Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Simon Wood]

Richardson was sitting on the steps—

". . . the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long . . . After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door . . . I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then."

John Davies was standing in the hallway [top step]—

"There was a little recess on the left. From the steps to the fence is about 3 ft. There are three stone steps, unprotected, leading from the door to the yard, which is at a lower level than that of the passage. Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the left-hand recess, between the stone steps and the fence. She was on her back, with her head towards the house and her legs towards the wood shed. The clothes were up to her groins."

How did Richardson stop the door from closing whilst leaning forward to re-tie his boot, a two-handed operation?

If the body was there at the time, there is no way Richardson could have failed to see it.

So like it or not, it all comes down to whether Richardson was lying.

[Sam Flynn]

How did Richardson stop the door from closing whilst leaning forward to re-tie his boot, a two-handed operation?

When Richardson said that "the door closed itself" this needn't imply that the entire door snapped shut unattended, like a giant mousetrap; he probably just meant that it locked itself. A bit like Mary Kelly's door, which could also be said to have "closed itself" when the lock clicked, but that doesn't mean that her door was spring-loaded either.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

The door would have had to self-close in order to lock itself.

I appear to be sensing a little goalpost-creep.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

The door would have had to self-close in order to lock itself.

No self-closing required, only a little impetus from a person's hand. And not much impetus either; it doesn't seem to have been the heaviest of doors.

I appear to be sensing a little goalpost-creep.

Thankfully, I don't do goalpost-creeping, Simon, and I've never envisaged Richardson's door as snapping shut on its own.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why should we think that Davis opened the back door any wider than Richardson did?

After all Davis just opened the door whereas Richardson went down at least 2 steps.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Your Post #374—

If the door wasn't self-closing, what force was making it constantly bump against [Richardson's] left elbow, as "shown in Fish's diagrams"?

Regards,

Simon

[harry]

Why would Richardson lie? He appeared to be doing what was a regular chore.

[Simon Wood]

Either Richardson lied, or Dr. Phillips was mistaken.

I know who my money's on.

[Fisherman]

There’s really no way of debating honestly with someone so determined to find a set of circumstances that would allow for Richardson to have missed Annie’s body no matter how unlikely. Richardson sits face forward on the step completely naturally and he sees the body. Richardson pushes the door open perfectly naturally as he steps down into the yard and he sees the body. If he opens the door only at an angle across him, then sits facing away from the body with the door resting against his left arm, actually bumping against his arm as he repairs his shoe, then he misses the body.

Then he lies of course. Or he never cottoned on to the location of the body despite having actually seen it where it was.

Drivel.

If this wasn’t important to your Lechmere obsession you wouldn’t have spent a quarter of the time twisting and obfuscating on this issue. If you are that desperate to do your ‘yippee Lechmere could still be the ripper’ dance then by all means carry on. I’m perfectly happy that it was overwhelmingly unlikely that Richardson could have missed a gutted corpse.

Anyway, this thread is beginning to smell much too Fishy for me and anyone else cursed with a measure of common sense and reason and being completely devoid of obsession.

You really need to think before you write, Herlock. Or not write at all.

I have - throughout - never said that the door could not have been open to the full. I have never said that may not have been there. I have never said that Richardson could not have sat straight forward (in which case the body may still have been hidden from view, if the doorblade was angled).

I have never for a second said that what I point to as a suggestion must be correct.

You, on the other hand HAVE said that it is next to impossible for Richardson to have missed the body, and now you call the suggestion that he may not have done so "drivel".

It is you who push a closed agenda, not me. All I am saying is that it MAY be that Richardsom missed the body, and I do not weigh the chances either way.

I take a measured approach, you are the zealot.

And you canīt even see it! To you, you are being perfectly sensible and discerning.

THERE`S drivel for you.

[Fisherman]

What you don’t seem to take into account, Christer, is that, in order for Richardson to sit down on the middle step the way you suggest, he would have stepped, at the very least, on the lower step. By the photo below, I judge the steps to have been some 25 cm deep, making them deeper than you have them in your drawings.

Richardson’s head would have been quite a bit closer to the edge of the door (leaning against him) when he stood there on the bottom step (if only briefly), with the door possibly a little more closed than in your drawings. Standing like this, his field of vision would include a bigger part of what was behind the door when he was in a sitting position.

But, when sitting down, I have little doubt that he bended forward with his upper body making his head stick out just in front of the edge of the door. I have little doubt about this, because that’s what I do when sitting down on something as low as that middle step. If so, the door would no longer block his view of a good part of Chapman. And the same goes for standing up. As he claimed to have his feet on the flagstones while seated, he may, when standing up, very well have done that with his feet still on the flagstones and, therefore, being more or less fully beyond the edge of the door, none of his view being blocked by it.

Take care,
Frank

There you go, Frank - that is the point that I earlier told Herlock would be of interest. I however wanted to see if he could come uo with it himself.

Plus I said that it still does not guarantee that Richardson must have seen the body. And that owes to a few things:

We can sit down on a higher step and lower ourselves down.

We need not look to out left as we step down, if indeed we do step down.

He may have stepped down with an angle to the right.

There are so many parameters and possibilitites to ponder that it is very evident that he need not have seen Chapman. For exemple, when he got up, if he had had the door leaning against him, we can be rather sure that he turned to his right before getting up the stairs - because you do not turn into a door that is leaning against you, you turn from it.

No guarantee, of course, but that is the logical way of doing it - and the doo will obscure as it happens.

You say he may have leant forward. Yes, he may have. But how are we certain that he must have? We are not, simple as that. Plus even if he did lean forward, how do we know that he looked to his left? Once again, we donīt. The pure and simple fact is that even if he DID find himself in a position that would allow for seeing part of Chapman at ome time, it is no certain thing that he would do so. It would require him actually looking in that direction, whether it was a toe, a foot or half a calf that was visible.

What I find strange out here is the hellbent refusal to accept that Richardson actually well may have missed the body. There is a will to diminish that possibility into a near certainty that it could absolutely not have happened. And all the while, I am the one being depicted as locked in my thinking! That is beyond ridiculous.

It may of course be even more ridiculous to have the discussion at all since it is evident that Richardson may never have sat on the steps in the first place.

[Fisherman]

And who would do this with a door cramping your style and constantly bumping against your left elbow, as would have been the case in the configuration shown in Fish's diagrams?

If you found it annoying that you could not work your arms because the door kept interfering with your elbow, why would you not rest it against your knee? Could you expand a little bit on that, please?

[Fisherman]

Exactly Gareth

Fish thinks that this is quite normal however. Richardson would never have thought to push the door out of the way. And when he entered the yard he’d have only half opened the door of course.

You ARE aware that if he pushed the door "out of the way", it would actually return again? You do see how that works, donīt you?

Can you see how that problem would have been easily solved by resting the door against your knee, if you needed to do someting with your hands and arms?

Are you really so totally hellbent on not understanding how this would have worked? Is it against all logic to let a door that swings back on itīs hinges rest agianst your person? How else do we deal with that problem? Do we fill our lungs and try to blow the door open? Do we let it bounce, boing, boing, boing, as we sit there?

How do you suggest such a problem should have been solved, if the door persistently came back all the time you pushed it open?

I would like for you to explain that to me. If the door WOULD swing back on itīs hinges, precisely how would you avoid the door when sitting on the stairs?

[Fisherman]

[Simon Wood:

How did Richardson stop the door from closing whilst leaning forward to re-tie his boot, a two-handed operation?

Answer - he didnīt, and he couldnīt. But we may rest assured that as he laced up his shoe, no matter how far he leant forward and how much the doorblade obscured, his concentration would not be to his left side. It would be on the shoe. If it was his right shoe and if he was sitting more or less turned to hisn right, he would arguably not have seen Chapman.

So like it or not, it all comes down to whether Richardson was lying.

No, that is but one of two possibilities that can explain why he did not see Chapman if she was there.

[Fisherman]

No self-closing required, only a little impetus from a person's hand. And not much impetus either; it doesn't seem to have been the heaviest of doors.
Thankfully, I don't do goalpost-creeping, Simon, and I've never envisaged Richardson's door as snapping shut on its own.

Richardson was asked if he closed the door and answered ha didnīt, because it did so itself. Are we to believe that he opened the door wide, the door stayed open as he sat there, and then, as he got up, the door shut itself?

Or are you suggesting that he opened it wide, and then it stayed wide open, and THEN he gently swung it back on itīs hinges, but he did NOT actually close it - and then, the door that would stay open and would not swing back on itīs hinges, suddenly slammed itself shut as he left?

Are these the kinds of exoticisms that I must deal with now?

[Fisherman]

Why should we think that Davis opened the back door any wider than Richardson did?

After all Davis just opened the door whereas Richardson went down at least 2 steps.

Yes, that is of course absolutely correct! If one person opens a door to a certain angle, then surely ALL people must open it to the SAME angle!

At LEAST!

Good thinking there.