Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

You never cease to amaze me, Christer, changing your view from "he was in a bubble and didn't hear Paul until he was too close for comfort" to this one.

Do you have an idea of how much time Lechmere approximately had before Paul would arrive at the crime spot if Lechmere heard Paul enter Buck's Row?

I never seize to amaze myself! I do not know the exact development, and I think both scenarios have things speaking for them. I am certain that if Lechmere had normal hearing and Paul normal shoes, then potentially Lechmere COULD have heard Paul from 130 yards away.
Then again, there is also the possibility that the reason that Lechmere stayed on lies partially in how he could have been in a bubble, perhaps straddling Nichols with his head turned to the west, as Paul drew closer.
Obviously, if he WAS the killer, then he must have noticed Paul in time to be able to get up, conceal the wounds and stash the knife and step out into the road.
Thos things can be done in less than twenty seconds, easily. And Paul would have had a minutes walk or so from the juncture up at Brady Street until he was outside Browns.
So there is time in abundance.

I am not married to ideas the way you seem to suggest. For example, it seems everybody thinks that I am saying that Lechmere must have visited his mum on the Stride murder occasion. But he could equally have pubcrawled, or he could have seen old friends.

Please don´t nail my colours to the mast for me. I want to do that myself!

[Fisherman]

But he did say that he checked the padlock and found it ok and then he sat down to fix his shoe. As we see from the photograph the door would stay back (near the fence) on its own. There was also a large gap from the ground to the bottom of the door. It’s surely far more likely that Richardson would have just pushed the door open and it would have stayed open as in the picture. It would have almost been an effort to avoid seeing Annie Chapman if she was there.

Also, if he was repairing his shoe he would have used both hands, probably with his elbows sticking outwards. Why would he therefore have the door touching his left leg as it would have been knocking against his left arm? Again surely he would have pushed it out of the way so that it didn’t impede his efforts?

There are no "surelys" here, I´m afraid. He could have missed her if she was there. It could be that he himself was NOT there, even.

Phillips leaves me in precious little doubt that Chapman was, though.

[Fisherman]

Hi all
I think if she was there he would have seen her.
And yes very shaky testimony.

This is another witness that i think needs to be looked at more closely.

Do we know if there was a lamp there? Was he carrying a light? Does it get light at that time of year at that early?

It was not yet light, but in the process of becoming so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are no "surelys" here, I´m afraid. He could have missed her if she was there. It could be that he himself was NOT there, even.

Phillips leaves me in precious little doubt that Chapman was, though.

It looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point Fish. Witnesses can be wrong (they can also lie of course) and so can doctors in the Victorian era when estimating a TOD. I’m unsure how a modern day doctor might assess the likely accuracy of Phillips’ opinion though? I certainly don’t have enough knowledge to say that he was wrong but isnt it possible that he might have been out by an hour or so?

It’s my honest opinion though that, viewing the yard, the steps and the large gap from the bottom of the door to the ground, I’d think it bordering on impossible that Annie’s corpse could have remained unseen by Richardson.

I don’t know why I forgot to mention this but I did. Richardson said that he went to check the lock on the cellar door and that the doors were secure. Surely he couldn’t have expected to have done that from the step. He’d have gone down the step and over to the cellar doors to physically check that they were secure - past the corpse.

[Fisherman]

It looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point Fish. Witnesses can be wrong (they can also lie of course) and so can doctors in the Victorian era when estimating a TOD. I’m unsure how a modern day doctor might assess the likely accuracy of Phillips’ opinion though? I certainly don’t have enough knowledge to say that he was wrong but isnt it possible that he might have been out by an hour or so?

It’s my honest opinion though that, viewing the yard, the steps and the large gap from the bottom of the door to the ground, I’d think it bordering on impossible that Annie’s corpse could have remained unseen by Richardson.

I don’t know why I forgot to mention this but I did. Richardson said that he went to check the lock on the cellar door and that the doors were secure. Surely he couldn’t have expected to have done that from the step. He’d have gone down the step and over to the cellar doors to physically check that they were secure - past the corpse.

Even if he DID go to check the padlock, he would not go past the corpse, Herlock. It was between the fence and the steps, and Richardson would have gone the other way.

But!

At the inquest, this was what was said between the Coroner and Richardson in the errand. I am highlighting the important passages.

"(Coroner Did you go into the yard? -No, 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. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. 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.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[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. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market.
When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place. "

So it seems to me that Richardson never set foot in the yard. And to boot, he had earlier told that he never set foot on the steps either!

Could Phillips have been out an hour or so? To me, that depends on how close to death that hour is supposed to be shoehorned in. If Phillips had seen Chapman one minute after she died, she would have been quite warm and there would be no rigor and so on. In such a case, he would never say "She has been dead at least one hour".

In the case at hand, he says "at least two hours, probably more". Let´s say that he thought it was around three hours, but he was willing to accept two as an absolute extreme.
In that case, he would have accepted that a body can grow totally cold (but for a little remaining heat under the intestines) in two hours only, on account of the extensive mutilations. He would also be able to accept that rigor perhaps could set in very early in this case.

But he drew the line there. He was not willing to accept that the extreme he spoke for should be moved a full hour and perhaps a little more, leaving us with the suggestion that the cold body and the rigor had come about in an hour or less!

I sympathize totally with that view. The jump is way too long and illogical.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even if he DID go to check the padlock, he would not go past the corpse, Herlock. It was between the fence and the steps, and Richardson would have gone the other way.

But!

At the inquest, this was what was said between the Coroner and Richardson in the errand. I am highlighting the important passages.

"(Coroner Did you go into the yard? -No, 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. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. 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.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[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. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market.
When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place. "

So it seems to me that Richardson never set foot in the yard. And to boot, he had earlier told that he never set foot on the steps either!

Could Phillips have been out an hour or so? To me, that depends on how close to death that hour is supposed to be shoehorned in. If Phillips had seen Chapman one minute after she died, she would have been quite warm and there would be no rigor and so on. In such a case, he would never say "She has been dead at least one hour".

In the case at hand, he says "at least two hours, probably more". Let´s say that he thought it was around three hours, but he was willing to accept two as an absolute extreme.
In that case, he would have accepted that a body can grow totally cold (but for a little remaining heat under the intestines) in two hours only, on account of the extensive mutilations. He would also be able to accept that rigor perhaps could set in very early in this case.

But he drew the line there. He was not willing to accept that the extreme he spoke for should be moved a full hour and perhaps a little more, leaving us with the suggestion that the cold body and the rigor had come about in an hour or less!

I sympathize totally with that view. The jump is way too long and illogical.

‘Going past the corpse’ wasn’t the best way of putting it. What I meant was that if he’d gone over to check the lock on the cellar door on completion of the task he would have turned around toward the doorway and undoubtedly have seen the corpse.

Anyway the whole point is moot because of him saying that he saw that the lock was in place from the steps. No arguments there.

But.....yes there are always buts when he initially opened the door he would only have had to have opened it say just over halfway and he would have seen at least part of Chapmans body. And as he supposedly sat on the second step even if the door was resting against his left thigh I still can’t see how he wouldn’t have been able to see part of the body. Also, as he was familiar with the yard he would have known that he’d only to have pushed the door open to the fence and it would have stayed open on its own whilst he was fixing his shoe.

Another point is: could he have seen the body but just lied because he didn’t want to be suspected?

A very minor point. What did he do with the piece that he cut from his shoe? If he just chucked it into the yard, which seems likely, did the police look for it as it would have confirmed his story about what he was doing?

[Joshua Rogan]

‘Going past the corpse’ wasn’t the best way of putting it. What I meant was that if he’d gone over to check the lock on the cellar door on completion of the task he would have turned around toward the doorway and undoubtedly have seen the corpse.

Anyway the whole point is moot because of him saying that he saw that the lock was in place from the steps. No arguments there.

But.....yes there are always buts when he initially opened the door he would only have had to have opened it say just over halfway and he would have seen at least part of Chapmans body. And as he supposedly sat on the second step even if the door was resting against his left thigh I still can’t see how he wouldn’t have been able to see part of the body. Also, as he was familiar with the yard he would have known that he’d only to have pushed the door open to the fence and it would have stayed open on its own whilst he was fixing his shoe.

Another point is: could he have seen the body but just lied because he didn’t want to be suspected?

A very minor point. What did he do with the piece that he cut from his shoe? If he just chucked it into the yard, which seems likely, did the police look for it as it would have confirmed his story about what he was doing?

A gaiter-spring was found in the yard, which does tend to corroborate his boot-cutting story, as he would have presumably had to remove the gaiter to loosen his boot.

Selected extracts from Richardson's evidence;

"It was not quite light, but enough for me to see.

Did you notice any object in the yard?-No, sir. I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then.

Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.

I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?-Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

And that was the sole object you had in going there?-Yes, sir.

Did you sit on the top step?-No, the second step.

Where were your feet?-On the flags of the yard.

You must have been quite close to where the body was found?-Quite right, sir. If she had been there at the time I must have seen her."

[Herlock Sholmes]

A gaiter-spring was found in the yard, which does tend to corroborate his boot-cutting story, as he would have presumably had to remove the gaiter to loosen his boot.

Selected extracts from Richardson's evidence;

"It was not quite light, but enough for me to see.

Did you notice any object in the yard?-No, sir. I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then.

Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.

I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?-Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

And that was the sole object you had in going there?-Yes, sir.

Did you sit on the top step?-No, the second step.

Where were your feet?-On the flags of the yard.

You must have been quite close to where the body was found?-Quite right, sir. If she had been there at the time I must have seen her."

Thanks for the info Joshua

I genuinely don’t see how he could have not seen the body if it was there.

I speculated in my last post that he might have lied about seeing the body but if there’s evidence to support the fact that he repaired his shoe then he would hardly have been likely to have undertaken a bit of leather work with a mutilated corpse in front of him.

[Abby Normal]

A gaiter-spring was found in the yard, which does tend to corroborate his boot-cutting story, as he would have presumably had to remove the gaiter to loosen his boot.

Selected extracts from Richardson's evidence;

"It was not quite light, but enough for me to see.

Did you notice any object in the yard?-No, sir. I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then.

Did you go into the yard at all?-Not at all, sir.

I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?-Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

And that was the sole object you had in going there?-Yes, sir.

Did you sit on the top step?-No, the second step.

Where were your feet?-On the flags of the yard.

You must have been quite close to where the body was found?-Quite right, sir. If she had been there at the time I must have seen her."

Right. She would have been literally at his feet. He would have seen her.

[Joshua Rogan]

Exactly Abby, and the Morning Advertiser has him saying just that;

"You must have been quite close to where the woman was found? -She was found lying just where my feet were."

This extract from the Echo is interesting, in that it seems to suggest that the police doubt over his evidence was about the time of his visit to the yard, not whether he failed to spot Annnie's corpse.

Echo 13th Sept
"The police efforts are today being vigorously proceeded with, especially in the direction of settling the question of the exact time at which the murder of Annie Chapman actually occurred. Some doubt was originally thrown by them on the evidence of John Richardson, who stated that he was almost on the exact spot where the body was found at a quarter to five on Saturday morning, and that no signs of the murder were then apparent. Proof is now being sought to establish the fact that Richardson was right as to the time."

[Fisherman]

‘Going past the corpse’ wasn’t the best way of putting it. What I meant was that if he’d gone over to check the lock on the cellar door on completion of the task he would have turned around toward the doorway and undoubtedly have seen the corpse.

Anyway the whole point is moot because of him saying that he saw that the lock was in place from the steps. No arguments there.

But.....yes there are always buts when he initially opened the door he would only have had to have opened it say just over halfway and he would have seen at least part of Chapmans body. And as he supposedly sat on the second step even if the door was resting against his left thigh I still can’t see how he wouldn’t have been able to see part of the body. Also, as he was familiar with the yard he would have known that he’d only to have pushed the door open to the fence and it would have stayed open on its own whilst he was fixing his shoe.

Another point is: could he have seen the body but just lied because he didn’t want to be suspected?

A very minor point. What did he do with the piece that he cut from his shoe? If he just chucked it into the yard, which seems likely, did the police look for it as it would have confirmed his story about what he was doing?

If he had seen the body, my guess is that he would have alerted the police. If he feared to get involved, why otherwise tell them about how he had been to the backyard and sat on the steps? If anything, I think the risk of people trying to secure fifteen minutes of fame is a larger one than the risk of them trying to stay out of matters.

You still say that you cannot fathom how he would not have "been able to see at least part of the body", and that´s an interesting way of wording it. Being able. Maybe he WAS able - but just didn´t look. Maybe he would have seen part of the body - if he had looked down onto the ground to the left of him. The fact that something is in your potential field of view is not equal to you seeing it, Herlock. And I am not certain that the body must have been so, even. And it was still murky, the sun only just beginning to chase the shadows away. It is no certain thing at all that he must have seen her.

There´s a perspective that is interesting in this context. Whenever I say that Lechmere is in all probability the killer, I am immediately jumped by people who have alternative explanations to all the little things that point to him. But now, when you say that Richardson must have seen Chapman when he was on the doorsteps, that tactic does not apply...? He MUST have sat where he said he sat, he MUST have had Chapman in his field of vision and he MUST have seen and smelt her.
This time over, it is my turn to explain how what you think may not be true. Changing fortunes!

He failed to cut the leather from his shoe, by the way, and had to get a better knife as I remember things. What I don´t remember is whether he cut any leather at all and proved it.

[Fisherman]

Taking a quick look at Richardsons shoe again, I find that he says this at the inquest:

"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. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. 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.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most."

So he used his old table-knife. And the coroner sent him to fetch that knife. And then he returns with it, and this is said at the inquest when Richardson is recalled:

"John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot. He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market."

The coroner orders the knife to be kept by the police - but what is going on here? The knife was worn and blunt and could not cut the leather, so Richardson says he got another one from the market - and he did not go there until later.

Still he has earlier insisted on how he DID cut the leather from his boot and then laced it up.

Has anybody delved further into this business? There was a discussion some years back, but I can´t remember what transpired.

[Fisherman]

Exactly Abby, and the Morning Advertiser has him saying just that;

"You must have been quite close to where the woman was found? -She was found lying just where my feet were."

If so, then he would have pressed his legs out underneath the door and put them on the ground next to the fence. Chapman was not lying in front of the stairs.

Then again, he may have spoken figuratively.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. If he had seen the body, my guess is that he would have alerted the police. If he feared to get involved, why otherwise tell them about how he had been to the backyard and sat on the steps? If anything, I think the risk of people trying to secure fifteen minutes of fame is a larger one than the risk of them trying to stay out of matters.

Fish, if you believe Richardson to be telling the truth about being in the yard when he said that he was and you also believe that he was being truthful when he said that he didn’t see the body, why don’t you believe him when he said that he looked into the yard and couldn’t have missed seeing the body had it been there?

[Harry D]

There's no way Richardson would've missed the body.

This, coupled with Cadosch's evidence, puts the TOD later than Dr. Phillips' estimation.