Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Herlock Sholmes]

.It amazes me that you’re putting up such a fight over such a completely lost cause Fish

Sorry, mate, but I have actually proven that Chapman was out of sight with the parameters used in my drawings. It is the law of nature we are talking about here, so it won´t budge.

No, you’ve proven (sort of) that a person acting as if he didn’t want to notice a body, acting unnaturally, could manipulate the circumstances so that he might not have seen the body.

Look at the gap. It’s vital’

Yeah? Looking at it, Herlock. And?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=re...6bJK9yfsa2mvM:

Eh? That´s just the old pictures. They have been dealt with in my drawings.

And a drawing by you trumps an actual photographs of the yard. Only in Fishworld.

Imagine that door swinging toward being closed.

Right.
Look at the step that Richardson sat on. Look how low it is.

Mmm. His butt would have been around 30 centimeters off the ground.

The door would have been higher than his legs.

It would be u at that approximate level, yes, as per my drawing. But he did not have eyes in his kneecaps!

As long as he’d got them in his head. Sitting upright or with his head bent forward slightly fixing his shoe he’d have seen the body. No question.

When he opened the door initially he’d have opened it wider than in your drawing.

Stop! There is no telling about that at all. Nor is there any telling where he looked as he shoved the door open. Maybe he put his shoulder against it and pushed, maybe he used his hand, we cannot possibly know. So stating as a fact that it opened wider than in my drawing is folly. Moreover, he may have had the door at a much more acute angle than in my drawing, remember!

Now this is typical Fisherman. “No. We can’t know that.” We’ll, I’m sorry. We can’t know that Richardson didn’t do the entirely natural push the door open on entering the yard (as he said he did). We can’t know that he just rigidly looked to the right and not all across the yard (as he said he did.) But according to you we can.

I know that you are suggesting that he sat facing left but I’m making the point that if he sat in a more normal position, ie facing forward, without bending or stooping or anything unusual he would have been able to see, at a guess, within a foot or two of the fence.

I am actually suggesting that he sat facing RIGHT, Herlock - the lock was to his right, remember?
Since he was there to check that lock, why would it be a normal position to sit straight forward? Not that it matters, because what I am saying is that he MAY have sat as I depicted, and there would be nothing at all odd with it.
Plus, my drawing of him on the stairs shows us that he could not have seen anything at all of the ground beyond the steps, if he was indeed in the kind of position I suggest. It is all good and well to say that he could see here and there - but bolster it with a drawing showing us your take, and it will be easier to look at your thinking in detail.

Left was a typing error. You ask ‘why would it be a normal position to sit straight forward??’ Because that’s what most people do Fish. Just because he checked the lock it doesn’t mean that he had to sit there staring in it’s direction! My thinking doesn’t need a drawing because as long as you have eyes you can see it. It’s blatantly obvious. It’s not natural or normal to sit on a step performing knifework on a shoe with the door bumping against your left arm! It’s just not. He’d most likely have pushed it open. It would have taken no effort; it would have had no consequences; it would have taken no time. It would have been perfectly reasonable, logical behaviour.

Annie’s body, with her knees pointing outward, from knee to knee would have been approximately three feet across. So even if her left knee was touching the fence her right knee and much more would have been in sight.

No, it would not. His eyes were too far up the door-blade to allow for him to see anything at all in the recess, unless he stooped down. It is in the drawing, the angle is quite clear and it does not lie. Once again, it is the laws of nature that governs this.

A pencil sketch does not convince. A photograph does. End of.

Even if he sat facing right. When he stood up to go and held the door back even slightly to allow him to exit he would have seen the body.

When did he "hold the door back"? How on earth do we know that he did? If he just get up and let the door slide off him and in place, he would not add a millimeter to the scope. You are inventing things, Hemlock

Think back Fish. The door would have swung over his legs so he’d have pushed it back to allow himself the room to stand up. It’s called normal behaviour. People don’t just allow doors to keep bumping off them when with one hand they could simply push it back for ease of exit. It’s you that are inventing stuff Fish. You are trying to manipulate the position of the door and Richardson’s behaviour just to allow for the possibility that he could have missed a horrendously mutilated corpse just inches from him by having him sit facing one side, with the door knocking against his left hand side whilst he only looks right and with a door open only at the exact angle where he might not have seen anything. Back on earth Fish!

Richardson would have had to have pretty much deliberately tried to avoid seeing it. It would have been an effort.

What? Why would he do that? What reason would he have to look to his left side in the first place? Even if he did, the body would be obscured, but nevertheless - why would he do that?

Firstly because he said that he did. Secondly, if someone had previously gained entry to the yard and got at the cellar it would have been quite natural to give the yard a quick once-over. The body would not have been fully obscured Fish. By persistently repeating it you won’t make it true.

I see not the slightest possibility that anyone acting naturally could have missed a body whose feet were 6 feet down into the garden and who would have been 3 feet across with knees spread outward from the fence and with a door with a 2 feet gap beneath it.

Put an obstacle in the shape of a door between that somebody and the body, and you would be amazed, Herlock. It is ever so effective.
Now, please bolster your thinking with sketches or material that illustrates how you think it worked. How did he manage from above to bounce his sight off the steps, then falling slowly down onto the body? Just how does that work?
It is game over, really. The only ionteresint question is how long it will take for it to dawn on you. Right now, you are in a Richardsonesque situation, it would seem - there is light and things to see but you do not make use of it.

I don’t have the facility for posting pictures Fish so I can’t. I don’t need to though. Photographs more than suffice. Using misleading phrases like “bounce his sight’ is the equivalent in conspiracy terms as ‘the magic bullet.’ The chances of Richardson, behaving like a normal human being, missing a body is so vanishingly small as to be not worthy of consideration.

Now of course we can solve many problems in this case by just saying “well he must have lied” but we have no genuine reason to suspect that he did because we have no genuine motive for him to have done so. Slight discrepancies on trivial issues aren’t enough. If he was going to lie he would have been better saying that he hadn’t visited the yard at all. Or that he’d visited it earlier.

The fact that he was there at 4.45 and that the body wasn’t there is overwhelmingly the likeliest.

[Fisherman]

Now of course we can solve many problems in this case by just saying “well he must have lied” but we have no genuine reason to suspect that he did because we have no genuine motive for him to have done so. Slight discrepancies on trivial issues aren’t enough. If he was going to lie he would have been better saying that he hadn’t visited the yard at all. Or that he’d visited it earlier.

The fact that he was there at 4.45 and that the body wasn’t there is overwhelmingly the likeliest.

Two points only:

"No, you’ve proven (sort of) that a person acting as if he didn’t want to notice a body, acting unnaturally, could manipulate the circumstances so that he might not have seen the body."

This is of course pure and utter balderdash. Why on God´s green earth you would suggest that Richardson would "act as if he didn´t want to notice a body" he actually quite possibly could not even see, is intellectually challenging. And to say that the door was part of a manipulation on his behalf to avoid seeing the body is among the strangest things I have ever heard out here.
I have shown you how the angles do not allow for seeing the body if Richardson was in the very uncontroversial position I suggest - and you suggest that he was actively avoiding to see Chapman... I mean - geez!

"The fact that he was there at 4.45 and that the body wasn’t there is overwhelmingly the likeliest."

I´ll tell you something about facts - they are matters that are corroborated. Always. So there is no fact that Richardson was in the yard at 4.45. It´s much the same as it is no fact that Lechmere was never in contact with Nichols just because he said so.

Now that this has been established, it must be said that your optimism about being correct on this matter is utterly unwarranted. And that is what happens when we turn witness statements into facts.

You have been served with drawings that show us unequivocally that Richardson could not have seen the body if he was in the position I suggest. So far, what you have managed in response to that is saying "no, that is wrong".

Show us. Enlighten us. Prove your point.

Or, as you Brits so succinctly put it:

Put up or shut up.

"Feeling" things is not enough, Herlock. Dig deep and make the effort to prove your point. You can use the free site imgbb (imgbb.com) for example, and load up any drawing or photo you wish to. If I can do it - and I am a technical idiot - then so can you. Just don´t say "I really would if I only could".

If you can prove your point, I will eat my hat. And I like that hat.

[Abby Normal]

Hopefully my last drawing for the evening - Herlock on the stairs!

https://ibb.co/nDYQ59

fish on steps ; )

[Herlock Sholmes]

Two points only:

"No, you’ve proven (sort of) that a person acting as if he didn’t want to notice a body, acting unnaturally, could manipulate the circumstances so that he might not have seen the body."

This is of course pure and utter balderdash. Why on God´s green earth you would suggest that Richardson would "act as if he didn´t want to notice a body" he actually quite possibly could not even see, is intellectually challenging. And to say that the door was part of a manipulation on his behalf to avoid seeing the body is among the strangest things I have ever heard out here.
I have shown you how the angles do not allow for seeing the body if Richardson was in the very uncontroversial position I suggest - and you suggest that he was actively avoiding to see Chapman... I mean - geez!

Fish you’ve misrepresented what I’ve said. I’ll be generous and say that it was genuinely done. I’m not saying that Richardson was intentionally trying not to see the body. Of course I’m not! What I was trying to say was that the actions that you attribute to him, like sitting with the door resting against his body, like sitting facing only to the right, like not opening the door any wider than in your sketch (either as he arrived or left) all smack of a construction to make it possible for him not to have seen the body. It’s that simple.

"The fact that he was there at 4.45 and that the body wasn’t there is overwhelmingly the likeliest."

I´ll tell you something about facts - they are matters that are corroborated. Always. So there is no fact that Richardson was in the yard at 4.45. It´s much the same as it is no fact that Lechmere was never in contact with Nichols just because he said so.

Now that this has been established, it must be said that your optimism about being correct on this matter is utterly unwarranted. And that is what happens when we turn witness statements into facts.

What has been established is that Phillips TOD is by no means conclusive. The majority of bodies might not exhibit rigor until 2 hours have passed but some can exhibit rigor much earlier. So he could have been wrong. Combine that with the unlikeliness of Richardson not seeing the body (despite him seeing it in situ later and so would have been absolutely certain that he couldn’t have missed it) and there’s one overwhelmingly likely conclusion. At 4.45 Annie Chapman was still alive.

You have been served with drawings that show us unequivocally that Richardson could not have seen the body if he was in the position I suggest. So far, what you have managed in response to that is saying "no, that is wrong".

No Fish what we have is far better and far more reliable. Photographs. I don’t mind saying it. Your drawing proves nothing because it’s just a representation of your version of events.

Show us. Enlighten us. Prove your point.

Or, as you Brits so succinctly put it:

Put up or shut up.

I won’t shut up Fish. You are wrong. Draw as many sketches as you like. Personally I prefer Abby’s.

"Feeling" things is not enough, Herlock. Dig deep and make the effort to prove your point. You can use the free site imgbb (imgbb.com) for example, and load up any drawing or photo you wish to. If I can do it - and I am a technical idiot - then so can you. Just don´t say "I really would if I only could".

If you can prove your point, I will eat my hat. And I like that hat.

No you won’t Fish because you are completely wedded to this idea. You actually ‘want’ Richardson to have not seen the corpse. I, on the other hand take a balanced view. Is it unlikely or impossible that Richardson at some point pushed the door open more than in your drawing. Of course it isn’t. In fact it’s likely. Is it possible that Phillips was wrong in his estimated TOD. Yes it is. So there is no certainty that she was there at 4.45, none at all. We have absolutely no reason to think that Richardson lied apart from some trivial error or discrepancy. Ones that have no bearing on the case.

It is overwhelmingly likely that Annie Chapman was still alive at 4.45.

[harry]

depending on how old the door was,the state of the hinges due to weathering,then the door might easily have taken a while to start swinging back,and who is to say that Richardon kept a fixed gaze on any single location,it being quite natural to look around.
I'm with you Herlock,if the body had been there he(richardson)would have seen it.
The arguements against you smell of Ripper Mortis.

[Fisherman]

fish on steps ; )

C´mon, Abby - I´m taller than that!

[Fisherman]

Herlock:

Fish you’ve misrepresented what I’ve said. I’ll be generous and say that it was genuinely done. I’m not saying that Richardson was intentionally trying not to see the body. Of course I’m not! What I was trying to say was that the actions that you attribute to him, like sitting with the door resting against his body, like sitting facing only to the right, like not opening the door any wider than in your sketch (either as he arrived or left) all smack of a construction to make it possible for him not to have seen the body. It’s that simple.

Herlock, when I say that there is every possibility that he never saw the body, I am not going to claim that he sat on it, am I? What I will do to prove my pioint, is to exemplify with how he could have sat on the stairs and how the door could have obscured Chapman from his sight.
If I had to have him sitting very unnaturally or if I had to have the door in a very strange position, then you would have a point. But the fact of the matter is that the way I have him is in no way unnatural at all.
Once again: From the kind of vantage point that I suggest, he would simply not be able to see the body. He did not need to see it as he opened the door, and he did not need to see it as he left.
It apparently nags you that this is the simple truth, and you desperately want to open the door wider, to have him peek around it, to have him lean out or something like that, and he may have done that, Herlock - we don´t know. But that does not detract from how he would not have seen the body is he sat just as uncontroversially as I suggest he may have. And, much as you dislike it, that means that he may have missed the body even if it was there.
I actually used to think that it would be odd if there was a chance that he missed it - when we look at the photos without checking what the door can do, that is the picture we get. But once we carefully measure the potential shielding effect of that door, we get a very different picture.


What has been established is that Phillips TOD is by no means conclusive. The majority of bodies might not exhibit rigor until 2 hours have passed but some can exhibit rigor much earlier. So he could have been wrong. Combine that with the unlikeliness of Richardson not seeing the body (despite him seeing it in situ later and so would have been absolutely certain that he couldn’t have missed it) and there’s one overwhelmingly likely conclusion. At 4.45 Annie Chapman was still alive.

Yes, Phillips may have been off - but the parameters are all in sync with him being correct instead. And as Jon Guy said before, Phillips would not have been THAT wrong! And there is no unlikeliness that Richardson did not see the body - that is your invention. My drawings point to another truth altogether - it would be impossible for him to see the body if he sat the way I suggest, and so there is no unlikeliness at all in this respect.


No Fish what we have is far better and far more reliable. Photographs. I don’t mind saying it. Your drawing proves nothing because it’s just a representation of your version of events.

And that is what they conclusively prove - in my version, with the position Richardson was given in my drawings, he cannot possibly see the body. It is totally obscured by the door.
It is another thing altogether that he may not have sat like that. The door may not have been in that position. He may have moved around. Chapman may have lain further out. All fo these parameters would tend to make you right, or at least possibly right.
There is no way we can decide how he sat, and what he could see. But there is absolut certainty that he COULD have sat on the stairs and been unable to see Chapman - that is what my drawings show us. And so they also show us thatRichardson must not have sen Chapman at all, as has been said and believed before. It is a myth. There were numerous posítions in which he may have sat that would have prevented him from any chance of seeing the body. To this we must then add thateven if the body was to some part visible to him, it would take for him to ook to the left in the gloom and actually notice her. And so far, I have not seen a singe reason to think that he must have looked to the left at all, since his whole focus would have lain in the opposite direction. That is not saying that he could not have looked to the left, only that he lacked any reason to do so and may not have done it.
You say "Your drawing proves nothing", and it makes you sound like a child putting his hands over his ears, shutting his eyes and going Nonononononooooo! There is a fear of touching here, a fear of going near and aquanting yourself with material that gainsays you in a conclusive way. It is not a good thing.


I won’t shut up Fish. You are wrong. Draw as many sketches as you like. Personally I prefer Abby’s.

Then PROVE me wrong. I say you can´t do that. It is impossible in this case. I have actualy proven it wrong that Richardson could not have missed the body. Big, fat, conclusive proof, Herlock. You cannot come up with that, and so you have to resort to parroting "no, you are wrong".
Again: Put up or shut up. No excuses, and no unbolstered accusations of me being wrong.


No you won’t Fish because you are completely wedded to this idea. You actually ‘want’ Richardson to have not seen the corpse. I, on the other hand take a balanced view. Is it unlikely or impossible that Richardson at some point pushed the door open more than in your drawing. Of course it isn’t. In fact it’s likely. Is it possible that Phillips was wrong in his estimated TOD. Yes it is. So there is no certainty that she was there at 4.45, none at all. We have absolutely no reason to think that Richardson lied apart from some trivial error or discrepancy. Ones that have no bearing on the case.
It is overwhelmingly likely that Annie Chapman was still alive at 4.45.

The strange thing is that I can prove my unbalanced view while you cannot prove your balanced one. Very odd, that. And unfortunate.

You now ask if it is unlikely or impossible that Richardson pushed the door further open. You are begging, Herlock: "Please, PLEASE say that he could have done so!!"

You have already had that answer. It goes without saying that he may have. BUT THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE, IS IT? No, the issue is that we cannot know that he did, and there is no reason at all to believe he must have. Therefore, he may not have been able to see Chapmans body.

Surely, you can see how that works? Surely, you are not physically and mentally unable to see how it functions? Surely, you are not asking me to prove that he did not see the body? Surely, the one thing that can be asked of me is to prove that he MAY not have done so? Surely, you can follow a theoretical suggestion like the one I make and see it´s relevance?

Otherwise, we need to stop this exchange here and now!

[Fisherman]

depending on how old the door was,the state of the hinges due to weathering,then the door might easily have taken a while to start swinging back,and who is to say that Richardon kept a fixed gaze on any single location,it being quite natural to look around.
I'm with you Herlock,if the body had been there he(richardson)would have seen it.
The arguements against you smell of Ripper Mortis.

Strange? The only odour I sense is that of Ripper Ignorantis...?

[Sam Flynn]

What I will do to prove my pioint, is to exemplify with how he could have sat on the stairs and how the door could have obscured Chapman from his sight.

The only way he could have missed the body would be if he'd been standing in the passageway... with the door closed.

[harry]

Obviously fisherman,you would be well aquainted with ripper ignorantis being as you write so much that contains it.

My opinion is that Richardson,standing on the top step,with the door pushed open,would look down,a normal reaction of persons descending steps.Thus with the door open, his gaze directed downwards,a considerable portion of the space between step and fence would be open to his view,and he saw no body,because there was no body there.

[Fisherman]

The only way he could have missed the body would be if he'd been standing in the passageway... with the door closed.

No, Gareth, it is not. There is a set of drawings to prove that point, but it seems you are going to join the ranks of those who deny the laws of nature...?

What must be understood here is that my stance is one where I allow for just about anything, including that Phillips was one of the worst establishers of TOD the world has seen, and that Chapman was actually not there as Richardson reportedly sat on the steps.

As for his movements, I allow for him opening the door wide, in which case he should really have noted Chapman - IF she was in place.

Any scenario could be the correct one. And that includes the scenario I suggest as a possibility - that he pushed the door open, that the door never opened fully but leant against his person, that he sat down looking to the right side, thus to a degree turning his back on the spot where Chapman was later found, and that she was obscured by the door as he sat on the steps.

Once you have conclusively proven that this could not have happened, or that is in any way an outrageous suggestion, I will amend my position accordingly. But I put it to you now that you cannot do so, and that your post is one that need not be taken seriously. It is one of ignorance and unwillingness to tackle the truth, perhaps led on by your decision stated years ago that you are absolutely certain that Phillips was wrong.

That is the trouble with speaking to soon and without any genuine understanding of the conditions adhering to something - once you latch on to an obviously faulty view, humble pie will seem extremely unappetizing afterwards.

Now, do what I ask Herlock to do - PROVE that he must have seen Chapman, otherwise, my advice to you is the same as he gets: Put up or shut up.
That is the least thing that can be asked by somebody expressing personal views as facts.

Waiting, waiting, waiting, wai... Zzzzzzzzzz...

Won´t happen, will it? An upset post speaking about my arrogance will replace it, won´t it?

Let´s see.

[Fisherman]

Obviously fisherman,you would be well aquainted with ripper ignorantis being as you write so much that contains it.

My opinion is that Richardson,standing on the top step,with the door pushed open,would look down,a normal reaction of persons descending steps.Thus with the door open, his gaze directed downwards,a considerable portion of the space between step and fence would be open to his view,and he saw no body,because there was no body there.

Yes, that is your opinion. And my opinion is that the door may well have been only partially opened.

Can you see how that would have affected the whole matter? Or are you instead opting for treating it as a fact that the door was opened wide enough for Richardson to see the area where Chapman was found?

Denying that this could have happened, Harry, is the best quick fix of that problem you can get. Personally, I would not go near it, since it would be disallowing viable options.

But maybe that doesn´t trouble you. Maybe that´s how you prefer your ripperology.

[FrankO]

I am not married to ideas the way you seem to suggest.

That you never cease to amaze me was meant as a compliment, Christer, so I apologize if I gave you the idea that you were married to ideas. So, you can rest assured that I’ll let you nail you colours to the mast yourself. 😊

I am certain that if Lechmere had normal hearing and Paul normal shoes, then potentially Lechmere COULD have heard Paul from 130 yards away.

I agree. The reason why I’m no supporter of the “bubble idea” is exactly this. We know Neil heard Thain at the end of Buck’s Row. We know the Ripper had every reason to pay attention to his surroundings, but the “bubble idea” entails that he didn’t until Paul had covered perhaps half of those 130 yards.

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.

One remark here. According to Dr. Llewellyn the wounds to the abdomen were done in a downward direction, which would mean that at least while doing this, the Ripper was facing the east, where Paul was coming from. And my guess it that when he cut her throat he was at the right side of her head/shoulder, facing the stable doors.

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 agree more or less with all of this, so my next question would be: how likely would it be for Lechmere to wait for Paul for something like 40 seconds? In fact, if Lechmere heard Paul entering Buck’s Row (or even e bit before) and would have almost immediately decided to split, he would have had time in abundance to do so. That’s why I put even less credence in this idea than the one in which Lechmere was in a “bubble” and didn’t hear Paul until he was too close for comfort.

Take care,
Frank

[Harry D]

From looking at those contemporary sketches, there still wasn’t much of a gap between the steps and the fence. Not enough to obscure a mutilated corpse that’s for damn sure.

Fish, would you be arguing so obstinately against Richardson seeing the body if it didn’t harm your particular suspect? I’d wager probably not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

God it’s tiring in Fishworld

So Gareth and Harry both agree with me. It looks like the madness is contagious

All that you’ve done is to manufacture a series of actions by Richardson, to the exclusion of far more natural actions, to arrive at a situation where he ‘might’ not have seen a mutilated corpse when he was inches from it.

And to make matters worse we have Richardson’s testimony (which it goes without saying is a pack of lies because it works against your theory) where he states that he actually saw the body in situ so he knew exactly where it was and how much floor area it took up. And so as he knew how much of the yard had been in his field of view during the duration of his stay then he would have been able to state authoritatively, as he did, that he couldn’t possibly have missed the body had it been there.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist Fish. Desperate