Who was the first clothes-puller?

[lynn cates]

usual

Hello Lechmere. Thanks.

"There is no reason why a serial killer cannot start killing in his late thirties."

Completely agree. My question was, "Is it usual?" I don't know the answer since I know virtually nothing about serial killers nor have I the slightest interest in them.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Sally
I suspect that a family of a husband, wife and seven kids living in a couple of rooms would be pretty stressful and could easily have a detrimental impact on an already unbalanced mind.
Also choosing Cross as an alternative name would be quite cunning as if found out he could claim some sort of reason for using it, while at the sasme time preserving his anonymity.

Lynn
There is no reason why a serial killer cannot start killing in his late thrities.
For Cross my presumption would be that prior to June 1888 he was living close to and under the psychogical dominance of his mother and this inhibited him.
When he moved a mile or so away he was liberated from her immediate presence and his long standing inner resentments burst out in a series of attacks that were only sated when his step father died - together with his youngest child at roughly the same time.
At least these are potential and credible triggers for the initiation and cessation of the attacks.

[Sally]

Oh I see, he was practicing on how to remove his wife's uterus?

That's about it

[lynn cates]

kids

Hello Sally, Robert, Velma. I know what you mean.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

The Double Event took place in the earlier hours of Sunday morning – a bit earlier than the other attacks. This in itself speaks perhaps of a different scenario – the other attacks perhaps taking place on the culprit’s way to work, the Double Event on his way home from a social event perhaps. Saturday night being the main night for recreation in those days.
As we know Cross’s mother and one of his daughters lived about five minutes walk south of the Berner Street crime scene - on Cable Street in fact – our man Cross had a reason to be in the area. Did he leave his mothers at say 12.30 am looking for a victim and found and killed Stride sometime after 12.45. Or had he perhaps gone to visit his mother and then gone for a drink in a local pub before setting off home... with murder in his mind?
Remember that until mid June of that year Cross had also lived in this area – on James Street (now Burslem Street). In fact he had lived nearly all his youth and adult life within a few minutes walk of Berner Street.
If he was disturbed while attacking Stride and wanted to obtain another victim before going home, what direction would he have gone in? Would he have set off towards his home – leaving a trail of destruction in his wake like an arrow pointing to Doveton Street? Or would he have gone almost in the opposite direction. Perhaps following his old route to work, knowing no doubt that the area around Aldgate was a favourite stamping ground for prostitutes?

One other point of interest is that between his workplace, home and his mother’s home there is a cordon sanitaire of about 5 or 6 minutes walk to the nearest murder scene (Miller’s Court, Bucks Row, Berner Street).

Cross said he saw no one while walking to Bucks Row until he found Polly’s body. The streets were fairly empty at that time in the morning. No doubt that is why the Ripper chose that time of day to make his attacks
Paul’s immediate newspaper interview put Cross virtually over the body. In any case Bucks Row was a narrow thoroughfare. Half way across the road meant that Cross was within maybe six feet of the body.

[Wickerman]

Maybe that's why he did it Robert, he was sick of all those kids.

Oh I see, he was practicing on how to remove his wife's uterus?

[Sally]

With the number of children at home, disembowelling prostitutes might have seemed like a peaceful break to him.

Maybe that's why he did it Robert, he was sick of all those kids.

[Robert]

With the number of children at home, disembowelling prostitutes might have seemed like a peaceful break to him.

[Sally]

Hi, Sally,
Well, it answers my question but doesn't help where I thought it might go.

I wonder if there is a record of a child that died or baptismal records of an earlier baby?

Since they had 7 children, she must have been quite fertile, so the three years until the first baby is a surprise.

Appreciate the information. Thanks, Sally.

Hi Curious - I think they had 11 children from memory, 9 living - so yes, that would mean two died. I think Lechmere (poster Lechmere, sigh... all these Lechmeres..) mentioned the death of Lechmere's (Cross Lechmere) daughter at some point; but yes, that still leaves one more child who died; so that child may have been their first. First children are always the most difficult for the mother - and infant mortality was still high. 9 out of 11 is pretty good going for the time.

Hi Lynn - yes, it's a long old time to go before embarking on a killing spree - unless you want to try and tie earlier murders to him. The trouble with that in this case is that the Whitechapel Murders appear so singular. Given the notoriety of the East End (amongst other things) it'd be pretty difficult to do that for any suspect, I'd think.

[curious]

Hello Sally. Hmm, married 18 years in 1888.

Now I am almost completely ignorant of serial killers (and bloody well delighted to remain so), but is it usual for one to start so late in life, after what seems to be a long period of stability?

Cheers.
LC

Careful, Lynn, my little bitty brain is working on a motive for you . . . But Sally has thrown a spoke in the works (as the old saying goes).

and may we all remain completely ignorant of serial killers except for the occasional book or movie.

[curious]

Hi Curious

Charles Lechmere and Elizabeth Bostock were married in 1870 in St George in the East, they were about the same age. Their eldest daughter was 7 in 1881

Lechmere (poster Lechmere) can doubtless fill in the precise details.

Hope that helps.

Hi, Sally,
Well, it answers my question but doesn't help where I thought it might go.

I wonder if there is a record of a child that died or baptismal records of an earlier baby?

Since they had 7 children, she must have been quite fertile, so the three years until the first baby is a surprise.

Appreciate the information. Thanks, Sally.

[lynn cates]

serial killers

Hello Sally. Hmm, married 18 years in 1888.

Now I am almost completely ignorant of serial killers (and bloody well delighted to remain so), but is it usual for one to start so late in life, after what seems to be a long period of stability?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hello, everyone,

I was thinking on my way to work and was struck by something, but I need information before saying anything.

Was there an age difference between Cross/Lechmere and his wife? What was it?

Do we have any record of how soon their first child followed their marriage, or did it precede it?

Thanks for anyone who can answer those questions.

curious

Hi Curious

Charles Lechmere and Elizabeth Bostock were married in 1870 in St George in the East, they were about the same age. Their eldest daughter was 7 in 1881

Lechmere (poster Lechmere) can doubtless fill in the precise details.

Hope that helps.

[curious]

Hello, everyone,

I was thinking on my way to work and was struck by something, but I need information before saying anything.

Was there an age difference between Cross/Lechmere and his wife? What was it?

Do we have any record of how soon their first child followed their marriage, or did it precede it?

Thanks for anyone who can answer those questions.

curious

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"Apologies, Fisherman, for having used bold type in my previous posts which makes your point look kind of 'shouty'. That wasn't the intention - I enjoy our verbal jousts, much as we may disagree on occasions"

No worries, Bridewell!

Fisherman