Charles Letchford

[Herlock Sholmes]

Stride had no apparent reason for standing in that gateway. Schwartz's claim to have seen a man walk down the street, who stops to speak to the woman and then starts to assault her, is arbitrary. No one claimed to have known anyone who had a grudge with Liz, just as no one had ever seen 'low' women standing in or near the gateway. Yet the real story leaks through...

The man tried to pull the woman into the street...

So someone was blocking the gateway. What didn't they want the 'intruder' to see?

...but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway...

So he tried to pull her into the street ... but ... failed? So the broad shouldered man had difficulty pulling the thin, narrow shouldered woman? Evidently the 'woman' had balls.

It’s not that she had no reason to stand in the gateway it’s just the case that we’re unaware of that reason.

Schwartz was walking past at the time so this might just have the impression that he got from seeing a scuffle. Maybe the guy pulled her because he wanted her to go somewhere with him. She refused and pulled back and ended up on the ground.

If we accept that Schwartz was there (and you might or might not accept that) then why would he have lied about what he’d seen? He said that he walked along Berner Street behind a seemingly drunk BS Man.

[JeffHamm]

Hi NBFN,

Letchford tells us he took no notice of the commotion and police whistles. Would he have failed to mention that one or more of the sisters had not done likewise?

Well, if at least one of his sisters had taken notice, then yes, he failed to mention it. If none of his sisters had taken notice, then he also failed to mention that. Since he didn't tell us whether or not any or none of his sisters took notice, we don't know which of those failures occurred.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why do you claim that the Letchford household were dealing with a newborn as if it’s a fact, when the research that you yourself quoted from Barnaby’s Assistant mentions three candidates for Letchford’s sister and only one of them had a baby at the time?

Letchford tells us he took no notice of the commotion and police whistles. Would he have failed to mention that one or more of the sisters had not done likewise?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?

Stride had no apparent reason for standing in that gateway. Schwartz's claim to have seen a man walk down the street, who stops to speak to the woman and then starts to assault her, is arbitrary. No one claimed to have known anyone who had a grudge with Liz, just as no one had ever seen 'low' women standing in or near the gateway. Yet the real story leaks through...

The man tried to pull the woman into the street...

So someone was blocking the gateway. What didn't they want the 'intruder' to see?

...but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway...

So he tried to pull her into the street ... but ... failed? So the broad shouldered man had difficulty pulling the thin, narrow shouldered woman? Evidently the 'woman' had balls.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Why do you claim that the Letchford household were dealing with a newborn as if it’s a fact, when the research that you yourself quoted from Barnaby’s Assistant mentions three candidates for Letchford’s sister and only one of them had a baby at the time?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

“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!

[GBinOz]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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