Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Herlock Sholmes]

I never checked the measures and had forgotten that they existed, Herlock. But since it did not matter at all - when I moved her out and had her legs knees out, she was STILL obscured by the door, and easily so.

So what is your problem?

You’re embarrassing yourself here Fish.

Simply ascribing 45 degrees to a door angle when you had written 65 hardly compares to moving the body a foot and a half, turning her into a midget and significantly altering the position of her legs which would have put them further out into the yard.

[Fisherman]

You remind me of a footballer Fish.

One who takes a dive to claim a penalty then imagines that no one else has seen it

In this case YOU were the diving footballer, and I was the referee who found you out and punished you, remember?

I was not the one claiming that the angle was 45 degrees - you were.

Once again goodnight! My advice to you is not to put any more balls on the penalty point; I will inevitably kick them in.

[Fisherman]

You’re embarrassing yourself here Fish.

Simply ascribing 45 degrees to a door angle when you had written 65 hardly compares to moving the body a foot and a half, turning her into a midget and significantly altering the position of her legs which would have put them further out into the yard.

It HAS dawned on you that I could have depicted her like a giraffe and she would STILL fit into the space? No?

And that I could have moved her around a lot, and she would still be obscured?

If I had made her smaller to make her lie out of sight from Richardson, you would have had an eminent point. THEN you could accuse me of foul play.

As it stands, you are making a farcical point. Once more.

Now, you REALLY must forgive me for not parttaking in your educated reasoning any more today. I´ll be back tomorrow. Promise!

[Herlock Sholmes]

The photographs were not taken on the murder morning, Herlock. On the murder morning, John Richardson said that he did not have to close the door since it closed itself. And that means that it was NOT pushed back.

So we have a choice: Do we choose to think the door was pushed open, which is in conflict with the recorded evidence, or do we accept that it was in the process of closing itself, hindered only by Richardsons person?

We both think it is an easy call.

But we have different reasons to do so.

Do youhave doors in Sweden Fish? I’d always assumed that you had

How can you say that just because the photographs weren’t taken on the morning of the murders that we can throw out the fact that they are remaining open on their own??? Perhaps on the morning of the murder the door had a tarpaulin over it which covered the massive gap?!

The door was very uneven and old as we can see. Many doors, and I’d suggest that this one was the same, once pushed back past a certain point stay open but when you pull them back past the same point they swing shut. Maybe they got it from Ikea?

Thus confirming a) that the door could stay open (as per photo.)
And b) that the door when pulled slightly would swing close and click shut (as per Richardson.)

Perfhaps someone knows a toddler that might be able to explain this to Fish

[Herlock Sholmes]

In this case YOU were the diving footballer, and I was the referee who found you out and punished you, remember?

I was not the one claiming that the angle was 45 degrees - you were.

Once again goodnight! My advice to you is not to put any more balls on the penalty point; I will inevitably kick them in.

An error of twenty degrees compared with a drawing of a mummified Hobbit a whole foot and half further up the yard than she should have been and with her legs in a completely incorrect position. Yeah right Fish.

And let’s just take the time to remember I was commenting on a drawing by you, which I wasn’t actually looking at whilst I was typing.

And yet you, who have spent years researching into the case, far, far more than I have done, didnt ‘remember’ that Annie’s knees were apart?

Who’s is the more understandable error?

I leave that open.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It HAS dawned on you that I could have depicted her like a giraffe and she would STILL fit into the space? No?

And that I could have moved her around a lot, and she would still be obscured?

If I had made her smaller to make her lie out of sight from Richardson, you would have had an eminent point. THEN you could accuse me of foul play.

As it stands, you are making a farcical point. Once more.

Now, you REALLY must forgive me for not parttaking in your educated reasoning any more today. I´ll be back tomorrow. Promise!

When you come back remember to bring a white flag with you.

Oh and again, remind me why Richardson was such a half-wit that he didn’t realise that there was a swathe of the yard that he couldn’t have seen? An area where the body might have remained ‘hidden.’ You know, the body that he actually saw. Where it lay.

[John Wheat]

You’re embarrassing yourself here Fish.

Simply ascribing 45 degrees to a door angle when you had written 65 hardly compares to moving the body a foot and a half, turning her into a midget and significantly altering the position of her legs which would have put them further out into the yard.

Fisherman embarrassing himself about Lechmere what's new?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman embarrassing himself about Lechmere what's new?

Absolutely nothing at all John. It’s par for the course as you know

[harry]

Fisherman,
I have not denied anything.You are,true to form,writing lies in stating that i did.
I do not know,neither do you,how far the door was opened.Only Richardson knew that,but that it could have been opened untill it came up against the fence is an undeniable fact.That a person looks down when descending steps is a statement that is backed by experience,most people do so even when sitting on a chair or other similar occassions.

So I have no difficulty in accepting that on opening the door in to the yard,it was opened enough to reveal a person lying there,by a person looking down.That Richardson was not asked how far the door opened on that occassion,is neither here nor there,but his statement that he would have seen a body had one been there,to me,was based on his(Richardson) knowledge that there had been opportunity for him to have observed the space in question and seen nothing.

Your observation on how I treat ripperology lacks one important consideration.Mine is based on truth.... yours?

[Robert St Devil]

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...

Thanks for the link to the East London Advertiser Fisherman. Judging by the varying height of the fence palings, I can see why it ranged from 5'6" to 6'. Still I used it as a measurement to gauge 6' more or less, which is roughly how far away the soles of her boots were away from the wall (taking into consideration the 2' distance from the wall and the length of her body with bent legs). Not groundbreaking but much of her body is going to be beyond the width of that door, possibly reaching beyond the distance of the basement well. That's a lot of body to go unnoticed regardless if he looked under the door or not. I leave it narrowly open that obstacles may have made him oblivious to her dead body but it would be a very particular scenario, like nothing whatsoever caught his peripheral vision nor did he ever glance slightly left.

I think if he had an itch to.look at the steps, then it was because he was doing the natural thing of leaning forward over his knee to look down at his boot.

[Fisherman]

Do youhave doors in Sweden Fish? I’d always assumed that you had

How can you say that just because the photographs weren’t taken on the morning of the murders that we can throw out the fact that they are remaining open on their own??? Perhaps on the morning of the murder the door had a tarpaulin over it which covered the massive gap?!

The door was very uneven and old as we can see. Many doors, and I’d suggest that this one was the same, once pushed back past a certain point stay open but when you pull them back past the same point they swing shut. Maybe they got it from Ikea?

Thus confirming a) that the door could stay open (as per photo.)
And b) that the door when pulled slightly would swing close and click shut (as per Richardson.)

Perfhaps someone knows a toddler that might be able to explain this to Fish

The door was on hinges that were designed to make it close itself. Richardson is very clear on that point - he did not have to close the door, since it did that by itself.
Ergo, the door was never in a position where it was full up and motionless. If it had been, then Richardson would have had to shut it.
He did not, as he testified about in very certain terms.

The photo you look at may well represent the door having been secured to the far end by means of a latch - when latched, it cannot swing back. Such a latch is useful if you want the door not to close while you travel through it. Imagine, for example, carrying a sofa through a door that will not stay open. It´s a bummer, right? So how is that problem solved? It is solved by adding a latch.

I don´t know if they have them at Ikea, but I do know that they are common.

So let´s summarize!

On the murder morning, Richardson did NOT shut the door, it shut itself. That means that he never had it latched to the far end. and if he did not the hinges would ensure that it did not stay open.

Tell me, Herlock: Do you understand how this works now? You can lead a donkey to water, but...

[Fisherman]

An error of twenty degrees compared with a drawing of a mummified Hobbit a whole foot and half further up the yard than she should have been and with her legs in a completely incorrect position. Yeah right Fish.

And let’s just take the time to remember I was commenting on a drawing by you, which I wasn’t actually looking at whilst I was typing.

And yet you, who have spent years researching into the case, far, far more than I have done, didnt ‘remember’ that Annie’s knees were apart?

Who’s is the more understandable error?

I leave that open.

Well, you even leave the door open, although Richardson said it shut itself.

I can only apologize for not remembering every detail of the case I have read about. Then again, I HAVE read about them. That is what makes me avoid using photos that do not give a true picture of the conditions in 1888, for example.

I don´t expect any- and everybody to keep track on such things, but I always hoped they would understand the error built into not knowing about it. No such luck, though.

[Fisherman]

When you come back remember to bring a white flag with you.

Oh and again, remind me why Richardson was such a half-wit that he didn’t realise that there was a swathe of the yard that he couldn’t have seen? An area where the body might have remained ‘hidden.’ You know, the body that he actually saw. Where it lay.

From where he sat, it would be a logical thing to say that "I could see all over the place". When you sit on the stairs, you would be able to see more than ninety per cent of the yard, and the expression "all over the place" could easily come into play.
If he had been asked "could you really see every square millimeter of it?", he would probably realize that he was wrong.
Expressions like these are very common. They were never meant to be exact representations. All of us know that. (See?)

[Fisherman]

Fisherman embarrassing himself about Lechmere what's new?

I take comfort in how there are so many levels of embarrasment, John. And I thank you for alerting me to the full scope - seeing the extremes is always interesting.

[Fisherman]

I do not know ... how far the door was opened.

Bravo, Harry - impressive insight and all we need to know.