Lechmere graves and tragedy

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;387670]

And if Elizabeth Lechmere was as perceptive and hated the guts of her husband, then she could use that knowledge to guarantee herself a burial spot away from him. Do YOU realize THAT...?

Yes, Fisherman. Charles must have been a serial killer. That is absolutely clear now.

That is why he was buried in a common grave. His wife did not want to be buried in the grave of a serial killer.

Thank you for telling us this. It is very informative.

So from now on we do not have to look for serial killers any more. We can simply ask a lot of wives around the world if they "hate the guts of" their husbands.

And then we can go and arrest their husbands.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Incidentally the Bethnal Green Tube Disaster was reported in the press. It was the government report that was not published, largely because it would have revealed that Bethnal Green Council had repeatedly applied for funds to improve safety at the station and had been refused.

Well, you know, while a tube shelter disaster was mentioned, I'm not sure it's correct to say it was reported.

There was no reporting. The Ministry of Home Security issued a statement for publication on the day after the accident. That was basically all the press was allowed to say on the matter. What was not mentioned was that the accident occurred at Bethnal Green. All the papers were allowed to say was that it was at "a London tube shelter".

And wasn't just the official report into the incident (by magistrate Laurence Dunne) that wasn't published. The inquiry itself was held in private. This was said to be "in the national interest". The Government originally said that the report would be published but changed its mind, claiming that it would convey "valuable information to the enemy".

I'm not sure that Miss Marple's original comment about Churchill not allowing the incident to be reported was too wide of the mark.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;387691]

Yes, Fisherman. Charles must have been a serial killer. That is absolutely clear now.

That is why he was buried in a common grave. His wife did not want to be buried in the grave of a serial killer.

Thank you for telling us this. It is very informative.

So from now on we do not have to look for serial killers any more. We can simply ask a lot of wives around the world if they "hate the guts of" their husbands.

And then we can go and arrest their husbands.

Regards, Pierre

A more full-blown ignorance than the one you proudly put on display out here on a regular basis is hard to imagine, Pierre.

[Caligo Umbrator]

With regard to the costs of burial, C.1920.
There is an American publication which describes itself in this manner.

Funeral Management and Costs. A World Survey of Burial and Cremation. by Quincy L. Dowd

The publication date is 1921, and while internally it seems to offer no such assurance, we might infer from the nature of the book that the majority of the data presented would likely have been collated within the preceding 12 or 18 months.

The original document was intended for an American audience and so displays the costs in U.S. currency. Using historical data I have converted the figures into the British monetary equivalent for the year 1920.


Cremation charges at Golders Green are listed as thusly:
'For cremation, including chapel, waiting-room, and attend-
ance, the price is Ģ 7/3/-. If a body is brought for incineration
after 4:00 p.m., following another on the same day, the price is
Ģ 5/14/8; the urn (handmade) to contain ashes, Ģ -/14/3; for service
of chaplain, if desired, Ģ -/14/3; for use of chapel organ with blower,
Ģ -/14/3; for providing choir, Ģ 1/-/6 and up; for single niche in
columbarium to contain one urn, Ģ 1/-/6 and up; for deposit of
subsequent urns in family niche, Ģ 1/8/6; for temporary deposit of
urns (per month), Ģ -/6/6. Certificate of cremation costs Ģ -/3/6;
packing case for shipping urn, Ģ -/6/10.'

Regrettably, the publication offers no other figures relating to London but does contain this useful information regarding internment costs in the city of Leeds:

'Embalming costs Ģ 4/-/6; shaving, Ģ -/1/6; robe, from
Ģ -/3/3 to Ģ -/16/8; hearse, Ģ -/10/6 (one horse) to Ģ 1/1/6 for a two-
horse outfit; coffin and box, from Ģ 1/13/4 to Ģ 4/-/13; gloves,
Ģ -/3/3 per pair; grave vauk, Ģ 7/19/6 and up; flowers, Ģ -/6/8,
and banners, Ģ-/14/-; grave and interment, from Ģ 2/13/3 to Ģ 13/-/6;
permit to place gravestones on lot, from Ģ -/13/4 to Ģ 8/7/3; crypt
in cemetery vault, Ģ 10/12/- and up; clergy fees, Ģ -/6/8 and up;
singer, Ģ -/13/4 and up; hired mourners, Ģ -/14/- and up.'

The entire, rather morose, document can be found here - https://archive.org/stream/funeralmanagemen00dowdrich/funeralmanagemen00dowdrich_djvu.txt


Yours, Caligo

[GUT]

I must say I try hard to keep out of these "a witness done it" threads,

But Fisherman, can you produce even one bit of evidence to support this part of your theory

Oh yes, I understand that perfectly. And if Elizabeth Lechmere was as perceptive and hated the guts of her husband, then she could use that knowledge to guarantee herself a burial spot away from him. Do YOU realize THAT...

Ie that Mrs Lech hated his guts.

[Pcdunn]

I think the sheer number of "ifs" and "may haves" and "probables" I've heard in discussing this theory outweigh the solid factual information such as Charles Lechmere's surname is everywhere except in the newspaper articles related to the Nichols murder inquest. No employment records from Pickford's, no factual evidence of him taking any route to work except Buck's Row, no particular motive firmly established for Polly's death except he was "probably" a psychopath, which is speculation.

So is the idea that Mrs. Lechmere hated his guts, as GUT has put it. (In my opinion, of course.)

[Mayerling]

Well, you know, while a tube shelter disaster was mentioned, I'm not sure it's correct to say it was reported.

There was no reporting. The Ministry of Home Security issued a statement for publication on the day after the accident. That was basically all the press was allowed to say on the matter. What was not mentioned was that the accident occurred at Bethnal Green. All the papers were allowed to say was that it was at "a London tube shelter".

And wasn't just the official report into the incident (by magistrate Laurence Dunne) that wasn't published. The inquiry itself was held in private. This was said to be "in the national interest". The Government originally said that the report would be published but changed its mind, claiming that it would convey "valuable information to the enemy".

I'm not sure that Miss Marple's original comment about Churchill not allowing the incident to be reported was too wide of the mark.

It was typical of Churchill hiding bad details, in both World Wars. In World War II the loss of over 2,200 evacuated soldiers on the "Lancastrian" during the Dunkirk evacuation was not made public. The torpedoing and sinking of the HMS Barnham in November 1941 in the Mediterranean was kept from the public (with the loss of the 800 + men in her crew) was kept from the public until 1945. This despite one of the most engrossing films of a ship disaster ever photographed by movie camera. There was also the murky circumstances of the death of the Polish Prime Minister in exile, General Sikorski, with many in his staff in a plane crash at Gibraltar in 1943 - with only the British RAF pilot managing to survive it. The latter was the basis for the play "Soldiers". Whether it was an accident or a planned assassination (and by whom) was never really settled. However the latter two were known to the Germans, who used them for propaganda.

In World War I Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the start of the war, and there were a series of naval disasters (except for the first battle of Heligoland) up to December 1914: The loss of the Hogue, Aboukir, and Cressy to Otto Weddigen's submarine, the loss of Antwerp despite some intense fighting, the escape of the German ships "Goeben" and "Breslau" through the Dardenelles to Constantinople, and it convincing the Ottoman Empire to join the Central Powers, and the loss of Sir Christopher Craddock's flotilla at the Battle of Coronel in November 1914 to the flotilla of Maximillian Graf von Spee. One of the disasters was the mining and sinking of HMS Audacious, a recently built dreadnought, off Lough Swilly, Ireland. The crew was totally rescued, but the ship sank. Churchill ordered no reports of the disaster was to be released until the war ended (the news was released in Britain in November 1918!!). Unfortunately the RMS Olympic with hundreds of travellers headed to the U.S. was passing the area and saw the sinking. Many photographed the incident, and these pictures ended up in many of the newspapers in the U.S., especially the Hearst newspapers (and William Randolph Hearst, of German descent, was opposed to the war or supporting the British and their allies). The newspapers with their reporst and photos of the sinking were sent back to the continent of Europe, and ended up being reported in German and Austrian-Hungarian newspapers. Some really successful censorship there.

The "funny thing" was this business about the Bethnal Green Tube Disaster is the second time a major disaster in London occurs in the Ripper story. Remember that the sinking of the "Princess Alice" in the Thames in 1878 also popped up.

Jeff

[miss marple]

Thanks, Jeff and David for more on Churchill & BethnaL Green.

As far as I can see, Fisherman's logic is that Mrs Lechmere hated her husband, so he was buried in a common grave which meant he must have been a serial killer.

Did her family hate her too? As she was buried in a common grave.
The majority of graves in Tower Hamlets are common graves, so by that logic does that mean that burial in a common grave make you a potential serial killer?

Miss Marple

[Fisherman]

I must say I try hard to keep out of these "a witness done it" threads,

But Fisherman, can you produce even one bit of evidence to support this part of your theory




Ie that Mrs Lech hated his guts.

No, I cannot. Nor do I have to. What I suggest is that the fact that Mr and Mrs Lechmere were buried in separate graves CAN - but must not - be on account of Mrs Lechmere n ot wanting to be buried alongside her husband.

The exact same applies for miss Marples suggestion: The separated graves CAN - but must not - owe to economical considerations.

Nothing more has been said, nothing more can be said.

[Fisherman]

miss marple:

As far as I can see, Fisherman's logic is that Mrs Lechmere hated her husband, so he was buried in a common grave which meant he must have been a serial killer.

Then again, you cannot se further than the tip of your nose, can you? My logic is not that Elizabeth Lechmere hated her husband. My logic is not that his being buried in a common grave means that he was a serial killer.

My logic is that since most spouses are buried together, it is an apparent deviation that the Lechmeres were not. My logic is that there will have been a reason for this. My logic is that there may have been a number of possible reasons, one of which is that Elizabeth Lechmere may have disliked her husband. Another one may be economical considerations.

And my logic is that you are more shallow in your thinking than a rainpuddle on a pooltable. But thatīs not my problem, itīs yours.

[miss marple]

Thanks for the personal abuse, Fisherman, always a sign of a losing argument.

As a Londoner with East end ancestors and growing up in a culture, where funerals and burials were always happening and understanding what the priorities were and hearing tales of previous funerals from parents and Grandparents I do understand that burial in a common grave was acceptable if money was short. If on the other hand there that been no funeral, no mourning cards, no procession, that would be strange and significant. The funeral as I keep on repeating. was the significant marker at the end of life. People would get into debt to have a good funeral, a display in which friends and neighbours would join in. Often the body would be laid out in the front room as in a wake.
Because most of the East Enders in Tower Hamlets were in common graves there was no shame in it. Mrs L could have had him cremated, which had been legal since 1885. If she hated him so much that would have disposed of the problem all together, but no she had him buried. She not consider it important to purchase a grave for herself either. The money she had was for the living not the dead.

Miss Marple

[Mayerling]

May I just point out that one of the annoying minor mysteries of musical history is the exact location of the grave of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. When he died in 1791 in Vienna, Mozart had been ill for some months, and his financial situation was "straightened". His wife Constanza was able to have a respectable funeral, but the funeral party left the cemetery early (I believe due to really bad weather) and nobody saw where the impoverished musical genius was buried by the employees of the cemetery. It is believed he was buried in a common paupers' grave area in the cemetery.

Jeff

[miss marple]

Yes Jeff, there is a huge monument to him, but not where he is buried.
Incidentally Tower Hamlets Cemetery was bombed five times.

Miss Marple

[Fisherman]

miss marple: Thanks for the personal abuse, Fisherman, always a sign of a losing argument.

That is so often true! But not this time. And how about your own dishing out derogatory posts about how I understand zilch, miss marple? Is that a sure sign of YOU throwing in the towel? Please...!

As a Londoner with East end ancestors and growing up in a culture, where funerals and burials were always happening and understanding what the priorities were and hearing tales of previous funerals from parents and Grandparents I do understand that burial in a common grave was acceptable if money was short.

And as a Swede with no experience of British funerals I would say that there is no need for you to pat yourself on the shoulder - I fully grasp that this could be the case without that merit list of yours.
Maybe the problem is that YOU donīt grasp that I grasp it...? If so, how can you possibly grasp that there may be other reasons for separate graves? It is a more subtle issue, but I hope you can see that this was often so anyway - people who dislike each other are improbable to want to rest by each otherīs side. The concept as such is easy enough to understand.

If on the other hand there that been no funeral, no mourning cards, no procession, that would be strange and significant. The funeral as I keep on repeating. was the significant marker at the end of life. People would get into debt to have a good funeral, a display in which friends and neighbours would join in. Often the body would be laid out in the front room as in a wake.

Imagine, if you will, miss marple, that Lechmere actually was the killer and that Elizabeth knew about it, or had a hunch about it. If this was so, then we can be certain that she did not turn him in - we would have known if she did.
And if she did not turn him in, this could be on account of shame - people often enough know bad things about their spouses, and they keep quiet about it since they are too ashamed to let it get public. Would she want the world to know that her kids were the offspring of Jack the Ripper? I think not - there had been enough damage done as it was in such a case.

That is one thing that can have happened - we put up a facade, we do it the way we are expected to, but inside, we harbour other feelings altogether.

It is deeply human, and very common. I can see where you are coming from, but I fear you oversimplify the matter.

Because most of the East Enders in Tower Hamlets were in common graves there was no shame in it. Mrs L could have had him cremated, which had been legal since 1885. If she hated him so much that would have disposed of the problem all together, but no she had him buried. She not consider it important to purchase a grave for herself either. The money she had was for the living not the dead.

Once again, you are conjuring up things about which we know nothing. That is not to say that you must be wrong. It is to say that you must not be right. The sooner you can bring yourself to accept that, the better.

[Robert]

So, Fish, Lechmere's being buried in a separate grave might suggest that he was guilty. On the other hand, it might not.

Thanks for pushing the investigation an important step forward. I'm sure we've all gained from that, Fish.