Charles Letchford

[FISHY1118]

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



Bollocks

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bollocks

I commented about you bringing Druitt in because it happens all the time and for one very obvious reason so don’t bother trying to say that you randomly mentioned Druitt as an example of a poor suspect. But my main source of annoyance, as can be seen from post # 47, was because Fishy felt the need to enter the thread to have yet another Druitt-related dig. It happens all the time and is tiresome. Ms D picked up on it straight away.

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.

This is only the case if you assume that everyone that mentions a time was on the money. As you appear to do when it suits you.

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

I don’t have a rigid view on suspects. Some feel that there should be ‘persons of interest,’ ‘lesser suspects’ and ‘prime suspects.’ I don’t. My opinion is that if someone suspects someone then that person is a suspect. If you put a case for Letchford as a suspect then he’s a suspect. It’s up to individuals to interpret likelihood.

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

No I don’t. And neither do you. Perhaps it contained a new pair of batting gloves?

[FISHY1118]

So is their some sort of statute of limitation on me that would prevent me from discussing druitt/or any suspects on a perticular related thread /topic just because it annoys you? .

I simply agreed with another persons point of view ,if that annoys you or anyone maybe dont read it, as suggested in pub talk recently ,what else can i say .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is only the case if you assume that everyone that mentions a time was on the money. As you appear to do when it suits you.

So you say. However, we have to look at the context. If Letchford had actually arrived earlier than 12:30 - say 5 or even 10 minutes earlier - then it is possible he could still have witnessed Stride and Parcelman, because they were on Berner street before Smith. If neither LS or Pm had been there then, then it would seem they arrived together, because no more than 10 minutes later, there they were together. So what happened to Pm, given that BS seems to be someone else? Pm has to become a non-suspect who is never identified - arguably the same in that sense, as Pipeman. Alternatively, if Letchford had actually arrived 5 to 10 minutes later than supposed, then why didn't he witness Stride standing in the gateway? I guess a good answer would be; because Schwartz's story was bollocks.

No I don’t. And neither do you. Perhaps it contained a new pair of batting gloves?

Yeah, perhaps Letchford won them in a raffle at the pub.

[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?

One thing that possibly favours this notion, is the man's dress. Was he dressed like a barman? This is the official police description of Smith's man:

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.

I can't see a man associated with the club, wearing a collar and tie. A barman may have though - I'm not really sure. Whatever the case, there is a problem with supposing that the man was Charles Letchford on his way home from work, carrying belongings in the parcel. Actually it's a problem that's probably fatal to the idea that Letchford could have been Stride's assailant. That is; Stride has to conveniently be there, and alone, when he turns into Berner street. I can't think of a plausible reason why that would be so.

So then, what is going on with the man with the parcel? Consider his "respectable appearance", alongside other eyewitness descriptions of men seen with Stride in the hours before her death. First we have J. Best at the Bricklayers' Arms:

He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat. ... He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie.

Then we have then man seen by William Marshall, opposite 58 Berner street:

[Coroner] Did he look well dressed? - Decently dressed.
[Coroner] What class of man did he appear to be? - I should say he was in business, and did nothing like hard work.
[Coroner] Not like a dock labourer? - No.
[Coroner] Nor a sailor? - No.
[Coroner] Nor a butcher? - No.
[Coroner] A clerk? - He had more the appearance of a clerk.
[Coroner] Is that the best suggestion you can make? - It is.

After speaking for several minutes, the man and woman (identified by Marshall at the mortuary), headed off toward Ellen street. What's on in Ellen street?

Why is Stride seen with these relatively high class men? She seems to have made an effort to look as good as possible, before going out. From Charles Preston's testimony:

[Coroner] Was she dressed to go out? - Yes, and asked me for a brush to brush her clothes with, but I did not let her have one.
[Coroner] What was she wearing? - The jacket I have seen at the mortuary, but no flowers in the breast. She had the striped silk handkerchief round her neck.

So who was she going out to see? This is from the London Evening News, Oct 1:

Another account says: She left Flower-and-Dean-street between six and seven o'clock on Saturday night. She then said that she was not going to meet any one in particular.

Perhaps that means she was going out to solicit. So what would explain the fact that she was found to have no money on her?

Putting all this together, we have:

* An effort to look good

* Apparently not on a date

* Seen with men of middle class appearance, both in a public place and on the street

* Found dead with no money on her person


This makes me wonder; was Parcelman Stride's pimp?