Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charles Letchford

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Hi Jeff.

    There are two problems here. Your interpretation is as though the report says...

    ...she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat, and immediately she went to the street-door...

    It actually says...

    ...she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door...

    That is not the same thing. The other issue is your claim that people use the word 'immediately', not in the dictionary sense, but as in 'not long afterwards'. ...
    Great, we agree then. There was time that passed between Smith's patrolling by her house and her going out to the step, which means there was time for the couple Smith saw to move. She didn't see Smith, as you say, because she didn't go out when Smith was immediately beyond her front door, but "immediately after he was long gone", allowing for the time I was describing for the couple to move as well.



    Let's take a real world example:

    Mother to children playing outside: Come inside immediately!

    Does she want the kids in now, or quite soon?
    Language is very versatile, but yes, people can also use a word literally. However, in colloquial usage, immediately does not automatically mean, well, immediately. ha ha. It can be used to indicate "the next thing I did...", for example. I sat in my chair. Immediately afterwards I went outside. But, between getting up and going out, I might also put my shoes on, grab my coat, pay a quick visit to the loo, etc, all things in preparation for going out, because that was the next thing on my list of things to do. It doesn't mean there was no time between my getting up and exiting the door. Because immediate can also mean "closest, or next, directly, etc", as in the house immediately opposite, or "my immediate neighbours" (meaning the ones next to me), so if it is being used in that context it just means the next thing she did, particularly if that sort of phrasing was more common in 1888 than it is now (as it may sound a bit "old fashioned" the way I'm using it here in this example).

    What I'm getting at, is that we cannot automatically ascribe a dictionary definition to spoken words. Dictionary's are formal definitions, and word usage changes over time because people don't use language like a dictionary. Victorian's used terms and words a bit differently than we do now, and if we go back further, we can see how language has changed. It's language use that we have to consider, now how it's been frozen in time by a dictionary (though they are very useful things all the same).

    Also, we don't even know that it was Fanny who used the word immediately. If it was the reporter, it's meaningless really.


    That is, if Fanny is to be believed. Is Fanny to be believed?

    I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.
    He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

    We're getting off track now. This is all stuff that happens after she's gone out, we're concentrating on when she went out, not what happened after that. She does suggest the only person she saw moving about was Goldstein, and there's no mention of seeing either Smith or the couple.


    Apparently, it depends.



    Which of these is true...?

    ...she said that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house...

    ...I've calculated that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house...


    It seems to me that almost everyone supposes the first. In that case, let's be consistent...

    I heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards I went to the street-door...
    And, as you've pointed out above, there's time between the PC footsteps and when she went out. We don't know how long that time interval was. We can infer it's enough time for PC Smith to get out of view from her vantage point, though, as she does not indicate she saw him. Without establishing the time between his passing her door, and her going out for her estimated 10 minutes, it could be entirely possible the Schwartz incident happened before she went out. And given there's an estimated 4 minutes between her going in and Deimshutz's pony passing, it's theoretically possible to squeeze the Schwartz incident into that time window too. The whole thing probably only requires 2 minutes or so to have the encounter, Schwartz to flee, and B.S. to kill Stride and flee as well, but it would be tight, unless of course, her 4 minute estimate is wrong.


    You're possibly forgetting something of key importance, which possibly undermines the idea that the word immediately is not being used in the dictionary sense. That is, we all know who Smith witnessed as he passed, but the reporter had no clue. Consider what the report supposes about the policeman...
    We have a 5 minute window with regards to when PC Smith passed. And if the word immediately was the reporter's choice, and not Fanny's, then as you say, the reporter has no clue (a bit harsh, but the reporter's job is to string the events he's been told about into a story that conveys the gist as they understand it, not to present forensically accurate facts).


    Presuming that the body did not lie in the yard when the policeman passed-and it could hardly, it is thought, have escaped his notice-and presuming also that the assassin and his victim did not enter the yard while the woman stood at the door, it follows that they must have entered it within a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap.
    If we take the 4 minutes as if it's a properly measured time, then sure, the Schwartz incident might take about 2 minutes, and if we place in that 4 minute window, that would leave "a minute or two before the arrival of the pony trap". This is the "interruption" theory from 1888. Personally, I think Stride was murdered before that, but what I believe is neither here nor there as my belief is not a fact.


    He clearly has no idea who the policeman had walked past, and therefore could not have any notion that his use of the word 'immediately', was likely to suggest something very interesting. This is a pre-inquest report, so he is not to blame. Regardless, why wouldn't Fanny have phrased things in a way such that he wrote something like 'shortly afterwards', or 'not long afterwards'?

    Perhaps the issue is the origins of the report. Who did Fanny speak to - the reporter, or someone else?
    How do you know Fanny didn't phrase it as "the next thing I did ...", and the reporter, or editor, rephrased that to immediately? The article is not claiming to quote Fanny, so we do not know that Fanny even used the word herself. A reporter is not recording forensic type details, they are telling a story to the public. Those stories are their product, and a good sounding story is worth more than a dry, factual, list of details, including cautionary statements about "estimates", and "time interval not precisely known, but recalled as being relatively short/long, etc".

    We have to always keep in mind that all of the statements we have with regards to what people were doing, where they were doing it, and when they were doing it, all had to be recalled from their memory. Had Stride not been murdered, those events and times would have otherwise been of no importance, which means up until that evening became important to recall, the events they had engaged in were not specifically noted, other than by chance. People had to reconstruct their evenings, and that right there means nothing can be taken literally when it comes to times, durations, or even precise locations, or who was there. Most of it will probably line up, and the events of the evening, if we can work them out, should more or less be as described. Where things conflict with testimony or statements, then we would expect it to conflict with regards to the type of things people's reconstructed events tend to be error prone on. Times, durations, and exact order of events even. (I.e. someone who says "A came before B before C", could easily have transposed any two of the actual events if they all occurred relatively close in time, especially if there were a lot of things happening at the time.

    This isn't advocating for a wholesale slaughter of the statements we have to work with though. Rather, quite the contrary. It's about trying to extract as much in common as possible, and then fine tune things, which will require deviation from statements, but finding what adjustments require the least amount of introduced deviations (and hopefully that only introduce errors of the type we would expect to find).

    Trying to find the events of the evening by taking a reporter's presentation of his interviews as if that is something that needs to be considered as carved in stone is going to result in you trying to fit stories around a will-o-the-wisp.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • #17
      Hi Jeff,

      Good points throughout your post. I'm in agreement. I have posted a timeline at post #2455 over here: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...164#post774285.

      I would welcome your comments.

      Cheers, George
      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
      If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
      Everybody lies - Greg House MD

      Comment


      • #18
        East London Observer, Sep 15:

        Mrs. Richardson, who has been alluded to as the landlady of the house, but who explained that she herself rented only a part of it, and sublet some of the rooms, gave evidence turning chiefly on the tenants of the place. She herself had the first floor front and the downstairs back, in which she was accustomed to hold a weekly prayer meeting. On the first floor back lived an elderly man with an imbecile son 37 years of age. She heard no noise during the night of the murder, though if there had been any, she would certainly have heard it. She affirmed, and when afterwards recalled repeated, that she had no knowledge of the yard or the staircase being resorted to for improper purposes; but her son, a rough-looking young man, unaware, it may be presumed, of the line his mother's examination had taken, stoutly affirmed that both yard and staircase had been so used; and when subsequently recalled he not only repeated his statement, but added that his mother had been made aware of it.

        East London Advertiser, Sep 15:

        The next witness was Amelia Richardson, who occupies the lower half of No. 29, Hanbury-street. She is of short stature and was quietly dressed in black. Contrary to expectation this witness was clear and precise in her testimony, generally answering directly the questions of the coroner without volunteering any extraneous information, a drawback which is very often met with in voluble persons. The chief point of interest her evidence was the statement that she was very wakeful at night-time, and that on the 7th inst. the previous day to the murder, she must have been awake quite half the night. But she heard no noise whatever during that time. This is one of the most mysterious points in the whole series of the murders. Though they were all committed in close proximity - indeed within a few yards - of sleeping people no strange noise was heard and not any of the sleepers were disturbed. Mrs. Richardson was under examination some considerable time, during which she was kept standing, evidently much to her distress. It would only have been common kindness to have offered her a chair, considering that she is now at an advanced age; but this little attention did not seem to strike the officials or the jurymen as being at all necessary.

        John Richardson, the son of Mrs. Amelia Richardson, having been sworn, deposed to the facts which are already well known. He spoke in a rather husky voice, and once or twice he was closely cross-questioned by the coroner in order to get a perfectly accurate statement of what took place upon the discovery of the crime. The statements of this witness as to his having found people in the passage and on the landing, evidently for an immoral purpose, occasioned the recall at the instance of the jury, of Mrs. Richardson, when she was further examined on the way her house was conducted. She again emphatically said that she had no suspicion that any part of the premises was at any time used for wrong purposes.


        She was further examined on the way her house was conducted? Was does that allude to?

        Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        So Letchford was likely working as a barman, a few doors away from 29 Hanbury street.
        Did Amelia Richardson avoid dobbing in a regular customer?
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          Letchford and Smith's timings, match to within 5 minutes. What are the chances it were Charles Letchford who was holding the newspaper parcel, and in the company of Liz Stride?
          Another theory is that the newspaper parcel was related to the literature referred to by Wess, at the inquest...

          Before leaving I went into the yard, and thence to the printing-office, in order to leave some literature there, and on returning to the yard I observed that the double door at the entrance was open.

          Perhaps it were actually a stack of Arbeter Fraint's, which supposedly had similar dimensions to the parcel described by PC Smith.

          It occurred to me that a way of testing these theories, would be to compare the attire described by Smith, with the men hypothesized to be Parcelman. In the case of Charles Letchford, it would probably be a barman on his way home from work, and in the case of the man picking up the literature from the printing office, presumably a clubman.

          The official description of the man seen by Smith, was published in the Police Gazette. It reads:

          At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at 1 a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A MAN, age 28, height 5 ft. 8 in., complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance. Carried a parcel wrapped up in newspaper.

          An important detail is that the man was said to be wearing a collar and tie. I cannot imagine ordinary members of the club wearing ties, although perhaps someone like the meeting chairman Morris Eagle, would have put one on that night. So what about Letchford? Would late 19th century barman have gone to work wearing ties? I really have no idea, so it's over to you...

          By the way, this is the 1881 census listing for Letchford: Charles Letchford 15, steam sawyer’s assistant, born Shoreditch, Middlesex. So he was 22 in 1888.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • #20
            “I passed through the street at half-past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one, but did not see any one pass by. I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policemen's whistles, but did not take any notice of the matter, as disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row”


            This is fairly clear. His sister was on the door at 12.50 and saw nothing out of the ordinary, and although not stated, it’s reasonable to assume that she’d also heard nothing either or he’d have said “my sister heard a commotion before or at 12.50.” Therefore at 12.50 at least nothing out of the ordinary had occurred as far as his sister was concerned.

            All that he then says is that he heard the commotion when it occurred. He’s already mentioned 12.50 (when he said that his sister was on her doorstep) which would have been an effective way of putting a time to the commotion but he doesn’t do this. So it’s entirely reasonable, and in keeping with what he actually said, to assume a gap between 12.50 and the time of the sound of the commotion. We surely can’t believe that what he meant was “she was on her door at 12.50 and nothing occurred, then at 12.51 we heard a commotion?’ Was he running a stopwatch? Clearly there is a gap.

            How long had she been on her doorstep by 12.50? Clearly she didn’t see the Schwartz incident or any alleged earlier return by Diemschutz so it’s perhaps more likely that she actually stepped onto her doorstep at 12.50 ish (however she arrived at her time) How long was she there? We can’t know but it’s very noticable that Letchford himself hears the commotion. He doesn’t say ‘we’ heard it. So it appears that his sister had gone back inside. Again pointing to a gap between the 12.50 and the commotion.

            So she goes onto her doorstep after the Schwartz incident and then nothing is heard by the Letchford’s until they heard the commotion from the yard sometime after 12.50.

            A clear pointer to a 1.00 discovery time.

            And equally clearly neither he nor his sister saw Eagle and Lamb come barrelling along Berner Street close to 12.50.

            Cue the twisting…….
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 11-25-2021, 11:52 PM.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • #21
              I have to say that I’m surprised that there’s been no comment on this.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                I have to say that I’m surprised that there’s been no comment on this.
                I hate to see you disappointed Herlock so I'll make a couple of comments.

                There doesn't seem to be anything in this statement to suggest that she wasn't there only briefly....say 12:48 to 12:51. So she could have missed Schwartz being there before (as for FM) and missed Diemshitz at 12:52?.........No, that would coincide with my time.

                Any barrelling by Eagle and Lamb (and Koze) would have been at about 12:58, if their clock was synchronised.

                "disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row"
                There were a number of negative comments by neighbours on the character of the club members.

                "I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policemen's whistles"
                Whistles...plural...WVC first, then Lamb??

                Cheers, George
                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
                If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
                Everybody lies - Greg House MD

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  “I passed through the street at half-past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one, but did not see any one pass by. I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policemen's whistles, but did not take any notice of the matter, as disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row”


                  This is fairly clear. His sister was on the door at 12.50 and saw nothing out of the ordinary, and although not stated, it’s reasonable to assume that she’d also heard nothing either or he’d have said “my sister heard a commotion before or at 12.50.” Therefore at 12.50 at least nothing out of the ordinary had occurred as far as his sister was concerned.
                  Actually, it does not say that the sister saw nothing unusual - you're conflating this quote with Fanny Mortimer's words. What it does say is something much more specific - the sister saw no one pass at that particular time. It does not say that no one was observed in the vicinity of the gates, or entering or leaving the gateway, which would be much more to the point. Furthermore, if the sister had been at the door momentarily, it would have been quite a coincidence for her to have seen anyone pass at that moment. It would make much more sense for Letchford to refer to his sister seeing no one on the street at that time.

                  On the other hand, it would make sense to refer to the sister seeing no one pass at 12:50, if the sister had been at the door for considerably longer than a minute or mere seconds, but only if the time 12:50 carries some significance. Given that 12:50 seems like a reasonable time of murder estimate, we have to wonder if Letchford attached any significance to that time.

                  All that he then says is that he heard the commotion when it occurred. He’s already mentioned 12.50 (when he said that his sister was on her doorstep) which would have been an effective way of putting a time to the commotion but he doesn’t do this. So it’s entirely reasonable, and in keeping with what he actually said, to assume a gap between 12.50 and the time of the sound of the commotion. We surely can’t believe that what he meant was “she was on her door at 12.50 and nothing occurred, then at 12.51 we heard a commotion?’ Was he running a stopwatch? Clearly there is a gap.
                  That makes sense, but how much of a gap?

                  How long had she been on her doorstep by 12.50? Clearly she didn’t see the Schwartz incident or any alleged earlier return by Diemschutz so it’s perhaps more likely that she actually stepped onto her doorstep at 12.50 ish (however she arrived at her time) How long was she there? We can’t know but it’s very noticable that Letchford himself hears the commotion. He doesn’t say ‘we’ heard it. So it appears that his sister had gone back inside. Again pointing to a gap between the 12.50 and the commotion.

                  So she goes onto her doorstep after the Schwartz incident and then nothing is heard by the Letchford’s until they heard the commotion from the yard sometime after 12.50.
                  Clearly she didn't see the Schwartz incident, if it were there to be seen. In that case, Letchford's reference to the sister not seeing anyone pass, seems oddly over-specific, if we interpret Letchford to mean that the sister went to the door at 12:50, as opposed to being there by that time. But let's go with the notion that the sister does not reach the door until 12:50, combined with the new-fangled notion of Fanny locking up at 12:45. Thus we have a neat 5 minutes in which to place the little Schwartz and co. play. So then who did James Brown see, on his way to the chandler's shop? Who did he see at the board school corner, on his way home from the shop? Who else did he see, on his way home?

                  The answers are: No one, or no one of significance. A couple talking quietly. No one, or no one of significance.

                  A clear pointer to a 1.00 discovery time.
                  Are you sure it's not a clear pointer to a 12:53 discovery time?

                  And equally clearly neither he nor his sister saw Eagle and Lamb come barrelling along Berner Street close to 12.50.
                  I thought we weren't supposed to hold witnesses to exact times? You go on and on about this, so what's changed? Is there one rule for The Voice of Reason, and another rule for the plebs and conspiracy theorists?

                  Cue the twisting…….
                  Now listen up plebs! Don't bother disagreeing with The Voice of Reason. We know anyone who does, is just trying to twist things to suit their evil agenda, even before they try. So don't bother!
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    Actually, it does not say that the sister saw nothing unusual - you're conflating this quote with Fanny Mortimer's words. What it does say is something much more specific - the sister saw no one pass at that particular time. It does not say that no one was observed in the vicinity of the gates, or entering or leaving the gateway, which would be much more to the point. Furthermore, if the sister had been at the door momentarily, it would have been quite a coincidence for her to have seen anyone pass at that moment. It would make much more sense for Letchford to refer to his sister seeing no one on the street at that time.

                    And of course, as Letchford was being interviewed regarding a murder he and his sister wouldn’t have mentioned seeing anyone entering the gates had they seen anyone would they? Honestly.

                    On the other hand, it would make sense to refer to the sister seeing no one pass at 12:50, if the sister had been at the door for considerably longer than a minute or mere seconds, but only if the time 12:50 carries some significance. Given that 12:50 seems like a reasonable time of murder estimate, we have to wonder if Letchford attached any significance to that time.

                    So he made it up? Ok.

                    That makes sense, but how much of a gap?

                    As I said in my post on the other thread, we have no way of knowing.

                    Clearly she didn't see the Schwartz incident, if it were there to be seen. In that case, Letchford's reference to the sister not seeing anyone pass, seems oddly over-specific, if we interpret Letchford to mean that the sister went to the door at 12:50, as opposed to being there by that time. But let's go with the notion that the sister does not reach the door until 12:50, combined with the new-fangled notion of Fanny locking up at 12:45. Thus we have a neat 5 minutes in which to place the little Schwartz and co. play. So then who did James Brown see, on his way to the chandler's shop? Who did he see at the board school corner, on his way home from the shop? Who else did he see, on his way home?

                    He saw….two people of unknown identity. Good, now that we’ve cleared that little mystery up….

                    The answers are: No one, or no one of significance. A couple talking quietly. No one, or no one of significance.



                    Are you sure it's not a clear pointer to a 12:53 discovery time?

                    I didn’t mention a 12.53 discovery time.

                    I thought we weren't supposed to hold witnesses to exact times? You go on and on about this, so what's changed? Is there one rule for The Voice of Reason, and another rule for the plebs and conspiracy theorists?

                    Read the post and the one on the other thread. I’ve fully accepted that we can’t be sure of exact times. The only point that we can make is that Letchford didn’t use estimating language. No ‘around’ or ‘about’ or ‘I should think.’ Maybe they owned a clock? Who knows?

                    Now listen up plebs! Don't bother disagreeing with The Voice of Reason. We know anyone who does, is just trying to twist things to suit their evil agenda, even before they try. So don't bother!
                    Watch we should observe, yet again, is the attempted dismissal of the inconvenient. Letchford’s evidence (including his sister) subject to interpretation, points to nothing happening in Berner Street around 12.50. That she was unlikely to have gone onto her doorstep at 12.50 and gone back inside points to an unknown period of time but a period of time nonetheless. So in that time period there was no Eagle running for a P.C. and no Eagle returning with Lamb. And as it’s being suggesting that the body was actually discovered at or slightly before 12.45 it’s not difficult to understand the attempt to dismiss this.

                    Then any gap between 12.50 and the time Letchford hears the commotion moves us further away from a 12.45 discovery time and closer to a 1.00 discovery time.

                    The fact that you try to dismiss this pretty much says it all.


                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      And of course, as Letchford was being interviewed regarding a murder he and his sister wouldn’t have mentioned seeing anyone entering the gates had they seen anyone would they? Honestly.
                      There is no indication that Letchford was being interviewed with the relevant sister by his side. Are you suggesting that the sister was incapable of speaking for herself?

                      So he made it up? Ok.
                      I'm suggesting that, given my arguments for Letchford being the murderer of Stride and possibly the Ripper, the reference to the time 12:50 is more meaningful than normally supposed. I would have thought this would have been fairly obvious to anyone reading my posts.

                      As I said in my post on the other thread, we have no way of knowing.
                      Apparently we do to some extent, because my suggestion that the 12:50 was possibly meant to imply that the commotion was very soon afterwards, was regarded by yourself as indicating a loss of reason.

                      He saw….two people of unknown identity. Good, now that we’ve cleared that little mystery up….
                      If the two people are of unknown identity, then there is indeed a mystery, your comment not withstanding. So let's clear up that mystery, by admitting that the couple were very likely the couple who spoke to the press and to Mortimer, and who had just arrived at the corner when Brown was returning home.

                      I didn’t mention a 12.53 discovery time.
                      That is a very literal-minded statement.

                      Read the post and the one on the other thread. I’ve fully accepted that we can’t be sure of exact times.
                      Then your point about Eagle and Lamb carries no weight.

                      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Watch we should observe, yet again, is the attempted dismissal of the inconvenient. Letchford’s evidence (including his sister) subject to interpretation, points to nothing happening in Berner Street around 12.50. That she was unlikely to have gone onto her doorstep at 12.50 and gone back inside points to an unknown period of time but a period of time nonetheless. So in that time period there was no Eagle running for a P.C. and no Eagle returning with Lamb. And as it’s being suggesting that the body was actually discovered at or slightly before 12.45 it’s not difficult to understand the attempt to dismiss this.

                      Then any gap between 12.50 and the time Letchford hears the commotion moves us further away from a 12.45 discovery time and closer to a 1.00 discovery time.

                      The fact that you try to dismiss this pretty much says it all.
                      How's that Forum Diary coming along?
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        .
                        I'm suggesting that, given my arguments for Letchford being the murderer of Stride and possibly the Ripper, the reference to the time 12:50 is more meaningful than normally supposed. I would have thought this would have been fairly obvious to anyone reading my posts
                        Perhaps we could make it a rule to add a when humour is being intended because it’s not always obvious. You are genuinely suggesting that Letchford the Ripper killed one of his victims a few doors from his own house and then walked straight home with his sister there? Ok.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Perhaps we could make it a rule to add a when humour is being intended because it’s not always obvious. You are genuinely suggesting that Letchford the Ripper killed one of his victims a few doors from his own house and then walked straight home with his sister there? Ok.
                          No. I'm saying that if Letchford killed Stride - and he seems a good candidate for Parcelman - then we cannot trust what he said about his sister. That includes her being at the door or not, at what time, and what she had seen or not seen, including what she may have turned a blind eye to.

                          Are you aware of why I suppose Letchford makes a good candidate for Parcelman, and what arguments I gave for him being the Ripper?
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            No. I'm saying that if Letchford killed Stride - and he seems a good candidate for Parcelman - then we cannot trust what he said about his sister. That includes her being at the door or not, at what time, and what she had seen or not seen, including what she may have turned a blind eye to.

                            Are you aware of why I suppose Letchford makes a good candidate for Parcelman, and what arguments I gave for him being the Ripper?
                            Yes I am. You appear to assume that he was working in a nearby pub for some unknown reason. And just the fact that he’d done that kind of work still doesn’t justify an assumption. If he was working in a pub he could have been working at one a mile away. And you are also questioning why Fanny didn’t see him.

                            But whether we believe him or not Letchford mentions her and so she was there to be questioned by the police. Would she have lied for him if there was a chance of him being a murderer? Not impossible. I would ask again though would the ripper have killed a few doors from where he lived? If he’d passed along the street unseen why would he have come forward simply to say that he’d seen nothing? If someone had seen him through a window say, then he could easily have explained to the police that he hadn’t come forward because he hadn’t seen anything. At most he’d have received a mild telling off. And if he was Parcelman would he have loitered around increasing the chances of someone seeing and recognising him.

                            Might Fanny have deliberately not mentioned seeing him? Again not impossible I guess. If she was friendly with the Letchford’s and she knew that Charles had a girlfriend she might have kept schtum if she’d seen him talking to a strange woman on the street. And if he’d just walked straight passed and gone home she might have justified her action by telling herself that he couldn’t have been the killer. I don’t see this as very likely though.

                            So personally I don’t see Letchford as a candidate. Others might agree with you though.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Yes I am. You appear to assume that he was working in a nearby pub for some unknown reason. And just the fact that he’d done that kind of work still doesn’t justify an assumption. If he was working in a pub he could have been working at one a mile away. And you are also questioning why Fanny didn’t see him.
                              Nicely done!

                              But whether we believe him or not Letchford mentions her and so she was there to be questioned by the police. Would she have lied for him if there was a chance of him being a murderer? Not impossible.
                              Why would she have necessarily had to have lied? What would she have seen? We are told she were at her doorstep at 12:50. Now if the supposed Schwartz incident is claimed to have taken about 30 seconds - sans unseen waiting in gateway and running to railway arch - then I would suggest it would have taken Letchford under 10 seconds to walk from Dutfield's Yard to the doorway of 30 Berner street. So the 'Letchford incident' could have been of much shorter duration than the incident described by Schwartz, but with no shouts, screams, assaults, pursuits, or extra characters. The later is vastly more likely to have been noticed, than what I'm hypothesizing occurred with Letchford.

                              I would ask again though would the ripper have killed a few doors from where he lived?
                              As is the case with Letchford's place of work, a careful reading of the initial post would provide an answer to this question. The Letchford household was dealing with a newborn. By killing Stride and returning home long enough to hear the police whistles, he then has an excuse to 'go outside to investigate', while the women stay inside. Your imagination is then meant to do the rest.

                              If he’d passed along the street unseen why would he have come forward simply to say that he’d seen nothing? If someone had seen him through a window say, then he could easily have explained to the police that he hadn’t come forward because he hadn’t seen anything. At most he’d have received a mild telling off. And if he was Parcelman would he have loitered around increasing the chances of someone seeing and recognising him.
                              Evidently this hypothetical window watcher wasn't watching when Schwartz & co. came to town. As for someone on the street recognizing him as the man with the parcel, if that had occurred, he has the option of not killing Stride - so apparently that wasn't the case. Again, we have to compare this to what is being put forward as the alternative; a man who was seen assaulting Stride by two witnesses, proceeds to kill Stride. If that is not far-fetched, then neither is my story.

                              Might Fanny have deliberately not mentioned seeing him? Again not impossible I guess. If she was friendly with the Letchford’s and she knew that Charles had a girlfriend she might have kept schtum if she’d seen him talking to a strange woman on the street. And if he’d just walked straight passed and gone home she might have justified her action by telling herself that he couldn’t have been the killer. I don’t see this as very likely though.
                              Somehow we need to get the killer and victim into the yard, unseen, and the killer out of the yard, unseen. One way of doing this is to suppose that someone turned a blind eye to something. It's probably worth reminding that Fanny Mortimer was not called to the inquest.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                Nicely done!



                                Why would she have necessarily had to have lied? What would she have seen? We are told she were at her doorstep at 12:50. Now if the supposed Schwartz incident is claimed to have taken about 30 seconds - sans unseen waiting in gateway and running to railway arch - then I would suggest it would have taken Letchford under 10 seconds to walk from Dutfield's Yard to the doorway of 30 Berner street. So the 'Letchford incident' could have been of much shorter duration than the incident described by Schwartz, but with no shouts, screams, assaults, pursuits, or extra characters. The later is vastly more likely to have been noticed, than what I'm hypothesizing occurred with Letchford.



                                As is the case with Letchford's place of work, a careful reading of the initial post would provide an answer to this question. The Letchford household was dealing with a newborn. By killing Stride and returning home long enough to hear the police whistles, he then has an excuse to 'go outside to investigate', while the women stay inside. Your imagination is then meant to do the rest.



                                Evidently this hypothetical window watcher wasn't watching when Schwartz & co. came to town. As for someone on the street recognizing him as the man with the parcel, if that had occurred, he has the option of not killing Stride - so apparently that wasn't the case. Again, we have to compare this to what is being put forward as the alternative; a man who was seen assaulting Stride by two witnesses, proceeds to kill Stride. If that is not far-fetched, then neither is my story.



                                Somehow we need to get the killer and victim into the yard, unseen, and the killer out of the yard, unseen. One way of doing this is to suppose that someone turned a blind eye to something. It's probably worth reminding that Fanny Mortimer was not called to the inquest.
                                Are you still trying to suggest that the killer was standing in the gateway waiting for Stride, when Schwartz himself tells us that he walked along Berner Street behind BS Man?
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X