Charles Letchford

[Mark J D]

Did Fanny Mortimer avoid dobbing in a neighbor?

Or a former near-neighbour whose mother still lived a few blocks away...?

I'm glad you brought up the 'not dobbing in someone she knew' angle -- because when, a few months back, someone found a wide-awake Berner Street resident known to have known the Lechmeres (was it a Marshall? Or a Mortimer? Or someone else?), there were triumphant shouts that Lechmere couldn't possibly have passed by unrecognised, and therefore that he wasn't the killer (again).

But now, of course, we're not talking about Lechmere -- so saying that the killer could have been recognised by someone who chose *to look the other way* is all *fine and dandy*...

I'm not being nasty. I'm just pointing out the way things do and don't work. And, for what it's worth, I reckon you have a good thought there.

M.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, is the short answer.

The emboldened part is typical of you. Another example of taking things as being ‘exact.’

It's just that the word 'immediately', has an exact meaning:

1. at once; instantly.
2. without any intervening time or space.

So given the definition of immediately, she probably should have seen them. If that word can't be taken at face value here, then what else in that report should be questioned for its accuracy?

All that would have been needed was Fanny to have gone onto her doorstep 30 seconds or even a minute after Smith passed and Stride and Parcelman could easily have been around the corner in Fairclough Street and out of Fanny’s sight. They could even have begun walking toward the corner as Smith passed.

Needed? Needed by who? People who don't want the case to be solved?

Yet what happens if we don't grant this 'needed' 30-60 seconds? What happens if we at least wonder why they would have started moving almost the instant Smith passes, but with enough of a delay that he doesn't notice, but not enough for them to remain in Fanny's visual range? Why should the meaning of the report be changed, to get a preferred outcome?

Also, why do you mention the possibility of going into Fairclough street, and not into the yard or anywhere else? Did anyone see them there? Is this another preferred scenario?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time.

If she had really gone to her door immediately on hearing Smith's passing, she cannot have missed seeing Stride and Parcelman. So unless they scurried into the yard within seconds of Fanny opening her door, we are not getting the full story. Yet supposing they did make it into the yard just before Fanny had a chance to see them do so, they are then in the yard before 12:40, according to Smith's timing. So then what are we to make of the testimony and comments of Eagle and Lave?

Did Fanny Mortimer avoid dobbing in a neighbor?

No, is the short answer.

The emboldened part is typical of you. Another example of taking things as being ‘exact.’

All that would have been needed was Fanny to have gone onto her doorstep 30 seconds or even a minute after Smith passed and Stride and Parcelman could easily have been around the corner in Fairclough Street and out of Fanny’s sight. They could even have begun walking toward the corner as Smith passed.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?

A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time.

If she had really gone to her door immediately on hearing Smith's passing, she cannot have missed seeing Stride and Parcelman. So unless they scurried into the yard within seconds of Fanny opening her door, we are not getting the full story. Yet supposing they did make it into the yard just before Fanny had a chance to see them do so, they are then in the yard before 12:40, according to Smith's timing. So then what are we to make of the testimony and comments of Eagle and Lave?

Did Fanny Mortimer avoid dobbing in a neighbor?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Daily News, Oct 1:

Charles Letchford, living at 30, Berners-street says: "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 10 minutes to one, but did not see anyone 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."

I'll discuss the quote in 3 parts.

"I passed through the street at half-past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual..."

Consider this in relation to PC Smith's inquest testimony.

S: I was last in Berner-street about half-past 12 or 12:35.
...
C: When you were in Berner-street the previous time did you see any one?
S: Yes, a man and a woman.
C: Was the latter anything like the deceased?
S: Yes, I saw her face. I have seen the deceased in the mortuary, and I feel certain it is the same person.
C: Was she on the pavement?
S: Yes, a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.
C: Did you see the man who was talking to her?
S: Yes; I noticed he had a newspaper parcel in his hand. It was about 18in. in length and 6in. or 8in. in width. He was about 5ft. 7in. as near as I could say. He had on a hard felt deerstalker hat of dark colour and dark clothes.
C: What kind of coat was it?
S: An overcoat. He wore dark trousers.
C: Did you overhear any conversation?
S: No.
C: Did he seem sober?
S: Yes. I did not see much of the face of the man except that he had no whiskers.
C: Can you form any idea as to his age?
S: About 28 years.
C: Can you give any idea as to what he was?
S: No, sir, I cannot. He was of respectable appearance. I noticed the woman had a flower in her jacket.

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?

"...and my sister was standing at the door at 10 minutes to one, but did not see anyone pass by."

An unusually short time, considering the half hour doorstep period mentioned by William Marshall, and the nearly whole of a half hour period mentioned by Fanny Mortimer. Or was it that Letchford was implying that something significant occurred at 12:50? Apparently not, because the sister, he tells us, did not see anyone pass by at that time. Although, is it not the case that a passer-by is not quite the point - what we really want to know is; did the sister see anyone entering or exiting the yard?

"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."

Quite a contrast to both Fanny Mortimer, and Abraham Herschburg...

I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway.

Herschburg also tells us...

There was a row there last Sunday night. It went on till about 2 in the morning, and in the end two people were arrested.

So quite a gap between the commencement of the row, and the arrival of the police. Yet when the equivalent gap was much less, very early in the morning of September 30, Letchford tells us he did not take any notice of the matter.

So who was the sister standing at the door at 12:50? There is thread/post by Barnaby's Assistant, which cover's this question in detail, and provides a great deal of information on the Letchford family - Letchford's Sister. Read the whole thing. BA narrows the sister down to one of three women...

So which sister had been at the door that night about 10 minutes before Elizabeth Stride’s body was found?

There are three candidates:

Florence, 28 at the time, who had just given birth between 24 and 48 hours earlier, possibly just needing a break or a short walk even if it was just as far as the front door. Maybe little Harry was in her arms at the time.

Maud, 26, who was 7 months pregnant at the time with Ada Susan, though not living at 30 Berner Street. While reference to ‘the’ door rather than ‘her’ door suggests that Charles was referring to 30 Berner Street rather than another house where one of his sisters may have lived, it could be that if Maud was still living in Berner Street, she may have been stood at her own door.
Alternatively she may have been at 30 Berner Street at the time to visit or help her sister with her newborn child.

Finally, there’s Lizzie, about 21 at the time, who was still living at 30 Berner Street and who may have been walking about a little earlier with her boyfriend, Hermann for half an hour.

So returning to the issue of Parcelman, had that indeed been Charles Letchford, then what might have been the purpose of the parcel? A simple explanation would be that it was a sort of work bag - just adequate to contain some lunch or dinner, and perhaps some personal belongings. Which raises the questions; what was Letchford's occupation, and where was he working on the night of the double event? Barnaby's Assistant tells us the following...

Christmas Day weddings were to be a feature for the family over the years and Charles was married on this day in 1889 to Sarah Ann Grant at Christ Church, Spitalfields.

The record gives the following details:
Charles Edward Michael Letchford, 24, Barman, 17 Hanbury St., father Edward Letchford, labourer

Sarah Ann Grant 22, 10 Booth St, father George Grant, bricklayer.

The witnesses were Henry Letchford (Charles’ then 19 year old brother, who was also a witness at Lizzie’s wedding) and Martha Grant, Sarah’s sister.

17 Hanbury Street was just a few doors away from 29 Hanbury Street on the same (odd-numbered) side of the road on the corner with Wilkes Street. It was actually a public house, the Weaver’s Arms, so this was likely Charles’ place of work and not necessarily his place of residence. It is possible that he was working at the Weaver’s Arms the previous year, maybe returning home from there in the early hours of 30 September 1888 and, who knows, perhaps he’d had one drink too many.

So Letchford was likely working as a barman, a few doors away from 29 Hanbury street.

I suggest taking a look at this post by JeffHamm, regarding geographic profiling. Focusing on the second map, it can be seen that Letchford lived in the lower-right orange zone, and worked in the yellow zone.

Perhaps Letchford actually did take notice of the commotion and police whistles, and told the women of the household, who were preoccupied with a newborn, that he was going outside to investigate. When later asked to explain the quote in the newspaper, he tells the household that he wanted to avoid the possibility of being questioned by the police, as to what he had seen or heard. Little do the others know the real reason for Charles wanting to avoid the attention of the police.