Charles Letchford

[FISHY1118]

The fewer sisters in the house at the time, means fewer people to explain his whereabouts to. There doesn't need to be a baby in the house for Letchford to commit a murder a few doors down the street. The point is that the mother of the newborn wasn't likely to go outside, and the pregnant sister (had she been there), may have also preferred to stay inside.



So put another (and more accurate) way, Letchford lived a few doors from one C5 crime, at the time it occurred, and may have worked a few doors from another C5, at the time it occurred. Compared to some suspects who cannot definitely be placed in the East End, or London, or even England, at the time of some or all of the murders, that is not bad at all. It's far better than the cricketer, for example.

I tend to agree with this last comment , well put . I dont think it matters at all if someone mentions another suspect when making a comparison to one suspect that which he /she supports, even a poor one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I tend to agree with this last comment , well put . I dont think it matters at all if someone mentions another suspect when making a comparison to one suspect that which he /she supports, even a poor one.

Another silly Druitt dig. Grow up.

[Ms Diddles]

I tend to agree with this last comment , well put . I dont think it matters at all if someone mentions another suspect when making a comparison to one suspect that which he /she supports, even a poor one.

Particularly if the suspect mentioned just so happens to be Druitt, allowing you to have yet another attempt at provoking Herlock, eh?

PLEASE change the record!

[FISHY1118]

Particularly if the suspect mentioned just so happens to be Druitt, allowing you to have yet another attempt at provoking Herlock, eh?

Not really, you seem to be the one making a big deal with it . It was just a comment ,and my opinion, nothing to do with provoking anyone.
No ones under any obligation to participate.

[FISHY1118]

Another silly Druitt dig. Grow up.

How so?,

Surely I'm allowed an opinion. What was wrong with what I said.

[Yabs]

This is an odd coincidence.
The surname of my boss is Letchford, his family is from the historical Essex east London area, also has roots in Bromley.
I wonder if he’s related

[Herlock Sholmes]

Particularly if the suspect mentioned just so happens to be Druitt, allowing you to have yet another attempt at provoking Herlock, eh?

PLEASE change the record!

Exactly Ms D. Nothing better to do.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How so?,

Surely I'm allowed an opinion. What was wrong with what I said.

Ms D saw your comment for what it was straight away. On a thread about Letchford you jump in for an obvious Druitt-related dig.

[FISHY1118]

Ms D saw your comment for what it was straight away. On a thread about Letchford you jump in for an obvious Druitt-related dig.

She saw what she wanted to see , as we all do . My comment was related to the topic, why should it matter what the thread is . ''Another Suspect '' i believe that includes any other suspect that wasnst the one you happen to mention. I dont see the problem with that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

She saw what she wanted to see , as we all do . My comment was related to the topic, why should it matter what the thread is . ''Another Suspect '' i believe that includes any other suspect that wasnst the one you happen to mention. I dont see the problem with that.

She simply read what’s there in black and white. This initial post mentioned by NBFN mentions ‘far better than a cricketer,’ so unless someone is promoting WG Grace as a suspect then I think that we all know who he meant. And then you, who haven’t previously posted on this thread suddenly decided to jump in and ‘agree’ and to mention ‘poor suspect.’ This was an obvious dig. Ms D has no ax to grind; she gets involved in no heated discussions; she saw it straight away. I haven’t burst into tears at your comment Fishy but it’s this constant stream of Druitt-related digs which serve no real positive purpose.

My final point is an obvious one Fishy. It’s actually a question….do you think that it’s fair, or a reasonable discussion tactic, to constantly ignore what a poster says and to persist in making the same point? What I mean in this….

”…when making a comparison to one suspect that which he /she supports….”

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve said it but I can’t see why I’m called a Druitt ‘supporter’ or a ‘Druittist’ (not that there’s anything wrong with that) I don’t heavily favour or promote Druitt as Fish does with Lechmere for example or as Aethelwulf does with Bury or as Ike does with Maybrick (and no, this isn’t a dig at them either) Druitt interests me. I favour him of the rest of the named suspects but not heavily. It’s simply my personal opinion but I place him in a group with Kosminski and Bury. If I had to put money on who the ripper was, if someone had the true identity in an envelope, I’d say…person as yet unnamed. There are numerous very reasonable, non-controversial, intelligent posters on here who, whilst not considering Druitt a particularly strong suspect, manage to keep an open mind on the suspect. They agree that Macnaughten mentioning him is at least worthy of consideration and interest and that he’s at least worthy of consideration. So when we see so many who are open minded on the subject why do you think it is that some people are so desperate to constantly comment on a suspect that they apparently have no interest in? To constantly attempt to falsely portray Druitt as some kind of ‘lunatic fringe’ suspect (as you did on the other thread) when the reality is that every suspect poll that I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen many, always (and I mean always) place Druitt near to the top if not the actual top? This doesn’t make him guilty of course but it either means that there must be an awful lot of delusional or dishonest ripperologists out there or that there are many open-minded ones. I know which I go for.

[FISHY1118]

So i saw a thread, read someones comment and thought id agree with it with my first post on that thread, gave a opinion on the matter and somehow thats a problem! . Gee and i thought thats what were here for[least i am] . Tough Crowd .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Another one brings Druitt into an unconnected thread.

What I brought in, was an example of a popular suspect who cannot be placed at a single crime scene. If you're not a Druittist, as you claim not to be, then there is no reason to get touchy about my choice of example.

Letchford lived near to the Stride murder like numerous others. And ‘may have worked….anywhere and nowhere near any of the murder sites. Was he ever mentioned as a potential ripper by the Chief Constable of the Met? I can’t remember.

Unlike those numerous others, only Letchford places himself on Berner street, at a very similar time to PC Smith's sighting of a man with Stride. This point is made in the first section of #1, yet you've managed to avoid mentioning it.

It's true that Letchford may not have been working at the bar at 17 Hanbury street, on September 8. Yet there must be some possibility that he was, and aside from the striking coincidence, had that been true it could explain how Annie's killer knew the 'ins and outs' of 29.

The other thing that might be explained by 'Letchford the barman', is the parcel done up in newspaper ...

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.

Got any better ideas?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What I brought in, was an example of a popular suspect who cannot be placed at a single crime scene. If you're not a Druittist, as you claim not to be, then there is no reason to get touchy about my choice of example.

I wasn’t making a point about you mentioning him. I was making about about Fishy jumping in just to make a point.

Unlike those numerous others, only Letchford places himself on Berner street, at a very similar time to PC Smith's sighting of a man with Stride. This point is made in the first section of #1, yet you've managed to avoid mentioning it.

Yes, ‘places himself.’ Hardly the actions of a guilty man.

It's true that Letchford may not have been working at the bar at 17 Hanbury street, on September 8. Yet there must be some possibility that he was, and aside from the striking coincidence, had that been true it could explain how Annie's killer knew the 'ins and outs' of 29.

The other thing that might be explained by 'Letchford the barman', is the parcel done up in newspaper ...

Is ‘some possibility’ good enough?

Got any better ideas?

Yes. He was entirely unconnected to the murder.

[FISHY1118]

So is one allowed to say Letchford is a poor suspect based on that statement ?.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I wasn’t making a point about you mentioning him. I was making about about Fishy jumping in just to make a point.

Bollocks

Yes, ‘places himself.’ Hardly the actions of a guilty man.

If he was the guilty man, claiming to have traversed the street at that time and seen nothing wrong, would make perfect sense if that is when he was known to arrive home, by other members of the household. Had he been seen on the street, and knowing he had, would also be a good reason to place himself on the street, but with a very different account as compared to what the PC witnessed.

Letchford's and Smith's timings overlap. If it were not Letchford seen speaking to Stride, then he should have seen the man who was. Strange that he didn't.

Is ‘some possibility’ good enough?

No. I want to see Letchford on the suspects list.

Yes. He was entirely unconnected to the murder.

In other words 'no' - you have no idea about the newspaper parcel.