Albert Backert - The Steffens/Stiffens family in and after 1901

[Chris Scott]

Hi Paul
One possible with a slightly different spelling.
In the 1841 census there is a Samuel Fraley listed as born in Wiltshire and living in Steeple Ashton, Wilts. At the time he was 7, so born about 1834.
Maud Marion was born in or about 1867 so he at the time would have been 33 years old.

[Chris Scott]

Following on from my last post, there are two mentions of a Samuel Fraley of the right age living in the East End in 1871 and 1881
1871:
Listed at 41 Palm Street, Bethnal Green. Samuel Fraley, a 36 year old wire rope maker, with two sons aged 12 and 10. He is noted as married but no wife is listed.
1881:
51 Star St, St George East. Listed as a widower and a 47 year old hawker. Two sons aged 22 and 20.
However, both the above entries list this man as born in the east End.

IGNORE THE ABOVE AS I HAVE JUST REALISED THAT MAUD WAS BORN IN THE WEST INDIES SO HER FATHER MUST HAVE EMIGRATED BY 1866/67 WHEN SHE WAS BORN

[Debra Arif]

Originally Posted by Chris Scott

She certainly matches age wise. In the 1901 census Maud Backert's age is given as 34, so 15 years later she would have been 49/50. I don't know of a source that can confirm at this stage the 33 Johnson Street address.

Thanks Chris.

[Debra Arif]

Originally Posted by Chris Scott

The 1911 census record gives John and Maud's address as 33 Lucas St East but in the transcribed record the Johnson Street part (as in the death record) is included

Name: Maud Backart
Age in 1911: 44
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1867
Relation to Head: Wife
Gender: Female
Civil parish: St George in the East
County/Island: London
Country: England
Street Address: 33 Johnson St, Lucas St East
Marital Status: Married
Years Married: 23
Estimated Marriage Year: 1888
Occupation: WARDMAID
Registration district: St George in the East
Registration District Number: 19
Sub-registration district: St George and St John

LOL...all it takes is a little scrolling and don't post until you've read everyone's posts!
...Many thanks Chris.

[Dave James]

Hi all,

A point to consider regarding Albert's age.

In the Sep. 6 1888 issue of The Evening News, Albert wrote a letter regarding the state of Whitechapel. In it he stated, "...as an inhabitant of twenty years in Whitechapel".

Does this tie in with the other info regarding his age?

[Chris Scott]

Originally Posted by Dave James

Hi all,

A point to consider regarding Albert's age.

In the Sep. 6 1888 issue of The Evening News, Albert wrote a letter regarding the state of Whitechapel. In it he stated, "...as an inhabitant of twenty years in Whitechapel".

Does this tie in with the other info regarding his age?

Dave
All indications are that Backert's real date of birth would be somewhere in the period 1860-1863 with 1863 being the best bet, in my opinion. The candidate put forward on this thread was born in 1863 and that would tie in with his ages as given in the 1871 census (as 8 years old) and 1881 census (as 18). That means at the time of the murders he would have been 25 years of age.
It is after the 1881 census that his reported ago goes weird. If the Albert Becker listed in 1901 is Albert Backert - as I believe - his reported age of 26 is wildly out. He would actually have been about 38. But we have proof that his age was misreported in that the listing of him in the 1891 census - and I know no one who queries that this is THE Albert Backert - lists his age as 22 when in fact he would have been 28.
I am convinced that Albert was still alive and living with his married sister Flora in 1901 but what happened to him after that is the vital question

[Debra Arif]

Originally Posted by Paul

1901 sees us with Albert claiming to be 26 (birth 1875). An Albert E Beckert died in Ilford, Essex, in 1960. He was 84 years old, so would have been born c.1876. If he was our Albert, he'd be 97.

So Albert - vanity be thy friend - Bachert would appear to have be a Peter Pan syndrome who never really wanted to be out of his 20s!

I just re-read the news article where John Bachert supposedly went missing and Albert told a magistrate that his father looked 10 years younger than his actual age; in his forties rather than in his fifties as he actually was.
Maybe the whole family was just youthful looking and could get away with shaving years off their age?

Paul, regarding the death index entry in Ilford you mentioned. The image of the entry clearly says Albert E. Beckett and not Beckert, which is a much more common name and therefore very unlikely to be him, I would think?

[Debra Arif]

Originally Posted by Chris Scott

Dave
All indications are that Backert's real date of birth would be somewhere in the period 1860-1863 with 1863 being the best bet, in my opinion. The candidate put forward on this thread was born in 1863 and that would tie in with his ages as given in the 1871 census (as 8 years old) and 1881 census (as 18). That means at the time of the murders he would have been 25 years of age.

Hi Chris, Dave. I am probably banging on about this too much but there can't really be any other candidate for Albert Edward Bachert apart from the Albert Wilhelm Bachert I found, christened in 1862 in Whitechapel, can there?
He was the son of Johann (John) Bachert and his wife Georgine (Georgina) all traceable in the census and definitely the parents of the Albert Bachert of WVC fame, as we know by the address at Newnham Street.
Unless John lied about the number of children he had fathered, had died and were still living in 1911, all accounted for on this thread, then he has to be the right one by a simple process of elimination if nothing else?