Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

Fascinating, Fishy,

Would you care to enlighten us on how he achieved this?

Regards,

Simon

I am not the one saying he did. He and his mother are the ones asserting it. Since I do not know where the lock was and how it looked, I cannot tell. But of course a lock can be applied in many ways, and before I ruled out that the two could have been telling the truth, I would want to know the position of the lock.

[Simon Wood]

I'm surprised you have not considered this conundrum.

Richardson was a dab hand at seeing things and not seeing things.

[Fisherman]

https://jtr3d.com/2016/09/11/a-walk-...anbury-street/

Not sure if this is the work of Richard or not but it helped me get a little better perspective. Also, Dr Phillips said the head was 6 inches in front of the level of the bottom step. That means the majority of Annies body extended well beyond the last step. The door would only have extended toward the yard as far as it was wide. My front door is exactly 3 feet wide. Insp. Chandler stated her head was just shy of 2 feet from the wall. My opinion is she would have been visible just about any angle the door was ajar, except shut. Especially with the gap below the door and steps when opened. Every single picture of that very door taken over the years show it staying open on it’s own.

Hi Jerry. A few things:

Yes, Annies body would certainly have extended beyond the last step, and significantly so too. More than half of the body would have, I believe.

But that does not equal that she must have been visible to Richardson!

In the clip (which we cannot tell to what exact extent it is representative of the true layout, but that is just a side remark), we have the door wide open. And we have lots of light.

With this scenario, there is no way Richardson could have missed the body. And I think the whole problem of the issue lies in how this is the kind of representation we have always seen. I know I used to think "No way" myself, and I based it on these kinds of representations.

But WAS the door wide open? You say that the door stays open "on it´s own" in the pictures.

Does it? Can we know that? How do we know that there is not a latch or string behind it, fastening it to the fence? if I had had a door on rising hinches, I know I would have arranged such a thing! Plus there can be no doubt that Richardson said that he didn´t need to close the door, since it did so itself.

I am going to ask you to have a look at James Mason walking into the backyard in "The London Nobody Knows", Jerry. We first have a scene where the door is opened and the cameraman shoots the backyard with a dog. We cannot see whether somebody keeps the door open or not. Then, in the next scene, we have Mason going down the stairs. Look what he does with his umbrella! He gives the door a little shove towards the fence behind it, and what happens? It swings back half an inch and then stops short - and I think that is due to how it is fastened with a latch or string to the fence.
Of course, this is some eighty years after Jack was in place, and there is no telling whether the door and/or the hinges have been changed, but I find it interesting anyway. Look at the movement of the doorblade!

You also say that the body would have been visible regardless of which angle the door was in. That, I´m afraid, is simply not true. I hope you have seen my drawings? This one:

https://ibb.co/kQFX2p

tells us that if the angle of the door was the way I have it, he certainly could not have seen Chapman from the position I have drawn him in. It is impossible.

You of course add that there was a gap under the doorblade, and I have a drawing for you there too:

https://ibb.co/ms3ANp

The distance from Richardsons head and eyes to the doorblade governs how acute his visual angle down the door will become. And the further up the blade his head is, the lesser he will see underneath the door. In my drawing, you can see that the doorblade would obscure Chapman.

And this is with the door open in a 65 degree angle, or something like that.

Now, it can of course be discussed whether he sat like this, whether he moved like this or that, whether he stooped down, whether the light was enough, whether he looked to his left and so on in eternity.

But it cannot be discussed whether he could see the body if the positions of him and Chapman were like in my drawing.

And basically, that is all this thread has ever been about - does the props involved in the scene allow for him having not been able to see Chapman? The answer to that question is yes.

If I was to say what I THINK happened, then I´d say that I believe that Richardson never sat on the steps, and that he wanted to get his fifteen minutes of fame and cooked the story up on that account. There are way too many twists and turns in his story for me to feel comfortable about it.

But regardless of this, he MAY actually have missed the body even if he was telling the truth.

[Fisherman]

I'm surprised you have not considered this conundrum.

Richardson was a dab hand at seeing things and not seeing things.

What makes you think I have not considered it, Simon? A quick thought is that he may have had to lean out to see it, a simple enough solution.

[Sam Flynn]

"If I was to say what I THINK happened, then I´d say that I believe that Richardson never sat on the steps, and that he wanted to get his fifteen minutes of fame and cooked the story up"

If you're going to make up a story, you'll have yourself entering the yard, not sitting on the step and paring some leather from your boot. The latter is so precise and particular it smacks clearly of the truth.

[jerryd]

Thanks Christer.

So what is the most natural way for Richardson to stand up from his sitting position? I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have crawled up the stairs backwards. His feet were below him on the flagstone. So how was visibilty when he stood up to leave? He was now standing at the bottom of the stairs

[Fisherman]

"If I was to say what I THINK happened, then I´d say that I believe that Richardson never sat on the steps, and that he wanted to get his fifteen minutes of fame and cooked the story up"

If you're going to make up a story, you'll have yourself entering the yard, not sitting on the step and paring some leather from your boot. The latter is so precise and particular it smacks clearly of the truth.

You mean like how Lechmere also must have told the truth when he spoke of the tarpaulin...? Some tell me that they too think this smacks clearly of the "truth".

I myself would not presume to be able to know everything about how lies are or can be construed, but I am not overly impressed by how Richardson says that he cut leather from his shoe only to later - when he has been sent by the coroner to fetch the knife and display it - remember that he actually could not do so on account of his knife being too dull.

And his statement that he had no idea how the knife ended up in his pocket that day as he was not in the habit of carrying a knife reeks of untruthfulness in my ears. But then again, as I say, who am I to decide these things? I must leave that to other, more worthy of the task.

But if you ask me what I think it all adds up to, it goes like this:

Richardson was not on the steps. But he wants to make himself an interesting person and so he decides to cook up a story. He knows that he normally only leans out from the top step to see the padlock, so he needs an excuse to explain how he on this particular day actually sat on the stairs, giving the impression that he would be able to tell if Chapman was there or not = IMPORTANT witness, IMPORTANT man!

The excuse he comes up with is the shoe business. What he didn´t consider is Baxter´s vigilance - the coroner hears the word "knife", puts two and two together, and tells Richardson to go and get it.

Richardson now realizes that if he gets a sharp knife, then he may find himself faced with accusations of being the killer. Instead he gets a dull one, and conjures up a story about how he had forgotten that he had to borrow sharper knife at the market (borrow, that is - he takes care to ensure the coroner that he has absolutely no sharp knife himself). And he is adamant that he never carries a knife otherwise.

I think that is the lie he construed and how he construed it, changing it as he found himself in a position where he could be accused of murder.

But of course, if you say that it must be a true story, just like it must be true that Richardson would have seen Chapman, then of course I must reconsider!

[Fisherman]

Thanks Christer.

So what is the most natural way for Richardson to stand up from his sitting position? I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have crawled up the stairs backwards. His feet were below him on the flagstone. So how was visibilty when he stood up to leave? He was now standing at the bottom of the stairs

Let´s assume that the door swung back at him, as seems to be the case. Then he would as far as I understand turn to the right as he got up, make a u-turn and leave. Nobody will turn into a door that is swinging against you. And that right turn may have started the moment he got up, there is no need to think he must have gotten up and stood straight, least of all with a door chasing after you. Imagine, if you will that he put his right hand on the stone step, heaved himself up and turned immediately, as he rose.

There really is no certainty that he must have seen Chapman, Jerry.

After having seen my drawings, do you realize how the body could actually have been concealed from a sitting Richardson on the steps?

[Sam Flynn]

What's "interesting" about sitting on a step and scraping a boot?

[Fisherman]

What's "interesting" about sitting on a step and scraping a boot?

Nothing at all, Gareth.

Then again, searching deep within me, I cannot remember ever claiming that it was.

What I seem to remember is that I suggested that Richardson wanted to place himself in the midst of the case, and therefore he cooked up a story that he actually was sitting more or less on the spot where Chapman was killed - or so he said, at least.

I actually think you understood that in the first place, Gareth. But do correct me if I´m wrong.

[Harry D]

Why would Richardson scrape his boot with the door resting against him? Wouldn't that be terribly awkward?

[Fisherman]

Why would Richardson scrape his boot with the door resting against him? Wouldn't that be terribly awkward?

Let´s assume, for theories sake, that it was his right boot, Harry. Now, further assume that the door rested against his left knee.
If so, I cannot see that there was anything at all awkward about it.

Geez, you people really don´t want to accept how he could have missed her!

[Sam Flynn]

What I seem to remember is that I suggested that Richardson wanted to place himself in the midst of the case, and therefore he cooked up a story that he actually was sitting more or less on the spot where Chapman was killed - or so he said, at least.

Why not cook up a story that placed him on the ACTUAL spot - e.g. that he entered the yard, perhaps went for a pee - rather than merely sit on the step and scrape his boot? If you're going to make something up, you might as well make it sound good, especially with no witnesses to contradict you. "I'll tell the police I sat on the step and saw nothing" is hardly a recipe for a made-up five minutes of fame.

[Fisherman]

Why not cook up a story that placed him on the ACTUAL spot - e.g. that he entered the yard, perhaps went for a pee - rather than merely sit on the step and scrape his boot? If you're going to make something up, you might as well make it sound good, especially with no witnesses to contradict you. "I'll tell the police I sat on the step and saw nothing" is hardly a recipe for a made-up five minutes of fame.

Surely, you are not going to dismiss my suggestion because you feel he ought to have made up a story that you would have liked better...?

He placed himself smack, bang in the middle of things, and claimed that his feet had rested on the very ground where Chapman would later be found. If he said he´d gone for a pee, he´s be able to say "she was not there", but he said that after having sat on the steps too, so making the pee tour would not have improved the story.

That is good enough for me. If you want a better story, you must look elsewhere for it.

[Sam Flynn]

Let´s assume, for theories sake, that it was his right boot, Harry. Now, further assume that the door rested against his left knee.

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?