Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Robert St Devil]

I blv the contagion is spreading on this point, Herlock. Past few pages have been a good read. I'm thinking that door is about 3 feet wide; so, opened at a 90 degree angle from the house, it's only really obscuring her head and shoulders (about 1 foot measuring down from the top of her head) if she is 2 feet away from the wall. I realize her legs were bent in, but that would still leave about 3 to 4 feet of her body extending beyond this opened door. I don't imagine Richardson sat sideways on that top step and hung his feet over the side into that well leading into the basement when he cut the boot, so id have him sitting more forward too. Even with the door shut slightly, there still should have been enough of her body visible to have been noticed.
And... that's not even getting into "whoever Cadosch heard" stumbling over her dead body at around 5:30 and not reporting it IF she had been murdered much prior to that time.

[Fisherman]

I blv the contagion is spreading on this point, Herlock. Past few pages have been a good read. I'm thinking that door is about 3 feet wide; so, opened at a 90 degree angle from the house, it's only really obscuring her head and shoulders (about 1 foot measuring down from the top of her head) if she is 2 feet away from the wall. I realize her legs were bent in, but that would still leave about 3 to 4 feet of her body extending beyond this opened door. I don't imagine Richardson sat sideways on that top step and hung his feet over the side into that well leading into the basement when he cut the boot, so id have him sitting more forward too. Even with the door shut slightly, there still should have been enough of her body visible to have been noticed.
And... that's not even getting into "whoever Cadosch heard" stumbling over her dead body at around 5:30 and not reporting it IF she had been murdered much prior to that time.

If you open it 180 degrees, you will see even better! Thing is, we don´t know that he DID open the door ninety degrees. Or more. Or less. But if it was less, then he would see less. In fact, the acuter the angle, the less he would be able to see. Plus it all also hinges on his proximity to the door and his height over the stairs if we are researching the view down underneath the door.
Also, of course, I am still to see a good explanation as to why exactly he would feel urged to look under the door in the first place. Where does the acute itch to stare on the steps and perhaps a stone slab or two come from...?
But you are of course correct - the more we open the door, the more we will see. Whether that is groundbreaking news or not, Mr Devil, is another matter...

[Fisherman]

From looking at those contemporary sketches, there still wasn’t much of a gap between the steps and the fence. Not enough to obscure a mutilated corpse that’s for damn sure.

Fish, would you be arguing so obstinately against Richardson seeing the body if it didn’t harm your particular suspect? I’d wager probably not.

Then you may have to rethink it, Harry - I supported Phillips long before I started to support Lechmere.

You write that there was not much of a gap, and that this gap was not enough to obscure a corpse. But the width of the gap is of no interest at all if the doorbalde was in as an acute angle as I had it in my drawing - if so, then you could not see the gap at all from where I have Richardson sitting. Youwould stare into the steps.

[Fisherman]

God it’s tiring in Fishworld

So Gareth and Harry both agree with me. It looks like the madness is contagious

All that you’ve done is to manufacture a series of actions by Richardson, to the exclusion of far more natural actions, to arrive at a situation where he ‘might’ not have seen a mutilated corpse when he was inches from it.

And to make matters worse we have Richardson’s testimony (which it goes without saying is a pack of lies because it works against your theory) where he states that he actually saw the body in situ so he knew exactly where it was and how much floor area it took up. And so as he knew how much of the yard had been in his field of view during the duration of his stay then he would have been able to state authoritatively, as he did, that he couldn’t possibly have missed the body had it been there.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist Fish. Desperate

If you find Fishworld boring, then be my guest and leave it.

If you think having Gareth and Harry agreeing with you means that you are likely to be correct, then think again.

If you think it is "unnatural" to turn a little bit to the right when looking at something that is positioned to your right, then you are wrong.

If you think that Richardson could not have missed the body you are - once again - wrong.

[Fisherman]

That you never cease to amaze me was meant as a compliment, Christer, so I apologize if I gave you the idea that you were married to ideas. So, you can rest assured that I’ll let you nail you colours to the mast yourself. ��

Many thanks for that!

I agree. The reason why I’m no supporter of the “bubble idea” is exactly this. We know Neil heard Thain at the end of Buck’s Row. We know the Ripper had every reason to pay attention to his surroundings, but the “bubble idea” entails that he didn’t until Paul had covered perhaps half of those 130 yards.
One remark here. According to Dr. Llewellyn the wounds to the abdomen were done in a downward direction, which would mean that at least while doing this, the Ripper was facing the east, where Paul was coming from. And my guess it that when he cut her throat he was at the right side of her head/shoulder, facing the stable doors.

People can get so excited by something they have long wantd to do, that they loose some of their sense capacity when it happens, Frank. It´s not unheard of. But I have no problems with him having heard Paul from afar and STILL he chose to stay on.
As for the downward direction, it must hinge on the grip on the knife. When you gut fish, you hold the fish with one hand and then you cut AWAY from yourself, the knifetip pointing away. The cut goes all the way down, and the knife is then lifted out, completing the length of the cut.
I see how you reason, of course, and it just as possible. I just think that it would be wiser to straddle her facing west, because there was a shorter distance to the school house corner and potential trouble.

I agree more or less with all of this, so my next question would be: how likely would it be for Lechmere to wait for Paul for something like 40 seconds? In fact, if Lechmere heard Paul entering Buck’s Row (or even e bit before) and would have almost immediately decided to split, he would have had time in abundance to do so. That’s why I put even less credence in this idea than the one in which Lechmere was in a “bubble” and didn’t hear Paul until he was too close for comfort.

Take care,
Frank

The further away Paul was when he heard him, the more logical it becomes that he would have split, reasoning at a basic level. Then again, the more of a psychopath who likes to play games he was, the more likely it becomes that he would welcome the opportunity to fool the newcomer.
Many things can have had an influence. At the end of the day, it must have taken some little time to conceal the knife, pull Nichols´ clothes down, check her for any visible blood, get up and back out into the street. Seemingly, as he did this, Paul was still not discernible, and Robert Paul would consequently not have been able to see Lechmere either. That means that there was SOME time to flee, if he opted for that way out.
To me, however, the fact that we do have concealed wounds speaks volumes. It speaks of a conscious decision that muct have been made well before Paul could see Lechmere, and thus also about how the carman never intended to flee. He decided to stay put, and he did so reardless of how there was a window of time allowing for him to leg it before Paul could see him.
Whether this decision was something he took because he was wary of how another PC could grab him in the midst of his flight or whether he simply wanted to play a game - or whether the combination seemed a good idea - is written in the stars, just as we cannot know from which distance Lechmere actually heard Paul.

Anyway, thanks for offering some rewarding discussion, based on well reasoned points! A scarce enough commodity, I dare say.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course it’s possible to manipulate a set of circumstances where Richardson sat facing to the right working on his shoe in an unnecessarily constricted manner with door against his left arm. Or that when he opened the door he only opened it 45 degrees blocking off part of the garden even though he was checking that there had been no intruders (yes, mainly the cellar doors) Or that when he stood up to leave he didn’t push the door open more so that he could turn and leave. All this might conveniently have possibly meant that he might have missed the body. Is this in any way believable though using our own ideas of normal behaviour? Of course it isn’t.

Additionally to believe this we have to accept that John Richardson lied despite the fact that he was very specific about what he could or couldn’t have seen. Despite the fact that later on he actually saw the body in situ and so would have been fully aware of its position and how much floorspace it would have taken up. He would have also known how far he had opened the door and in what position he had sat whilst repairing his shoe. He would have also known in what directions he had looked. Yet we are still being asked to believe that there could have been a mutilated corpse in that yard and that he was too stupid or dishonest to realise or admit that it was partially behind the door. Come on!

Nothing can be proved by a drawing except that an unbelievable set of circumstances could have occurred and that Richardson could have been either too much of an utter imbecile to realise this or that he lied for some unfathomable reason.

https://ibb.co/eBZz2z

Just a photograph of the yard (if this link has worked.) only approximations of course.

The arrowed line is Fish’s suggested position of the door, from the time that Richardson entered the yard to the time he left.

The dashed line is, I would suggest, a more natural 90 degrees opening of the door.

The dotted line is also a very reasonable possibility of where Richardson might have pushed the door back to so that it stayed put and didn’t impede him in any way whilst he mended his shoe.

The curved line ‘C’ shows the unnecessarily constricted space that Richardson would have had according to Fish.

Curved line ‘A’ is the position of Annie’s intestines. Obviously they could have stuck out slightly further into the yard making them easier to see.

The angled line at point ‘B’ is an approximate position of Annie’s right knee approximately three feet from the fence (which I felt reasonable even if her left knee was against the fence. If he left knee was away from the fence then her right knee might have been even further across into the yard making even easier to see.)

Line ‘D’ is the outside of Annie’s right arm at her side.

Line ‘E’ is a position of her arm if her arm wasn’t tucked so closely by her side.

John Richardson said that he couldn’t have missed seeing the body. We have no genuine reason to call him a liar. I can’t see any reason why we should call him an idiot either. For me it’s overwhelmingly likely that he didn’t see the body because it wasn’t there.

[Fisherman]

Of course it’s possible to manipulate a set of circumstances where Richardson sat facing to the right working on his shoe in an unnecessarily constricted manner with door against his left arm. Or that when he opened the door he only opened it 45 degrees blocking off part of the garden even though he was checking that there had been no intruders (yes, mainly the cellar doors) Or that when he stood up to leave he didn’t push the door open more so that he could turn and leave. All this might conveniently have possibly meant that he might have missed the body. Is this in any way believable though using our own ideas of normal behaviour? Of course it isn’t.

Additionally to believe this we have to accept that John Richardson lied despite the fact that he was very specific about what he could or couldn’t have seen. Despite the fact that later on he actually saw the body in situ and so would have been fully aware of its position and how much floorspace it would have taken up. He would have also known how far he had opened the door and in what position he had sat whilst repairing his shoe. He would have also known in what directions he had looked. Yet we are still being asked to believe that there could have been a mutilated corpse in that yard and that he was too stupid or dishonest to realise or admit that it was partially behind the door. Come on!

Nothing can be proved by a drawing except that an unbelievable set of circumstances could have occurred and that Richardson could have been either too much of an utter imbecile to realise this or that he lied for some unfathomable reason.

https://ibb.co/eBZz2z

Just a photograph of the yard (if this link has worked.) only approximations of course.

The arrowed line is Fish’s suggested position of the door, from the time that Richardson entered the yard to the time he left.

The dashed line is, I would suggest, a more natural 90 degrees opening of the door.

The dotted line is also a very reasonable possibility of where Richardson might have pushed the door back to so that it stayed put and didn’t impede him in any way whilst he mended his shoe.

The curved line ‘C’ shows the unnecessarily constricted space that Richardson would have had according to Fish.

Curved line ‘A’ is the position of Annie’s intestines. Obviously the could have stuck out slightly further into the yard making them easier to see.

The angled line at point ‘B’ is an approximate position of Annie’s right knee approximately three feet from the fence (which I felt reasonable even if her left knee was against the fence. If he left knee was away from the fence then her right knee might have been even further across into the yard making even easier to see.)

Line ‘D’ is the outside of Annie’s right arm at her side.

Line ‘E’ is a position of her arm if her arm wasn’t tucked so closely by her side.

John Richardson said that he couldn’t have missed seeing the body. We have no genuine reason to call him a liar. I can’t see any reason why we should call him an idiot either. For me it’s overwhelmingly likely that he didn’t see the body because it wasn’t there.

Just a question: Why do you speak of a body turned very much right and of a 45 degree angle and such things, when you know perfectly well that no such things appear in my drawings?

I have the body slightly to the right, but with both legs over the front side, and I have an approximate angle of some 65-70 per cent in the door.

So why are you making an effort to make it seem as if what I am suggesting is very odd?
Why do you overexaggerate like that?

Could it be because yoo don´t want it to be recognized that there is nothong at all weird with my representation?

Pesonally, I would feel ashamed of myself to do something like that.

You may look differently on it, though.

Once you´ve answered that, I will get back to you on the rest. Let´s hope it is a little more truthful.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you find Fishworld boring, then be my guest and leave it.

If you think having Gareth and Harry agreeing with you means that you are likely to be correct, then think again.

If you think it is "unnatural" to turn a little bit to the right when looking at something that is positioned to your right, then you are wrong.

If you think that Richardson could not have missed the body you are - once again - wrong.

No, I think it’s unnatural to turn and look to the right then to look only in that direction for the duration of his stay. I think it’s frankly a bit strange to not believe a man (with no reason) who said that he could have missed the body especially when he’d later seen it in situ.

Give it up Fish

[Fisherman]

No, I think it’s unnatural to turn and look to the right then to look only in that direction for the duration of his stay. I think it’s frankly a bit strange to not believe a man (with no reason) who said that he could have missed the body especially when he’d later seen it in situ.

Give it up Fish

He said he could NOT have missed the body, Herlock. History is full of people who are dead certain of things up until they are proven wrong. Richardson may well have been one of them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a question: Why do you speak of a body turned very much right and of a 45 degree angle and such things, when you know perfectly well that no such things appear in my drawings?

Where have I mentioned a body turned right?? The only 45 degree angle that I’ve used is an approximation of the angle of the open door that you yourself used.

I have the body slightly to the right, but with both legs over the front side, and I have an approximate angle of some 65-70 per cent in the door.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. I know that Annie’s knees where pointed outward though, something that you haven’t represented in your drawing.

So why are you making an effort to make it seem as if what I am suggesting is very odd?
Why do you overexaggerate like that?

Exaggerating? Do you mean like when you put Annie’s head around 6 inches from the wall when it was actually 2 feet! Or when you have Annie’s knees together when they weren’t? Is that what you mean?

Could it be because yoo don´t want it to be recognized that there is nothong at all weird with my representation?

Im saying that my explaination is far more natural and normal than yours.

Pesonally, I would feel ashamed of myself to do something like that.

Of course you wouldn’t St. Fish.

You may look differently on it, though.

I look at things without Lechmere goggles on

Once you´ve answered that, I will get back to you on the rest. Let´s hope it is a little more truthful.

So St. Fish has no problem with calling me a liar? No problem. It’s not that I’m unused to this attitude is it

Poor old Richardson. Accused of not even being capable of looking around a small yard sufficiently to notice a mutilated corpse!

[Fisherman]

Sadly, I now not that you have misrepresented my take on things in your effort, Herlock. You actually DO have a 45 degree angle only, and that is not what I have. I have a lot more than so. With your representation - which is not impossible, by the way, he COULD have sat on such a small area, but he would have to have his right leg over the short end of the stairs.

In the end, there is no reason to say that it is more normal or to be expected with 90 degrees than 65-70, that is just something you thought up, right? The door swung back ojn it´s hinges, and so the position of the person entering would govern the angle. And in a world where we spare efforts whenever we can, why open the door moore than necessary.

Thing to keep in mind : I never depicted a 45 degree opening, and it is not nice to have it implied that I did!

By the way, if you want a better argument, there IS such a thing - but I think I will wait and see if you can see it yourself. Not that it in any way tells us that he must have seen Chapman, though - but it takes us a bit closer.

[Fisherman]

Poor old Richardson. Accused of not even being capable of looking around a small yard sufficiently to notice a mutilated corpse!

And the age old "You only say so because you promote Lechmere" again. Instead of arguing a case, you resort to that. I´m sorry, but it is not my fault that Phillips opted for a scenario that is consistent with the carman being the killer en route to work. The same goes for all the other things that point to him - it is not I who invented them. I was not the one disagreeing with Mizen, the one who used another name, the one...

Do not bring it up therefore, but instead try and find intelligible arguments. NOT like "everybody knows that we all open doors at least 90 degrees" or "Fish has a 45 degree opening only". MEASURE the opening I have, and you will see! It´s dead easy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sadly, I now not that you have misrepresented my take on things in your effort, Herlock. You actually DO have a 45 degree angle only, and that is not what I have. I have a lot more than so. With your representation - which is not impossible, by the way, he COULD have sat on such a small area, but he would have to have his right leg over the short end of the stairs.

In the end, there is no reason to say that it is more normal or to be expected with 90 degrees than 65-70, that is just something you thought up, right? The door swung back ojn it´s hinges, and so the position of the person entering would govern the angle. And in a world where we spare efforts whenever we can, why open the door moore than necessary.

Thing to keep in mind : I never depicted a 45 degree opening, and it is not nice to have it implied that I did!

By the way, if you want a better argument, there IS such a thing - but I think I will wait and see if you can see it yourself. Not that it in any way tells us that he must have seen Chapman, though - but it takes us a bit closer.

I said that these were approximations. The door in your drawing looked around 45 degrees. Ok 65 degrees then. It’s amazing that you react to a small thing like this as if I’d insulted your wife in some way. Why the exaggerated outrage?

How can you say that it’s not the most likely thing for a man to open a door and sit on the step not to sit centrally and facing forward! It’s normal. It’s what 99% of the worlds population would do.

Stop nit-picking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the age old "You only say so because you promote Lechmere" again. Instead of arguing a case, you resort to that. I´m sorry, but it is not my fault that Phillips opted for a scenario that is consistent with the carman being the killer en route to work. The same goes for all the other things that point to him - it is not I who invented them. I was not the one disagreeing with Mizen, the one who used another name, the one...

Do not bring it up therefore, but instead try and find intelligible arguments. NOT like "everybody knows that we all open doors at least 90 degrees" or "Fish has a 45 degree opening only". MEASURE the opening I have, and you will see! It´s dead easy.

Agenda.

[Fisherman]

Agenda.

No, it is no agenda at all - the angle IS much more than 45 degrees. An honest approach honours the one who uses it. A dishonest one, however...