence. Fences which border other properties, when replaced, are overwhelmingly likely to be in the same place or a neighbourcould be accused of encroaching.

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.

It’s still very tight for a body. Especially when we see the huge gap beneath the door.

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.

No mistakes here. We can see the gap beneath the door. That would not have changed even if they had replaced the door. Every single person seeing this and also see the step that Richardson sat on can see that there’s a very, very good chance that the door, if it swung toward him as he sat there, might have passed over the top of his knees. And even if it didn’t quite, it would have been close. He couldn’t have avoided seeing a body underneath it.

As Richardson opened the door, even if he only opened it half way as you suggest, the huge gap beneath the door would have made it impossible for him not to have seen the corpse. I feel no need hedge here. I am confident that this is proven and we have photographs to back this up. I’d suggest that for Annie’s corpse to have remained out of sight the fence would have had to have been 1- 2 feet further back and she would have needed to have been pretty much lying against it.

[Fisherman]

It doesn't look like there's enough room between the steps and the fence to miss the body. Like Fish said, it's not impossible, but you'd have to be pretty damn oblivious to miss it.

That is the wrong fence, Harry! The one in the pic is a new one, erected after the provisory one that stood there in 1888 - further away from the steps, going by the drawings and pictures available.

[Fisherman]

As Richardson opened the door, even if he only opened it half way as you suggest, the huge gap beneath the door would have made it impossible for him not to have seen the corpse. I feel no need hedge here. I am confident that this is proven and we have photographs to back this up. I’d suggest that for Annie’s corpse to have remained out of sight the fence would have had to have been 1- 2 feet further back and she would have needed to have been pretty much lying against it.

Herlock, it does not matter how much of a gap there is under a door if your head is way up the side of it. Take another look at my drawing. Richardson would need to bend dwon to be able to look under it - and why on earth would he do that? Otherwise, the body would remain hidden.
Why would he take a look down to his left to begin with? I never open doors and peer down under them to see what I can find. Do you?

Also, if the door was only open enough to allow for his person, that is to say, it rested against him, then looking down on the left side from his position would only have brought the stone steps into sight.

The salient point here is that we must avoid using the photo you suggest for determining whether she could have been out of sight or not. That is a dead end.

[Busy Beaver]

That is the wrong fence, Harry! And even then you'd still have to go to the left to avoid falling down into the cellar in the dark.

[Fisherman]

As Richardson opened the door, even if he only opened it half way as you suggest, the huge gap beneath the door would have made it impossible for him not to have seen the corpse. I feel no need hedge here. I am confident that this is proven and we have photographs to back this up. I’d suggest that for Annie’s corpse to have remained out of sight the fence would have had to have been 1- 2 feet further back and she would have needed to have been pretty much lying against it.

Look at the pics in the old thread, Herlock - the fence IS a feet or two further back than in the pic you rely on. And she may well have been up against it, going by the fact that there was space between her and the steps.

[Fisherman]

Herlock:

The police said that Annie’s head was 2 feet from the wall and yet in your drawing it’s no more than 6 inches so she would have been a foot and a half further down.

It’s also noticeable that in your drawing Annie is lying tucked up. Weren’t her legs open?

I have already pointed out - at Joshuas request - that I had forgotten about the measurements you name. But it remains that we can clearly see in my second drawing that there was a huge area that was hidden to Richardson - if he was sitting the way I suggest he did. As I said earlier, it could have swallowed two or three Chapmans that were obscured from sight. Legs open or not. As I remember it, Phillips said "Legs drawn up".

[Harry D]

That is the wrong fence, Harry! And even then you'd still have to go to the left to avoid falling down into the cellar in the dark.

Ah ok, I assume there's no contemporary photo of the yard then?

[Busy Beaver]

I agree with Herlock and that the body would needed to have been right up against the fence and in fact and into the right corner for Richardson not to see the body if it had been or was there. The door would have been hitting against Richardson's left arm whilst he was sitting on the steps fixing his boot and if it was quite dark, then he would have quite easily missed seeing anything.

It does make me wonder, however, if Chapman had used the back of 29 before, or quite possibly the killer, as if you didn't know where you were going, and it being dark You probably would have ended up falling into the cellar, as looking at the picture there is very little room for error and if the door swung back without warning and you did move to your left, you'd have had it.

[Fisherman]

Ah ok, I assume there's no contemporary photo of the yard then?

There are drawings that we know are contemporary, and that show a significantly larger gap. And there are undated photos that show the same.

This link is useful:

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

[Fisherman]

I agree with Herlock and that the body would needed to have been right up against the fence and in fact and into the right corner for Richardson not to see the body if it had been or was there. The door would have been hitting against Richardson's left arm whilst he was sitting on the steps fixing his boot and if it was quite dark, then he would have quite easily missed seeing anything.

It does make me wonder, however, if Chapman had used the back of 29 before, or quite possibly the killer, as if you didn't know where you were going, and it being dark You probably would have ended up falling into the cellar, as looking at the picture there is very little room for error and if the door swung back without warning and you did move to your left, you'd have had it.

Thee was a roof over the cellar, actually, and it would have adjoined the stairs and been visible to anyone using it. Still, it was obviously not the safest of layouts.
Thanks for realizing how Richardson could quite easily have missed the body!

[Fisherman]

Double posting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came.

So hear we have Richardson at the Inquest. A man with no reason to lie. He states that he’d seen the body after it had been discovered by Davis. Therefore he knew exactly where the body lay and he knew exactly what position she was in. He also knew exactly where he had sat and in exactly the position that he’d sat. He also knew exactly how much of the yard he would have been able to see. Does he show any sign of doubt? Not a bit. He says that he couldn’t possibly have missed seeing the body if it had been there at 4.45.

Verbal evidence can’t be any more certain than this.