Charles Letchford

[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?

[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.

[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 .

[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]

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



Bollocks

[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.

[FISHY1118]

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

[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.

[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?

[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 .

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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