Charles Letchford

[FISHY1118]

Another silly Druitt dig. Grow up.

How so?,

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

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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]

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.

Another one brings Druitt into an unconnected thread.

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Charles Letchford was a working class Englishman. What was the class and nationality of the man who wrote this...?

The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing

Someone who couldnt spell the word Jurors correctly !!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Although there’s no record given for 1888 we know that in 1891 the household only consisted of..



As opposed to 1881…



So we can’t assume that there was more than one sister at home and we can’t assume that there was a baby in the house.

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.

I’d also suggest that even though Charles Letchford was listed as a Barman in 1889 we can’t assume that he was a Barman in 1888 let alone how close to Berner Street his place of work might have been.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Without reading back over that piece of research did he claim that Letchford had more than one sister? Or did he just suggest 3 possible candidates for that sister? Why would he have needed to mention the sister?

Although there’s no record given for 1888 we know that in 1891 the household only consisted of..

. Edward Letchford 53, general labourer, born Bromley, Kent
Susannah Letchford 55, needlewoman, born Mereworth, Kent
Henry Letchford 21, paper miller, born Camberwell, London
Edward Letchford 9, born St. George East, London.

As opposed to 1881…

. Edward Letchford 43, carman (unemployed), born Bromley, Kent
Susannah Letchford 43, born Mereworth, Kent
Florence Letchford 21, general domestic servant, born Islington, Middlesex
Martha Letchford 19, general domestic servant, born Islington, Middlesex
Charles Letchford 15, steam sawyer’s assistant, born Shoreditch, Middlesex
Elizh. Letchford 13, born Islington, Middlesex
Henry Letchford 11, born Walworth, Surrey
Ada Letchford 8, born Walworth, Surrey
Mary A. Letchford 4, born St Geo East, Middlesex

So we can’t assume that there was more than one sister at home and we can’t assume that there was a baby in the house. I’d also suggest that even though Charles Letchford was listed as a Barman in 1889 we can’t assume that he was a Barman in 1888 let alone how close to Berner Street his place of work might have been.

[JeffHamm]

If someone in the house did go outside and learn of the murder, then the entire household would have soon been made aware of this, regardless of what they were doing at the time. As a consequence, Letchford would then most likely have gone outside himself, and mentioned this obvious fact to the reporter. Instead, the reader gets the impression that Letchford did not learn of the murder until after sunrise, and so it can be presumed that no one went out after the discovery.

That of course, is the basis for the theory - that Letchford did go out while others slept or attended to the newborn, and returned about 2am. He pretends he didn't go out, so that he is not put in a position of being asked to describe details he cannot supply.

But if Letchford was in bed, he could very well have not known his sister went out, and she ends up being detained with everyone and doesn't get back until he's asleep, so he's unaware of it. He goes to work before she awakens, and is interviewed before he hears of it. Or, she doesn't tell him because he's a nasty fellow, and she would get in trouble for having gone out and getting mixed up in the affair, etc.

Again, we have no information, so any story can be told to make it sound like anything at all. Without evidence, or data, to constrain that story, we're limited only by our imaginations. You've made him JtR, or at least Stride's killer, for example. Sure, there's nothing to disprove that, but that's because there's nothing at all to work with. I've made him nasty, or an early riser, and there's no way you can disprove those either. Without guidance by some sort of evidence, it's all just guesswork. And the odds of guessing who killed Stride are pretty long.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So again, it appears to me he either failed to mention that someone in his house did take notice or he failed to mention that nobody took notice. Which of those failures really happened, though, cannot be determined. In fact, given Mr. Letchford most likely said more than what was reported, we can't even be sure he did fail to mention the above. All we know is that if he did mention it, it did not make it to the paper.

If someone in the house did go outside and learn of the murder, then the entire household would have soon been made aware of this, regardless of what they were doing at the time. As a consequence, Letchford would then most likely have gone outside himself, and mentioned this obvious fact to the reporter. Instead, the reader gets the impression that Letchford did not learn of the murder until after sunrise, and so it can be presumed that no one went out after the discovery.

That of course, is the basis for the theory - that Letchford did go out while others slept or attended to the newborn, and returned about 2am. He pretends he didn't go out, so that he is not put in a position of being asked to describe details he cannot supply.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,
what scenario do you suppose was most likely? He tells us that a sister was at the door at 12:50. He tells us he took no notice of the situation outside. Would he really have omitted mentioning that a sister did take notice?

By the way, one of the three sisters may not have been at #30 that night.

Hi NBFN,

I have no way of knowing which was more likely. I don't know Mr. Letchford so I don't know what sort of things he may or may not mention. I don't know how closely he monitor's the activities of the people in his household. Is he someone who spends a lot of time working or reading in his room, away from others? If so, he might have no clue as to whether or not his sister(s) noticed anything, and so doesn't indicate either way. It's an unknowable bit of information, and while I could impose my own personal beliefs, that is just imposing my own bias onto what is basically a void. We have no information about the person, their household, their tendency to or not to observe things, their tendency to state things they themselves just assumed. That's sort of what you're asking me to do - what do I assume would be most likely underlies asking what I suppose to be most likely - and what I assume in this situation cannot be evaluated for its accuracy, and I could very well assume something that is completely the opposite of what the reality was.

I caution against the temptation to fill in missing pieces with our assumptions, unless we can find a way to then test those assumptions. In this case, I can't think of a way to test them because of how little we have to work with, and what we do have has already been put through a journalist's filter. We're not even getting Mr. Letchford's words, we're getting a journalist telling us some of the information they jotted down during an interview, so the wording is not likely what Mr. Letchford himself said but rather reflects the gist as the journalist understood it to mean. It's probably not even everything Mr. Letchford said, just the bits the journalist chose to mention. And that pretty much makes it impossible, in this case, to form an opinion.

So again, it appears to me he either failed to mention that someone in his house did take notice or he failed to mention that nobody took notice. Which of those failures really happened, though, cannot be determined. In fact, given Mr. Letchford most likely said more than what was reported, we can't even be sure he did fail to mention the above. All we know is that if he did mention it, it did not make it to the paper.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Charles Letchford was a working class Englishman. What was the class and nationality of the man who wrote this...?

The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NBFN,

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

Jeff,
what scenario do you suppose was most likely? He tells us that a sister was at the door at 12:50. He tells us he took no notice of the situation outside. Would he really have omitted mentioning that a sister did take notice?

By the way, one of the three sisters may not have been at #30 that night.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

Without reading back over that piece of research did he claim that Letchford had more than one sister? Or did he just suggest 3 possible candidates for that sister? Why would he have needed to mention the sister?