Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Herlock Sholmes]

The left arm was across the left breast, and the legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards.
.

Unlike the depiction in your drawing. Knees turned outwards make it even more likely that she would have been seen. If it could possibly get more likely

.
The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached.

We can’t be sure of how far to the right these intestines were spread but it’s an additional feature that might also have been seen as they lay to the right of a head that was turned to the right.

[Fisherman]

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.

How do you know that he had no reason to lie? Say, for example, that he had promised his mother to go check the padlock, and then he didnīt do so.
Would not that give him a reason to lie?

He gave different versions at different times about whether he had been on the steps or not. Does not giving such different versions leave you open to suspicions of having lied?

You see, I can turn this totally around and say "Hereīs John Richardson, a fellow who was all over the place with his testimony, who offered different scenarios, who said he cut his boot with his knife, only to then say that he had to get another knife at the market to do so and so on - why would we trust him?"

And why would we take his word for it when he says that he couldnīt possibly have missed the body? You say the same, which also amounts to a verbal certainty that is absolute - and still, I have proven you wrong on the subject.

We can easily see that he could have missed the body, given itīs position visavi the possible positions of Richardson on the steps we donīt even know he sat on, and the door.

There were people who sought out the police and said "I did it, I am the Ripper". Loads of them. "Verbal evidence cannot be any more certain than that", as you put it.

But actually checking the facts may alter it all.

[Fisherman]

Unlike the depiction in your drawing. Knees turned outwards make it even more likely that she would have been seen. If it could possibly get more likely



We can’t be sure of how far to the right these intestines were spread but it’s an additional feature that might also have been seen as they lay to the right of a head that was turned to the right.

... and there is ample room for intestines, flaps, striped socks, knees turned outwards and a good deal more on the area markes in my second drawing, Herlock. Quibbling about these things will not change that fact. All you achieve is an acknowledgement that these things may have meant that if Richardson bent down and looked under the door, he would easier have seen Chapman.

But once again, why would he do that? You have failed to answer that question so far. If you ask why he would not do it, I can only say because people normally donīt look under doors unless they are looking for something. And all Rivhardson looked for and concentrated on - if he WAS sitting there - was the padlock TO HIS RIGHT and the shoe he tried to mend. Why exactly would he give up on these prospects and think to himself "Hey, letīs turn the other way, stoop down and look out under the door, maybe thereīs a corpse there"?

[Busy Beaver]

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.

Exactly!

And if we stand in durward st tomorrow morning Lech just might show up

[Herlock Sholmes]

How do you know that he had no reason to lie? Say, for example, that he had promised his mother to go check the padlock, and then he didnīt do so.
Would not that give him a reason to lie?

He gave different versions at different times about whether he had been on the steps or not. Does not giving such different versions leave you open to suspicions of having lied?

You see, I can turn this totally around and say "Hereīs John Richardson, a fellow who was all over the place with his testimony, who offered different scenarios, who said he cut his boot with his knife, only to then say that he had to get another knife at the market to do so and so on - why would we trust him?

And why woould we take his word for it when he says that he couldnīt possibly have missed the body? You say the same, which also amounts to a verbal certainty that is absolute - and still, I have proven you wrong on the subject.

We can easily see that he could have missed the body, given itīs position visavi the possible positions of Richardson on the steps we donīt even know he sat on, and the door.

There were people who sought out the police and said "I did it, I am the Ripper". Loads of them. "Verbal evidence cannot be any more certain than that", as you put it.

But actually checking the facts may alter it all.

On the contrary Fish you proved absolutely nothing. Any viewing of the crime scene would lead overwhelming in favour of Richardson seeing the body had it been there.

What you are, in effect, saying is that for Richardson to have missed seeing the body is:

That he would have opened the door by no more than around 45 degrees - immediately looked eyes right and nowhere else - sat down with the door resting against the left hand side of his body - sat face to the right and not the more natural straight out - not looked to his left - and then when he stood up to leave he didn’t, as anyone would, push the door slightly more open so that he could exit.

When he initially opened the door it’s far more likely that he would have opened it wider than shown in your diagram. Not much perhaps but still more. The ‘inconvenient’ 2 foot gap below the door would have left Annie’s body in sight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

... and there is ample room for intestines, flaps, striped socks, knees turned outwards and a good deal more on the area markes in my second drawing, Herlock. Quibbling about these things will not change that fact. All you achieve is an acknowledgement that these things may have meant that if Richardson bent down and looked under the door, he would easier have seen Chapman.

But once again, why would he do that? You have failed to answer that question so far. If you ask why he would not do it, I can only say because people normally donīt look under doors unless they are looking for something. And all Rivhardson looked for and concentrated on - if he WAS sitting there - was the padlock TO HIS RIGHT and the shoe he tried to mend. Why exactly would he give up on these prospects and think to himself "Hey, letīs turn the other way, stoop down and look out under the door, maybe thereīs a corpse there"?

There was no need to stoop down. Standing on the top step, for a man of average height, with the door open say 60 degrees and with a 2 foot gap would have allowed Richardson to see fairly close to the fence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Look at James Mason opening the door and the view he had.

https://youtu.be/t8Ko2HJoLxA

Or this 3D view which briefly shows how easily it would be to see under the large gap in the door.

https://youtu.be/tgFZ1yCfH3U

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or this one.

https://youtu.be/IQxayl3qK8s

I’d say that if the fence was taken back by 2 or 3 feet then he might not have seen her. But we can’t.

[Fisherman]

To begin with, Herlock, here is "your" backyard, with just a 40 centimeter wall after the door, and with Chapman moved out and her legs turned out and he entrails flung over her right should. Richardson remains in the same position:

https://ibb.co/kQFX2p

So what does it alter? Bascically nothing - Chapman is still out of view from his angle. I even added a little sign, saying "dead woman", and she STILL is not within sight.

[Fisherman]

Now that the angle I have suggested has been put to the test with a smallish wall and with Chapman all of two feet from it, what remains is your other suggestion - that Richardson must have seen her UNDER the door is what is left.
And no, he must have done no such thing. It all lies in how close to the door he was and how high above the bottom section of the door his head was. And thre are pleny of angles he could have been in, none of them unlikely - and involving the one I depicted - where he would not have been able to see Chapman.

So the simple truth is that there is no need at all to assume that he did see her and even less need to suggest that he must have done so. Remember that he had no need whatsoever to peer under the door in the first place!

[Fisherman]

Aaaand here we are - Richardson on the stairs. He is sitting in the middle stair, I have the upper and lowere steps down as about 10 centimeters, the middle one is twice that size, 20 cm. I tailormade Richardson - supposedly a bifg man if I remember correctly - by measuring myself. Im am 193 centimeters, and my lower leg is around 50. So I used around 40 for Richardson. My upper body is around 60 cem from bottom to shoulder when I sit down, and so I offered Richardson 50. Meaning that I am depictin just about how high a 165-175 cm guy would sit on those stairs. Then I factored in the door, in the approximate angle from the earlier drawing. The steps are 80m centimeters wide at the top and a little more at the bottom.
I pictured Richardson from the front for simplicitys sake.

https://ibb.co/ms3ANp

Note the angle of the eye, if he looks to his left, past the door - it goes straight into the steps.

And that means that there is a very real possibility that he could not see Chapman from where he was sitting, unless he flung the door open and looked to his left.

If he didnīt, then he could not see her from where I have him sitting. He would have to stoop down dramatically to do so.

Whichever way we look at it, there is a very real possibility that he missed out.

PS. Just noticed that I have his upper body one centimeter too high - but even if we change that, his view will pass through the stone steps anyway, at more or less the same angle. It really is a non-issue by now.

[Fisherman]

Or this one.

https://youtu.be/IQxayl3qK8s

I’d say that if the fence was taken back by 2 or 3 feet then he might not have seen her. But we can’t.

In this film, the door is flung maximally open. Shut it to the angle I suggest and see what happens. It would probably have made Richardson go "Blimey! So I can have missed her after all!"

[Herlock Sholmes]

It amazes me that you’re putting up such a fight over such a completely lost cause Fish

Look at the gap. It’s vital’

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=recreating+29+hanbury+street&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&prmd=imnv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid25X28pTdAhVsL8AKHRIQDckQ_AUIDygB&biw=1024&bih=1251#imgrc=A6bJK9yfsa2mvM:

Imagine that door swinging toward being closed. Look at the step that Richardson sat on. Look how low it is. The door would have been higher than his legs. When he opened the door initially he’d have opened it wider than in your drawing. I know that you are suggesting that he sat facing left but I’m making the point that if he sat in a more normal position, ie facing forward, without bending or stooping or anything unusual he would have been able to see, at a guess, within a foot or two of the fence. Annie’s body, with her knees pointing outward, from knee to knee would have been approximately three feet across. So even if her left knee was touching the fence her right knee and much more would have been in sight.

Even if he sat facing right. When he stood up to go and held the door back even slightly to allow him to exit he would have seen the body.

Richardson would have had to have pretty much deliberately tried to avoid seeing it. It would have been an effort.

I see not the slightest possibility that anyone acting naturally could have missed a body whose feet were 6 feet down into the garden and who would have been 3 feet across with knees spread outward from the fence and with a door with a 2 feet gap beneath it.

[Fisherman]

It amazes me that you’re putting up such a fight over such a completely lost cause Fish

Sorry, mate, but I have actually proven that Chapman was out of sight with the parameters used in my drawings. It is the law of nature we are talking about here, so it wonīt budge.

Look at the gap. It’s vital’

Yeah? Looking at it, Herlock. And?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=recreating+29+hanbury+street&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&prmd=imnv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid25X28pTdAhVsL8AKHRIQDckQ_AUIDygB&biw=1024&bih=1251#imgrc=A6bJK9yfsa2mvM:

Eh? Thatīs just the old pictures. They have been dealt with in my drawings.

Imagine that door swinging toward being closed.

Right.
Look at the step that Richardson sat on. Look how low it is.

Mmm. His butt would have been around 30 centimeters off the ground.

The door would have been higher than his legs.

It would be u at that approximate level, yes, as per my drawing. But he did not have eyes in his kneecaps!

When he opened the door initially he’d have opened it wider than in your drawing.

Stop! There is no telling about that at all. Nor is there any telling where he looked as he shoved the door open. Maybe he put his shoulder against it and pushed, maybe he used his hand, we cannot possibly know. So stating as a fact that it opened wider than in my drawing is folly. Moreover, he may have had the door at a much more acute angle than in my drawing, remember!

I know that you are suggesting that he sat facing left but I’m making the point that if he sat in a more normal position, ie facing forward, without bending or stooping or anything unusual he would have been able to see, at a guess, within a foot or two of the fence.

I am actually suggesting that he sat facing RIGHT, Herlock - the lock was to his right, remember?
Since he was there to check that lock, why would it be a normal position to sit straight forward? Not that it matters, because what I am saying is that he MAY have sat as I depicted, and there would be nothing at all odd with it.
Plus, my drawing of him on the stairs shows us that he could not have seen anything at all of the ground beyond the steps, if he was indeed in the kind of position I suggest. It is all good and well to say that he could see here and there - but bolster it with a drawing showing us your take, and it will be easier to look at your thinking in detail.

Annie’s body, with her knees pointing outward, from knee to knee would have been approximately three feet across. So even if her left knee was touching the fence her right knee and much more would have been in sight.

No, it would not. His eyes were too far up the door-blade to allow for him to see anything at all in the recess, unless he stooped down. It is in the drawing, the angle is quite clear and it does not lie. Once again, it is the laws of nature that governs this.

Even if he sat facing right. When he stood up to go and held the door back even slightly to allow him to exit he would have seen the body.

When did he "hold the door back"? How on earth do we know that he did? If he just get up and let the door slide off him and in place, he would not add a millimeter to the scope. You are inventing things, Herlock.

Richardson would have had to have pretty much deliberately tried to avoid seeing it. It would have been an effort.

What? Why would he do that? What reason would he have to look to his left side in the first place? Even if he did, the body would be obscured, but nevertheless - why would he do that?

I see not the slightest possibility that anyone acting naturally could have missed a body whose feet were 6 feet down into the garden and who would have been 3 feet across with knees spread outward from the fence and with a door with a 2 feet gap beneath it.

Put an obstacle in the shape of a door between that somebody and the body, and you would be amazed, Herlock. It is ever so effective.

Now, please bolster your thinking with sketches or material that illustrates how you think it worked. How did he manage from above to bounce his sight off the steps, then falling slowly down onto the body? Just how does that work?
It is game over, really. The only ionteresint question is how long it will take for it to dawn on you. Right now, you are in a Richardsonesque situation, it would seem - there is light and things to see but you do not make use of it.

[Fisherman]

Hopefully my last drawing for the evening - Herlock on the stairs!

https://ibb.co/nDYQ59