Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

Thanks Herlock. I thought it was a reasonable suggestion too.

So do I. But that is not the issue, is it? He may not have, and equally, his poaition may not have allowed for seeing Chapman even if he did lean forward.

The whole point is therefore a moot one.

[Fisherman]

Was Richardson talking about the yard steps when he said he didn't go down them?
There were two short sets of stairs side by side.
One leading from the passage into the yard, the other from the yard to the cellar door.
The Daily News report of Chandler's evidence says;

"Did he say what for? - He said he went into the back yard and down the cellar to see if all was right, and then went away to his work in the market.

Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.

Did he say he was sure the woman was not there? - Yes.

By the Foreman - Witness told him that he did not go to the bottom of the steps leading to the cellar. He went to the top, and looked down."

If this is correct then it explains Richardson's seemingly contradictory evidence about the steps, and also his certainty that he couldn't have missed the body.

I find it very uncertain, Joshua. And I think that what he said was what was reported in the Times: "he went to the back door and looked down at the cellar". The word "looked" has gone lost in the DN, as I understand it.

He did not have to go to the top of the cellar steps to look down, as per his mother - he could see the lock from the top of the stairs leading into the house hall.

The DN also says that Richardson claimed about the visit to the stairs: "The Witness-No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot."

On the back step. Would that not be the TOP steps?

Plus we have the statement: (Coroner) -Did you go into the yard at all?
(Richardson) -Not at all, sir.
(Coroner) -I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?
(Richardson) -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.

Don´t you think that clinches the matter, Joshua? Richardson didn´t stand on top of the cellar steps, as far as I can tell. And he may have sat on the "back steps"!

Any which way we cut this, I cannot for the life of me see that there can be any certainty at all either way. He must certainly not have seen Chapman. It is not written in stone or anything even close to it.

[Fisherman]

Constantly repeating something that you wish to be true won’t make it so.

Are you getting a sense of the point here Fish?

ARe you seriously trying to use "visual evidence - photograps" as proof that Richardson shoved the door open to the full?

If so, you are not reasoning soundly.

The photos are of a much later date, and we don´t even know HOW much later. We don´t know if the hinges had been changed, if the door had been changed, and we certainly don´t know if the door could be latched to the fence.

It is plain dumb to suggest that the door could stay open on it´s own on the murder mirning, and we know extremely well that even if it actually could - which it in all probability could NOT - it DID swing back on it´s hinges with no help from Richardson as he left.

And that means that you are disappointing yourself, logic and the whole discussion by not acknowledging this. It is not even interesting per se if the door COULD be pushed open so as to stay in theat position, since we cannot say that it was used like that on the occasion Richardson was there! And THAT means that we cannot say that Richardson MUST have seen the body.

This I hope I do not have to explain to you any further. Not seeing the meaning of what I say is equal to not understanding what we are discussing.

Do try and get a grip!

[Fisherman]

Do you live in a cave Fish?

He got up to leave, gave the door a bit of a pull and it closed behind him.

Is this some kind of miracle in your eyes Fish?

I bet you must come close to a heart attack when someone turns on the tv using the remote

Do you think that insulting me will make you right? Do youo hope to dishearten me?

None of it will happen. You lack the elegance and the point. You need to resort to asking me if I live in a cave...

"He got up, gave the door a bit of a pull..."

No. He decidedly did not - he was adamant in pointing out that he did NOT close the door, since it did so itself.

If he had given the door a "bit of a pull", he WOULD have been closing it.

And once again, it is not even interesting whether he did or did not; since we cannot KNOW that he did so, the possibility remains (and is the possibility suggested by the evidence) that the door was against his person as he sat on the stairs. And guess what, Herlock?

It ONCE MORE tells us that we cannot know that he must have seen the body.

It is becoming a bit pathetic when you have to make things up, I´ll say that for you. You should of course be ashamed of yourself, but it seems nothong much CAN shame you? You freely suggest that Richardson will have opened the door to the same extent as Davis did, and you think that is a good point!!!!

It is a dumb point, Herlock. And I fail to see why nobody steps in but me to tell you so. It is not because they are impressed with the logic of your suggestion, I know that much.

[Fisherman]

Maybe he wanted a better view of the yard in case there were any mutilated corpses hidden away

Yes, that seems very probable, doesn´t it.

[Fisherman]

And just to repeat for Fish - as we’re talking about what is or is not normal, believable behaviour - why did Davis simply stand on the top step and see the corpse straight away and yet Richardson takes two steps down and into the yard and yet misses the corpse completely? Perhaps he was blinkered?

He’s wouldn't have been the only one

Are we once again working from the assumption that both men must have opened the door to the exact same angle?

Please bear in mind that Richardsons focus was down to the right, where the lock was.

Davis would probably have his focus on the shithouse, where he in all probability was headed.

Why is it that to you that only opening a butt hinged door to the full is a "normal and believeable behaviour"?

What is unnormal, weird, in contempt of the laws of nature with not opening a door that swings back towards you more than you need to pass through?

Please explain that to us! Have you seen old western movies? With saloon doors in them? Have you noticed how people passing through them do not even handle them with their hands - they just squeeze through?
Does that make them unnatural and unbelievable?

Or does it make you look ignorant?

Let´s see here...hmmmm.... is this a trick question?

Oh well, since I live in a cave and don´t have any door at all - the way we Swedes do not - who am I to decide?

[Fisherman]

Now, Heröock, stop spreading manure on the boards and just tell us why it is "unnatural and unbelievable" not to open a door on butt hinges to the full as you pass it.

No excuses, no changing the topic, just a scientific and clear answer to that question, please.

[Herlock Sholmes]

ARe you seriously trying to use "visual evidence - photograps" as proof that Richardson shoved the door open to the full?

If so, you are not reasoning soundly.

The photos are of a much later date, and we don´t even know HOW much later. We don´t know if the hinges had been changed, if the door had been changed, and we certainly don´t know if the door could be latched to the fence.

It is plain dumb to suggest that the door could stay open on it´s own on the murder mirning, and we know extremely well that even if it actually could - which it in all probability could NOT - it DID swing back on it´s hinges with no help from Richardson as he left.

And that means that you are disappointing yourself, logic and the whole discussion by not acknowledging this. It is not even interesting per se if the door COULD be pushed open so as to stay in theat position, since we cannot say that it was used like that on the occasion Richardson was there! And THAT means that we cannot say that Richardson MUST have seen the body.

This I hope I do not have to explain to you any further. Not seeing the meaning of what I say is equal to not understanding what we are discussing.

Do try and get a grip!

How much later were the photographs taken? 2 years/5 years/10 years/20 years ? Does the door look like a new door or a battered old one that’s been there for years? Would a new door necessarily have behaved any differently to the old one?

How far can your ‘what if’s’ keep being pushed Fish?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you think that insulting me will make you right? Do youo hope to dishearten me?

None of it will happen. You lack the elegance and the point. You need to resort to asking me if I live in a cave...

"He got up, gave the door a bit of a pull..."

No. He decidedly did not - he was adamant in pointing out that he did NOT close the door, since it did so itself.

If he had given the door a "bit of a pull", he WOULD have been closing it.

And once again, it is not even interesting whether he did or did not; since we cannot KNOW that he did so, the possibility remains (and is the possibility suggested by the evidence) that the door was against his person as he sat on the stairs. And guess what, Herlock?

It ONCE MORE tells us that we cannot know that he must have seen the body.

It is becoming a bit pathetic when you have to make things up, I´ll say that for you. You should of course be ashamed of yourself, but it seems nothong much CAN shame you? You freely suggest that Richardson will have opened the door to the same extent as Davis did, and you think that is a good point!!!!

It is a dumb point, Herlock. And I fail to see why nobody steps in but me to tell you so. It is not because they are impressed with the logic of your suggestion, I know that much.

Typical Fish.

You start the insults.

I respond.

You become the victim.

Same old.......we can all see it Fish.

When Richardson said that he didn’t close the door himself it’s entirely plausible and likely that what he meant was that he didn’t pull it closed until it clicked shut. That he didn’t need to hold the handle and pull it all the way shut. Like many doors he just gave it a short pull and once it got past a certain point it swung to and clicked shut on its own.

I wonder why it’s sooo important that he was adamant that he didn’t close the door but it’s somehow irrelevant that he was adamant that he couldn’t have missed Annie’s corpse?

Strange that

[Fisherman]

How much later were the photographs taken? 2 years/5 years/10 years/20 years ? Does the door look like a new door or a battered old one that’s been there for years? Would a new door necessarily have behaved any differently to the old one?

How far can your ‘what if’s’ keep being pushed Fish?

It seems you are trying to find out:

What if he opened the door all the way?
What if he did like Davis?
What if Chapman was a bit further out?
What if the door stayed open?
What if...

You see, I have no need for any what if´s. I know quite well that it can´t be proven either way, and therefore, it may be that Richardson would not have been able to see Chapman.

No "what if´s" there - they are all your inventions in an effort to nullify the obvious.

The EXACT same thing goes for the door. We just don´t know if it was new in the pictures you have taken to heart, if the hinges where changed, if it was 5, 10 or 20 years and so on and so on and so on. And therefore, pictures that cannot even be dated are inadmissible as evidence.
You may want to ponder how the door seemed to be an old one back in 1888, and then you exemplify your ideas and suggestions (the what-if´s, as it were) with a movie from the sixties where James Mason handles a door that ALSO seems very old.
But would the door from 1888 have lasted some, say, sixty-five years? Would it be the same?

In all honesty, I for one do not know. All I know is that John Richardson said that the door HE handled, swung back and closed itself, wherefore he did not do it himself on the murder morning.

And all of that always seemed totally uncontroversial to me - but that was before "The Manual of Unnatural Door Opening Techniques" by Dr H Sholmes from Angle-sey was brought on stage. Once it surfaced, it all got VERY complicated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now, Heröock, stop spreading manure on the boards and just tell us why it is "unnatural and unbelievable" not to open a door on butt hinges to the full as you pass it.

No excuses, no changing the topic, just a scientific and clear answer to that question, please.

I can’t believe that I’m having to explain the normal method of using a door to someone

Richardson sat on the second step.

So he would have had to have stood on either the first step or the ground.

If he was just opening the door to look right, check the cellar locks then go, then I’d accept opening it partially as natural.

But he didn’t.

He took 2 or 3 steps into the yard.

The normal way to do that, if you intended to sit on the steps, is straight ahead.

To do that it would be entirely natural and normal to push the door open to around 90 degrees.

An angle of 45 degrees or 65 degrees would mean that he would be walking straight into the door. Pushing it back with his body.

Simple.

[Fisherman]

Typical Fish.

You start the insults.

I respond.

You become the victim.

Same old.......we can all see it Fish.

When Richardson said that he didn’t close the door himself it’s entirely plausible and likely that what he meant was that he didn’t pull it closed until it clicked shut. That he didn’t need to hold the handle and pull it all the way shut. Like many doors he just gave it a short pull and once it got past a certain point it swung to and clicked shut on its own.

I wonder why it’s sooo important that he was adamant that he didn’t close the door but it’s somehow irrelevant that he was adamant that he couldn’t have missed Annie’s corpse?

Strange that

I will skip over the "insult" stuff, since it does not belong to the discussion. Have a good cry and return when you´ve stopped sobbing.

Claiming that he shut the door only to then deny having shut the door will not work in a milllion years. Sorry.

Why is it important that he was adamant that he did not close the door? Because it is something you do not likely misremember.

Why is it irrelevant that he said he couldn´t have missed the corpse? Well, to begin with it is your invention - again - that I would have said it was. It is of course another misleading on your behalf.

It is not irrelevant. But it is not as definitive a thing as the shutting of the door matter. We can easily see how he could have been mistaken, whereas we can´t see that on the door shutting business.

Anything more you need explained?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It seems you are trying to find out:

What if he opened the door all the way?
What if he did like Davis?
What if Chapman was a bit further out?
What if the door stayed open?
What if...

You see, I have no need for any what if´s. I know quite well that it can´t be proven either way, and therefore, it may be that Richardson would not have been able to see Chapman.

No "what if´s" there - they are all your inventions in an effort to nullify the obvious.

The EXACT same thing goes for the door. We just don´t know if it was new in the pictures you have taken to heart, if the hinges where changed, if it was 5, 10 or 20 years and so on and so on and so on. And therefore, pictures that cannot even be dated are inadmissible as evidence.
You may want to ponder how the door seemed to be an old one back in 1888, and then you exemplify your ideas and suggestions (the what-if´s, as it were) with a movie from the sixties where James Mason handles a door that ALSO seems very old.
But would the door from 1888 have lasted some, say, sixty-five years? Would it be the same?

In all honesty, I for one do not know. All I know is that John Richardson said that the door HE handled, swung back and closed itself, wherefore he did not do it himself on the murder morning.

And all of that always seemed totally uncontroversial to me - but that was before "The Manual of Unnatural Door Opening Techniques" by Dr H Sholmes from Angle-sey was brought on stage. Once it surfaced, it all got VERY complicated.

‘What if’ he sat facing to the right?
‘What if’ he sat with the door pushing against the left hand side of his body while he worked on his sho?
‘What if’ he didn’t look left or down or straight ahead but only to the righ?
‘What if’ the door wouldn’t stay open despite the evidence of the photographs?
‘What if’ he lied about the possibility that he could have missed the body?

[Fisherman]

I can’t believe that I’m having to explain the normal method of using a door to someone

Richardson sat on the second step.

So he would have had to have stood on either the first step or the ground.

If he was just opening the door to look right, check the cellar locks then go, then I’d accept opening it partially as natural.

But he didn’t.

He took 2 or 3 steps into the yard.

The normal way to do that, if you intended to sit on the steps, is straight ahead.

To do that it would be entirely natural and normal to push the door open to around 90 degrees.

An angle of 45 degrees or 65 degrees would mean that he would be walking straight into the door. Pushing it back with his body.

Simple.

Richardson said he sat on the back steps, according to the Daily News.

Which is right? And why?

He never stepped into the yard, in fact he denied doing so.

"The normal way to do that"? Here´s "The Manual of Unnatural Door Opening Techniques" again!

Herlock, when we ask ourselves "could he have missed the body", we should not stipulate that Richardson must have moved in a way that YOU think is normal. I think it would be perfectly normal to veer off a bit to the right if you intended to look down to the right afterwards. And regardless if you did or not, that would of course not mean that the door must have been opened 90 degrees in any case. The longer to the right he was as he walked down the steps (if he DID walk down the steps), the acuter an angle the door could have.

Can you see how that works?

And - once again - in the end, this TOO is uninteresting, since we - and this will sound familiar to you, I trust - cannot KNOW what he did and how he did it.

Therefore, much as you would VERY much like for all of us to agree with you and say that it has been decided that Richardson walked down the exact middle of the stairs, opened the door to an exact angle of 90 degrees, and therefore MUST have seen Chapman, that is simply not going to happen.

Has the time to understand that not arrived now? You are welcome to think YOURSELF that this MUST have happened, but I´m afraid that no judge would ever follow an order to accept this. He (or she) would have trouble throwing it out of court of course.

It IS hard to throw things anywhere when you are laughing so hard you cannot coordinate your movements...

Fight another battle on another day. This one there is no winning. If you had said "he MAY have seen the body" or "I think he would have seen the body" you would be with me on dry land. But no, you had to go for "he must have seen the body", and so it´s lifebelt on for you.

I have done what I can for you, Herlock, and now you need to find your own way out of the dark.

[Fisherman]

‘What if’ he sat facing to the right?
‘What if’ he sat with the door pushing against the left hand side of his body while he worked on his sho?
‘What if’ he didn’t look left or down or straight ahead but only to the righ?
‘What if’ the door wouldn’t stay open despite the evidence of the photographs?
‘What if’ he lied about the possibility that he could have missed the body?

Nope. Been there, done that.

Done with you.