Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

What?

So what’s being said here is that the hinges on the door in the photographs are unlikely to have allowed thedoors to stay open on their own?

The doors in the photographs?

The ones that are open.

On their own.

Anyone see a problem here

Not me. And I have repeatedly told you that a latch or string would keep the door open. What is it you cannot understand with that concept? Where does the difficulty lie? Are you having difficulties understanding how such a thing would work? Just ask away, and I will explain it to you.

[Fisherman]

You may also do extremely well to keep in mind that although the door is open on later photos, there is absolutely nothing at all that guarantess us that it was ever so when Richardson opened it. In which case the issue smoulders away into a well deserved oblivion

But let´s not do that! It would be crashing your party!!

[Busy Beaver]

Richardson would have smelt the body if it had been in the locus when he was sitting on the steps at 4.45am.In fact it would have been the first thing he would have mentioned, but he didn't because the body of Annie Chapman was NOT there.
Cadosch IMHO heard the murder- the body or the murderer falling on to the fence, but of course did not look over the fence to investigate and this was allegedly at 5.35am, so the murderer had a good Fifteen- twenty minutes to vanish before John Davis found the body.
Incidentally, John Davis was a Carman, do we know where he worked? Not that it would make any difference I suppose.

[Sam Flynn]

You may also do extremely well to keep in mind that although the door is open on later photos, there is absolutely nothing at all that guarantess us that it was ever so when Richardson opened it.

The door wasn't open when Richardson opened it?!! Erwin Schrödinger himself would struggle with that concept.

[Fisherman]

The door wasn't open when Richardson opened it?!! Erwin Schrödinger himself would struggle with that concept.

Open as opposed to partly open. A hard concept to grasp, I´m sure. But I havent entirely given up on you yet. There may be a living cat somewhere amongst that heap of stone dead critters.

[Fisherman]

Richardson would have smelt the body if it had been in the locus when he was sitting on the steps at 4.45am.In fact it would have been the first thing he would have mentioned, but he didn't because the body of Annie Chapman was NOT there.
Cadosch IMHO heard the murder- the body or the murderer falling on to the fence, but of course did not look over the fence to investigate and this was allegedly at 5.35am, so the murderer had a good Fifteen- twenty minutes to vanish before John Davis found the body.
Incidentally, John Davis was a Carman, do we know where he worked? Not that it would make any difference I suppose.

The smell travels where the wind blows, Mr Beaver. So if the wind goes away from you, there is nothing to smell. And - not to forget - John Richardson had a cold; it is mentioned in the records. And what happens to the smell sense when we have a cold?

Exactly.

If Cadosch heard the murder, what was Annie Chapman doing out in Hanbury Street some time AFTER that? Was Cadosch - who never saw a soul - right, but Long - who positively identified Chapman - wrong? Incidentally, I think they BOTH may have been either wrong or telling porkies, but I´d like to have your view of it.

[Fisherman]

For those certain of John Richardsons value as a witness, I recommend reading Wolf Vanderlindens excellent dissertation "Considerable doubt and the eath of Annie Chapman". This is what he has to say about Richardson. It takes some little time to read but it is time well invested:

"John Richardson, a market porter, was described as a tall, stout man, with a very pale face, a brown moustache, and dark brown hair. He was shabbily dressed in a ragged coat, and dark brown trousers. He explained that there had been a robbery of the cellar at number 29 Hanbury Street and some tools (two saws and two hammers) had been stolen. The door to the cellar was in the back yard where Richardson's mother operated a packing case business. He stated that after the robbery it was his habit on market days to go around to Hanbury and check to see if the padlock was still secure. On non-market days, apparently, he just didn't bother. This was his reason, therefore, for entering the back yard of number 29 at between 4:45 and 4:50 a.m. He said that there was no body in the yard at that time. Indeed, he claims to have sat down on the second step in order to cut a piece of leather from off his boot and would have been sure to have seen a body lying splayed out in front of him and only inches away from his foot. But we are getting ahead of our selves here.

Inspector Joseph Chandler was the first policeman on the scene when he was informed of the murder at 6:10 a.m. He interviewed John Richardson at about 6:45 that morning and was told "he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

The Coroner: Did he say anything about cutting his boot?

Chandler "No." 18

The Foreman of the jury then made the point that it was possible that the back door, which opened outwards into the yard and towards where the body was lying, obscured the body from view to one just standing at the top of the stairs. If, however, Richardson had gone down into the yard he was bound to see it. Chandler could only reiterate his earlier testimony and answer that Richardson had told him that "he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot." 19

What Chandler was led to believe was that Richardson's visit was quick and cursory, that he merely opened the backdoor and took a brief glance down to his right as he stood at the top of the steps and saw that the lock was still on the cellar door and then went off to work. If this first story was true then it is doubtful that Richardson would have noticed the body of Annie Chapman lying in the yard to his left. By the 10th of September, however, Richardson seems to have changed his story and it was reported that "Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot." 20 This second story was repeated to the coroner when the market porter testified at the inquest two days later on the 12th.

"I went to 29, Hanbury street, between 4.45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in....

The Coroner: Did you go into the yard?

Richardson: 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." 21

Which of the two versions was correct? Which version is to be trusted? Most writers on the subject simply ignore the discrepancies. Those who have at least pointed them out usually blame Chandler for some ineptitude or dereliction of duty. Author Philip Sugden, for example, believes that Chandler simply misunderstood what Richardson was saying. He points out that Chandler did not thoroughly question Richardson on the day of the murder and, according to the inspector's movements, could only have spent a few minutes talking to him so that the inspector's understanding of Richardson's evidence was "erroneous." This would presuppose that Chandler could not understand the importance of Richardson's story or that he was in too much of a hurry to get to the mortuary to really care. Surely another interpretation is that Chandler spent only a little time talking to him because he simply saw nothing of importance in Richardson's testimony. It is perhaps significant to note that it was apparently unnecessary to actually go into the yard in order to see the lock on the cellar door. The coroner asked John's mother, Amelia Richardson, if she understood that her son actually went down to the cellar door to check the lock. Her response was "No, he can see from the steps." 22 This would seem to suggest that a quick glance from the top of the stairs was all that was needed and explain why the story of Richardson's cobblery was added. He had no reason to actually go into the yard.

There is another piece of evidence, however, that seems to support Chandler's version of Richardson's story or at least shows that Richardson didn't tell the story of sitting down on the steps until some days later. The Star on the 8th of September reported "at a quarter to five the body was not in the yard, Mrs. Richardson's son John, a man of 33, having passed through the yard at that time to see if the cellar door was safe." In the same newspaper John Richardson was interviewed and stated "This morning, as near as I know, it was ten minutes to five o'clock when I entered the backyard of 29. There was nobody there. Of that I am sure."

On the day of the murder, therefore, John Richardson made no mention of sitting down on the steps and cutting a piece of leather from his shoe. This is virtually the same story that he told Chandler and thus some doubt is thrown on Richardson's later version of events. There is even more damning evidence which goes against Richardson's story.

The fact that Richardson stated that he had been in the yard where a murder had been committed, and that he had with him a knife, was a significant admission not lost on the coroner. He questioned the porter about the knife and finally ordered him to go and get it, which Richardson did accompanied by a constable. He returned and was recalled to the witness stand. The knife he produced was a rusty and blunt little dessert or table knife with half the blade broken off and no handle. The coroner, who examined the blade, wondered how such an implement could be used to cut boot leather and Richardson amazingly stated "as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market" 23 to do the job.

This is a not insignificant change to his story. What he had been saying unequivocally up until this point was that he had "sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot." 24 He even went into some detail about his actions stating "after cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market." 25 He stated quite clearly on more than one occasion that he had cut the leather from his boot. He even added a wholly unnecessary comment that he tied his boot up, but nowhere had he mention that in fact he had been unsuccessful in cutting the offending leather. Remember, this is the only reason that Richardson was deemed an important witness - his claim that he sat down on the steps and cut a piece of leather from his shoe - and now he had changed his story.

Sugden states that Richardson was "the crucial witness" and that he "had nothing to hide" and "he stated his evidence clearly and unequivocally" 26 which is not all together true. Richardson seems to have changed his story more than once so he was hardly "unequivocal." As for having nothing to hide, this is true insofar as he was probably (though who really can say) not actually involved in the murder. He does certainly seem to go from one story of very little import to another where he becomes "the crucial witness." He wouldn't be the first person who perjured themselves in order to appear more important than they actually were and he did become important. He has certainly become the witness relied upon to discredit Dr. Phillips. It is safe to say that, without John Richardson's chaffing boot, Phillips' estimate of the time of death would destroy Mrs. Long's dubious eyewitness and Cadosch's earwitness testimonies, thus placing the murder sometime between 2:00 and 4:30 a.m."

[Fisherman]

Vanderlinden also offers a reason that is sometimes overlooked when it comes to establishing the TOD of Chapman:

"Food in the stomach is also an interesting indicator of when Annie Chapman was murdered. Chapman had no money at 2:00 a.m. so in order for her to have eaten sometime after that she must have found a client and, rather than pay for her bed, bought food and then kept walking the streets. Also, it would seem that whoever sold her this food decided not to come forward when the police were diligently making inquiries about Annie's last four hours. This seems doubtful and we will have to stick to the facts as we know them. 31 We know that she was seen eating a baked potato at sometime between 1:30 and 1:45 a.m. This, presumably, was her last meal or at least we have no concrete evidence to suggest that she had eaten anything after this time. Dr. Phillips states that there was still some food in her stomach so her last meal was only partially digested at her time of death so how long does it take for a meal of potatoes to fully digest?

Dr. Robert Court, who contributed to a discussion about this issue on the Casebook: Jack the Ripper website several years ago, asked colleagues in the pathology department this very question. His personal opinion was that it would take about an hour for a potato to be fully digested but was told that "a time of less than half-an-hour was realistic." One forensic pathologist that I talked to told me that a small meal of potatoes would be fully digested "in about an hour to an hour and a half," 32 while another told me "this small solid meal would take some time like 2 3 hours, 'let us say' to be digested." 33 Here we have a range of between half an hour to three hours for Annie Chapman's meal to have become fully digested, which would suggest that as the food was only partially digested at death the range for estimated time of death falls somewhere after 1:30 to1:45 a.m., the last time we know she ate, and sometime before 4:30 a.m. or, the time offered by Dr. Phillips."

It seems a suggestion of 3.30-3.45 - jibing totally with Lechmere´s passing by if he used the Hanbury Street route - is the perhaps most plausible solution here.

Once more, Phillips seems to be the much safer bet than the very dubious witness triumvirate.

[Fisherman]

And let´s sign Vanderlinden off with this passage:

"There is one more interesting observation. If you believe that the killer murdered Annie Chapman at 5:30 that morning, you have to wonder at his bloodstained appearance as he walked the bustling streets on a market morning. I don't mean that he would be covered in blood but certainly his hands would have been bloody and merely wiping them would not make them clean. He took a huge and seemingly unnecessary risk since there was a water tap just feet away from him in the backyard at Hanbury Street. A tap which he didn't use. Perhaps he was afraid that the sound of flowing water might draw attention. There was, however, a convenient pan of water lying just underneath the tap and all he had to do was to dip his hands into the pan. He didn't do this either. Why? Perhaps it was because he didn't see the tap or the pan in the complete darkness that enveloped the yard at about, oh, let us say 3:30 to 4:30 a.m.? A time consistent with Dr. Phillips' opinion on the time of death."

[Robert St Devil]

And let´s sign Vanderlinden off with this passage:

"There is one more interesting observation. If you believe that the killer murdered Annie Chapman at 5:30 that morning, you have to wonder at his bloodstained appearance as he walked the bustling streets on a market morning. I don't mean that he would be covered in blood but certainly his hands would have been bloody and merely wiping them would not make them clean. He took a huge and seemingly unnecessary risk since there was a water tap just feet away from him in the backyard at Hanbury Street. A tap which he didn't use. Perhaps he was afraid that the sound of flowing water might draw attention. There was, however, a convenient pan of water lying just underneath the tap and all he had to do was to dip his hands into the pan. He didn't do this either. Why? Perhaps it was because he didn't see the tap or the pan in the complete darkness that enveloped the yard at about, oh, let us say 3:30 to 4:30 a.m.? A time consistent with Dr. Phillips' opinion on the time of death."

I know the conversation has been about the door so far, but this post was something I considered while "considering" the door. For now, I have the door being closed while Jack the Ripper is murdering and mutilating Annie Chapman in that Hanbury backyard (maybe by the nature of those hinges, maybe because a closing door would interfere with his field of work as he was placing her organs by her shoulder). If Vanderlinden is following the train-of-thought that the killer's hands were bloody, then a bloody pawprint should have been found on the knob of the door as he opened it to depart the premises. But, that point gets diluted by suggestions of gloves, use of a handkerchief to open the door or vaulting over the fence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[FrankO]

Sorry mate, but II have actualy proven it wrong that Richardson could not have missed the body.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Excellent point Frank.

All we have to do is to imagine the guy in the photograph standing in the centre of the bottom step. And if he stood on the ground.....well.

It’s also very reasonable to suggest that he might have leaned forward to some extent as he was working on his shoe. Who would do this sitting bolt upright?

[Sam Flynn]

It’s also very reasonable to suggest that he might have leaned forward to some extent as he was working on his shoe. Who would do this sitting bolt upright?

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

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.