Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

Why would he want to work in an unnecessarily confined space? Why would he have sat himself down in the first place by only opening the door a mere crack and sidling through it like a vertical limbo-dancer?

Ooopla, Gareth - not again. The door opening I suggest in my drawing is ninety, ninetyfive per cent of a ninety degree opening, so the only limbo-dancing around is the one wrongfully thought up by you. The door is NOT opened by a mere crack in my drawing, is it:

https://ibb.co/kQFX2p

So why say it is? Wait, I think I know ...

We know he said he sat on the stairs. We know that he said the the door closed itself. The combination of these two things tells us that if the door was on raised butt hinges, as Colin suggested, then it WOULD swing back towards him if it was not secured to the far side. And since he said he did not close the door, it seems quite obvious that it was not.

After that, it is anyones prerogative to come up with an answer to your question. One such answer could be "He probably did not mend his shoe at all, he just thought that up to put himself in the role of an interesting witness". This was a time when fame came in many guises, one of them having been connected to something or someone famous. In the US, a common phrase was "Shake the hand that shook the hand of John L Sullivan". He was the heavyweight champion of boxing for quite some time, and to have touched him was to have gained a little fame for yourself.

My feeling is that Richardson wanted a bit of the Ripper fame for himself.

I´m sure there are other possible answers too, but I do not spend much time pondering about them. I leave that to others, with the feeling that they will not fail me in this respect.

[FrankO]

Plus I said that it still does not guarantee that Richardson must have seen the body.

No argument there, Christer.

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

Possible, but not very likely with the top step being only half foot above the middle step.

We need not look to out left as we step down,

Agreed.

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

I “re-enacted” the thing from that very position and then wrote my previous post.

You say he may have leant forward. Yes, he may have. But how are we certain that he must have?

Try it and you’ll see, Christer. I, at least, am not able to sit down on something as low as approximately a foot without bending forward or stand up without doing so. If one doesn’t, one falls back on ones arse (and, possibly, even ones back).

We are not, simple as that.

I'm very doubtful about that.

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.

I'm only saying that, if he sat down in the position you're suggesting, he, in all likelyhood, did find himself in a position that would allow him to see at least part of Chapman (and by that I don't mean just a foot or a knee). But I agree that he may still not have actually seen her if he kept his focus to his right.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

No argument there, Christer.
Possible, but not very likely with the top step being only half foot above the middle step.
Agreed.
I “re-enacted” the thing from that very position and then wrote my previous post.
Try it and you’ll see, Christer. I, at least, am not able to sit down on something as low as approximately a foot without bending forward or stand up without doing so. If one doesn’t, one falls back on ones arse (and, possibly, even ones back).
I'm very doubtful about that.
I'm only saying that, if he sat down in the position you're suggesting, he, in all likelyhood, did find himself in a position that would allow him to see at least part of Chapman (and by that I don't mean just a foot or a knee). But I agree that he may still not have actually seen her if he kept his focus to his right.

All the best,
Frank

I am happy to hear that you agree that he may have missed Chapman, Frank. That is the one aim I have on this thread, to establish this. We will never be able to establish whether Chapman must have come into his field of vision, there are too many parameters that cannot be established, but I think you make a fair point when you say that it could likely have occurred when Richardson sat himself down.
Yes, that is the moment that offers the best opportunity, I agree totally with that. But we will always be dealing with a situation where we do not know the exact movements involved, the exact position of Chapman and the exact conditions of the light.

For me, it has been important to establish that there are totally natural positions in which Richardson may have sat on the steps that would actually disallow him to see Chapman during that stage, past or under the door. I don´t think that has been realized by many people. Too many unresearched matters go down as facts in Ripper lore, and we really need to be wary of that.

The problem of this thread has been that too many posters have tried to establish that there is some sort of likelihood level that tells us that we may be reasonably certain that he must have seen Chapmans body, when it is in fact impossible to establish a near certainty when we lack so much vital information.

In the end, the more I ponder it, the less certain I feel that he was ever sitting on those steps. How about you, what´s your gut feeling?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s difficult to see why Richardson would voluntarily place himself at the crime scene, with a knife, if he wasn’t actually there when he said that he was?

So we are left with two options.

1. That he actually saw the body but said that he didn’t. I can only think that he might not have wanted to be connected to the crime so he lied about it being there when he was in the yard. Then again, why not just keep quiet about being in the yard in the first place?

2. He didn’t see the body while he was there. Against this is the fact that Richardson, who was very familiar with the layout of the yard, said that a body couldn’t have remained out of sight to him (whatever position that he sat in or whatever the position of the door.) Adding weight to this is the fact that he said that he saw the body later on. This meant of course that he would have known the exact location of the body, what position the body was in and how much floor space that the body took up. Richardson however didn’t say something like “ well I suppose that she might have been behind the door and I didn’t notice her.” No, he was absolutely certain that he couldn’t have missed her.

As am I.

[Fisherman]

It’s difficult to see why Richardson would voluntarily place himself at the crime scene, with a knife, if he wasn’t actually there when he said that he was?

So we are left with two options.

1. That he actually saw the body but said that he didn’t. I can only think that he might not have wanted to be connected to the crime so he lied about it being there when he was in the yard. Then again, why not just keep quiet about being in the yard in the first place?

2. He didn’t see the body while he was there. Against this is the fact that Richardson, who was very familiar with the layout of the yard, said that a body couldn’t have remained out of sight to him (whatever position that he sat in or whatever the position of the door.) Adding weight to this is the fact that he said that he saw the body later on. This meant of course that he would have known the exact location of the body, what position the body was in and how much floor space that the body took up. Richardson however didn’t say something like “ well I suppose that she might have been behind the door and I didn’t notice her.” No, he was absolutely certain that he couldn’t have missed her.

As am I.

As I say, he may have wanted to do it on account of a wish to get some local fame. It is not unheard of.

You make place for two options only, but I suggest that there must be a number three: That he served porkies to the police on account of a wish to get his fifteen minutes of fame.

I agree that the option number one you name seems out of question, unless he felt sure that he had been seen in the backyard and wanted to explain his visit there. Otherwise, he would reasonably not come forward at all.
The only ones who are to a degree likely to do so are psychopaths - but let´s NOT go there!

The option number two has already been discussed in absurdum. I suggest that he used no measuring tape as he saw Chapman and that he never tried what happened when the door was less than 90 degrees open before giving his testimony. You will realistically be aware of how scores of witnesses have been mistaken about the physical parts involved in different cases, and that is all we have to know to avoid investing too much in such a thing in Richardsons case.

By the way, you cannot yourself be absolutely certain that Richardson could not have missed Chapman. At the very best, you can feel absolutely convinced, but you can have no absolute certainty. That would require a total knowledge of what happened, and neither of us have such knowledge. You know this too, I take it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I say, he may have wanted to do it on account of a wish to get some local fame. It is not unheard of.

Accepted.

You make place for two options only, but I suggest that there must be a number three: That he served porkies to the police on account of a wish to get his fifteen minutes of fame.

Accepted, it’s not totally impossible..

I agree that the option number one you name seems out of question, unless he felt sure that he had been seen in the backyard and wanted to explain his visit there. Otherwise, he would reasonably not come forward at all.

Accepted.

The only ones who are to a degree likely to do so are psychopaths - but let´s NOT go there!

Agreed.

The option number two has already been discussed in absurdum. I suggest that he used no measuring tape as he saw Chapman and that he never tried what happened when the door was less than 90 degrees open before giving his testimony. You will realistically be aware of how scores of witnesses have been mistaken about the physical parts involved in different cases, and that is all we have to know to avoid investing too much in such a thing in Richardsons case.

Witnesses have certainly been wrong in the past. Occasionally wildly so. For me, as you know, I believe that as Richardson was so confident that he couldn’t have missed the body, he would have been fully aware of how much of the yard was out of sight.

By the way, you cannot yourself be absolutely certain that Richardson could not have missed Chapman. At the very best, you can feel absolutely convinced, but you can have no absolute certainty. That would require a total knowledge of what happened, and neither of us have such knowledge. You know this too, I take it.

I do.

I would use the phrase overwhelmingly likely.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fishy,

Just an observation.

"His mother verified that Richardson could see the lock from the top of the stairs, Simon. And just like you point out, Richardson said so himself too."

Standing at the top of the stairs, all Richardson would have been able to see was the roof of the canopy over the cellar steps.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

I would use the phrase overwhelmingly likely.

And that´s just fine if you think so. Convictions must not be built on clear evidence, sometimes we just have a hunch about something.
What I would like to add to all of this is that if Richardson was telling porkies, as I suggest he may have been, then the dead certainty he displayed is something that often goes hand in hand with such a thing. If you tell porkies, you are not likely to waver, but instead such things are more often than not presented in a very self-secure manner.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fishy,

Just an observation.

"His mother verified that Richardson could see the lock from the top of the stairs, Simon. And just like you point out, Richardson said so himself too."

Standing at the top of the stairs, all Richardson would have been able to see was the roof of the canopy over the cellar steps.

Regards,

Simon

Leaning out and stooping down may have taken care of that problem, Simon. Plus I have a feeling that one of the depictions I´ve seen of that roof over the last few days, had one wooden plank missing...

I took a quick look but could not find the pic, so I may be wrong about that. However, I did notice that the planks are lying in different directions in different depictings! So it may be hard to establish just how that roof looked and how much it was hiding...

[Sam Flynn]

You make place for two options only, but I suggest that there must be a number three: That he served porkies to the police on account of a wish to get his fifteen minutes of fame.

People who want fifteen minutes of fame usually make up something positive to report, as opposed to "I sat on the step behind a three-quarter closed door and saw bugger all".

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fishy,

Lean out and stoop down?

John Richardson was the Amazing Bending Man?

The roof having a plank missing is a corker.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

People who want fifteen minutes of fame usually make up something positive to report, as opposed to "I sat on the step behind a three-quarter closed door and saw bugger all".

Positive? And what would that be in Richardsons case? Any suggestions? I am all ears and ready to learn.

Plus what Richardson DID say was practically "I sat on the steps in the backyard where a Ripper victim was slain, and my feet rested on the very slabs where she ended up some short time after my visit. Maybe the Ripper was approaching the backyard with his victim as I left, even!"

That is what is packed into the Richardson testimony, and it is not half bad for somebody seeking a little attention and fame. But we of course can always shape things into something a lot more dull if we are intent on it.

You may have to live with that.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fishy,

Lean out and stoop down?

John Richardson was the Amazing Bending Man?

The roof having a plank missing is a corker.

Regards,

Simon

Amazing Bending Man? On account of leaning slightly forward? You can draw a direct line in the sketch you provided from the middle of the cellar door, up past the roof and to the doorframe, and you will see that it will take but the gentlest of bows to get to that height.

I don´t know why this thread accumulates so many people who are disappointed to have been proven wrong and start speaking of Amazing Bending Men, mere door cracks, creeping Jesuses and whatnot.

Accept and move on, it is a lot simpler and more true to the facts, Simon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fishy,

I promise that once you prove me wrong I will feel disappointed.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Accept and move on, it is a lot simpler and more true to the facts, Simon.

The simple fact is that most witnesses tend to tell the truth.