Jack's housing arrangements

[Sam Flynn]

Jack could have had a place to call "home" after all...

"One room in the Peabody buildings is never let to two persons." (J. Ewing Ritchie, Days and Nights in London, 1880).

Single rooms were let out at 2s 6d per week in the 1880s. Families paid 5s per week for three rooms. Communal washing facilities and lavatories were located on the landings outside the rooms on each floor.

Peabody Buildings' house rules:

1. No applicants for rooms will be entertained unless every member of the applicant's family has been vaccinated or agrees to comply with the Vaccination Act;

2. The rents will be paid weekly in advance at the superintendent's office, on Monday, from 9 a.m. till 6 p.m.;

3. No arrears of rent will be allowed;

4. The passages, steps, closets, and lavatory windows must be washed every Saturday and swept every morning before 10 o'clock. This must be done by tenants in turn;

5. Washing must be done only in the laundry. Tenants will not be permitted to use the laundries for the washing of any clothes but their own. No clothes shall be hung out;

6. No carpets, mats, etc., can be permitted to be beaten or shaken after 10 o'clock in the morning. Refuse must not be thrown out of the doors or windows;

7. Tenants must pay all costs for the repairs, etc., of all windows, keys, grates and boilers broken or damaged in their rooms;

8. Children will not be allowed to play on the stairs, in the passages, or in the laundries;

9. Dogs must not be kept on the premises;

10. Tenants cannot be allowed to paper, paint or drive nails into the walls;

11. No tenant will be permitted to under-let or take in lodgers or to keep a shop of any kind;

12. The acceptance of any gratuity by the superintendent or porters from tenants or applicants for rooms will lead to their immediate dismissal;

13. Disordlerly or intemperate tenants will receive immediate notice to quit;

14. The gas will be turned off at 11 p.m. and the outer doors closed for the night, but each tenant will be provided with a key to admit him in at all hours [my emphasis];

15. Tenants are required to report to the superintendent any births, deaths, or infectious diseases occurring in their rooms. Any tenant not complying with this rule will receive notice to quit.

(Info from The Eternal Slum: Housing & Social Policy in Victorian London, Anthony S. Wohl, 2006.)


I posted this info on another thread relating to a specific suspect, but perhaps it needs to be lifted up a level to a more generic discussion about the sort of home in which Jack could have lived.

Some say he couldn't have afforded a room of his own - well, at 2 shillings and sixpence per week, for a single room (with key!) the Peabody Trust shows that he could. Some think he might have lived in a doss-house, others don't - or, that if he did, he'd have needed a "bolt-hole". Would he have had a family, or would they have got in the way...? And so on.

Ideas and comments on this general theme are quite welcome.

[perrymason]

Its a more interesting question with the information youve added Sam, thats for sure.

If Ben follows me as I followed the link, what I was differentiating was a room with multiple tenants and beds from a room with one tenant and bed. Despite what youve suggested, I do not believe that if this serial killer killed multiple times, and took organs multiple times, that his living in a ward style existence would be either practical, sensible or "viable" risk taking, if he had options. It would appear now that its likely he did, even as a working poor man.

The man killed in public, so theres no argument that he is a risk taker in his murderous iteration, but there is another iteration...there must be, because he manages to stay hidden in plain sight and not be suspicious between the killings if hes local.

I cant really see how we can escape the logic that he had at least the symptoms of a split personality. Which could mean that the local working man, who he may well be when not killing, might be anything but a risk taker. Theres no indication, to me anyway, that the killer of the women risked capture. He is gone before any of the first arrival witnesses pass by. Nor does the man who he is between kills seem to be the type to draw unneeded attention, by actions or hours kept.

And with the evidence that Sam submitted, we can see that there is no reason to suspect he lived among others in the same room, not when the private digs were that accessible.

The cost of a private room within the affected area was within reach for a poor working man. Thats all we need to know really to have a workable premise for his off hours locale.

I think what youve been suggesting Ben is that he takes a location with witnesses purposefully, as part of a false identity. Well with this new information, he could easily have had a room in his actual name to himself...or an alias. I dont know why, other than forced by necessity or as a deliberate creation of a false identity, that he would choose a ward over a room alone.

All the best Ben, Sam.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Sam,

From Docklands Museum, which the Peabody Trust lent some items to for the recent show:

"By 1888 the Trust owned 5,000 dwellings housing 20,000 people.

The Trust's oldest estate was built in Spitalfields in 1864, and this was close to where some of Jack the Ripper's victims were murdered. The estate no longer belongs to the Trust but the buildings are still standing. Two other large Peabody estates were also built in east London in the 19th century."

I believe that refers to the one up Commercial St at White Lion St. Then there is the Glasshouse Street one. What is the location of the third Peabody estate in EE at that time?

Roy

[Ben]

I do not believe that if this serial killer killed multiple times, and took organs multiple times, that his living in a ward style existence would be either practical, sensible or "viable" risk taking

It would be easy, Mike, especially with hundreds of other lodgers bringing home their meaty treats for consumption in the large kitchens famed for their malodourous atmosphere, many of whom would have been butchers and slaughterers. Hiding in plain sight and becoming the proverbial needle in a haystack is perfectly sensible and certainly viable, besides which we know that certain lodging houses, such as the Victoria Home on Commercial Street, boasted the facility of private, one-bed cabins (so not a "ward-style" sleeping arrangement).

Theres no indication, to me anyway, that the killer of the women risked capture.

There's plenty of indication of that, Mike. The fact that he killed on the streets tells us immediately that he risked capture, especially if he was prepared to dispatch one of his victims in the certainty that a neighbour was a couple of feet away on the other side of the fence in Hanbury Street.

The Victoria Home was a Peabody establishment.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi Ben,

I remain unconvinced a suitable place to hide while carrying bloody organs is a "ward style" environment, but as you say, there were single bed "cabins", so why even bother debating whether he would bed down among many other residents in a ward? It was only a viable thought if he had no other options, ...based on your premise he was poor.

Well... we now know that even poor men could afford a private room, so as I suggested, there is no longer need to suggest a man carried organs back to a bed that was in a ward among many other beds. Its not a requisite of his financial means, if he had any at all.... nor is it a superior position to complete privacy...no matter how many times you say its a sensible and reasonable alternative Ben.

I think Sams discovery should effectively end the supposition that he needed, or was relegated to by poverty, ...multiple tenant room space.

Unless there is some reason to continue with that course despite the private room cost revelations, which I cant see at the moment myself,.. we can effectively move towards ideas that incorporate complete privacy for the killer after his kills. Which makes infinitely more sense based on the records, as in the almost 3 months the authorities thought one killer was running wild,.... just one credible report of neighbours or co-tenants suggesting that someone they knew kept the hours that Jack did, and had blood on his clothing the night of a murder.

That suggests to me that neighbours were not privy to his comings and goings, or blood stains...unless of course he was the Batty Street tenant and gave his stained clothing to the landlady....perhaps, but at least he did have a private room.

Best regards Ben.

[Ben]

I remain unconvinced a suitable place to hide while carrying bloody organs is a "ward style" environment, but as you say, there were single bed "cabins", so why even bother debating whether he would bed down among many other residents in a ward?

Exactly, Mike.

The Victoria Home was unusual in that it enabled lodgers to doss down in a private cabin. However, the fact that the Victoria Home was frequenting by hundreds of patrons of an average night is a very reasonable indication that these small rooms discussed above may have been hard to come by. After all, the question of "reasonable alternative" cannot apply only to the killer. Who would choose to doss down in a crowded lodging house with other men when there were private homes to be purchased for far less? Nobody in their right mind, obviously, and yet the lodging houses were chock full, most probably because the cheaper private dwellings were full up.

Nobody chose lodging houses because they were the more desirable option.

just one credible report of neighbours or co-tenants suggesting that someone they knew kept the hours that Jack did, and had blood on his clothing the night of a murder.

Nobody was remotely likely to have noticed anything of the sort, especially when the amount of blood-staining on the killer was so minimal, especially with so many butchers and slaughterers lodging there, and especially with hundreds of men in the same building all keeping irregular hours.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Ok...we'll try another tact....you do realize that by suggesting he pocketed organs and took them to a lodging house where he lived among many other men... that one of the only reasonable suggestions as to what became of the organs is he ate them. He cannot keep organs in a ward, as there is every possibility that he did not spend entire days watching to see that nobody finds or takes his raw organs from under his bed.

For myself, accepting ideas like that...ones that we know are unnecessary based on information we now have, are the result of assuming living circumstances using a killers economic profile.

Since this killer has no profile established....rich-poor, EastEnder-WestEnder, working-unemployed, butcher-baker-candlestickmaker, we really have no idea....I believe we should look for housing the would meet the requirements of this type of killer best, and that would be at least one private room.

Cheers Ben.

[Stephen Thomas]

Some say he couldn't have afforded a room of his own - well, at 2 shillings and sixpence per week, for a single room (with key!) the Peabody Trust shows that he could. Some think he might have lived in a doss-house, others don't - or, that if he did, he'd have needed a "bolt-hole". Would he have had a family, or would they have got in the way...? And so on.

Ideas and comments on this general theme are quite welcome.

Hi Sam

Many thanks for your post #1 here. Cider House Rules they weren't.

Just a note here for those who (quite understandably) don't know the old British currency. There were 240 pennies in the pound. A shilling was worth 12 pennies. Two shillings and sixpence (2/6d) was therefore 30 pennies. To stay a week in a fourpence a night doss-house such as Crossinghams would cost 28 pennies so the Peabody rate was damn good value.

Mary's 'Hutchinson can you lend me sixpence', by the way, would these days be 'Hutchinson can you lend me 20 pounds (50 dollars/euros)'.

[Ben]

For myself, accepting ideas like that...ones that we know are unnecessary based on information we now have, are the result of assuming living circumstances using a killers economic profile.

Accepting ideas like what, Mike? What's unnecessary about the possibility that the murderer consumed the organs after extracting them, like Andrei Chikatilo did? Why is that any less probable or "necessary" than the suggestion that he kept them preserved for several days?

I believe we should look for housing the would meet the requirements of this type of killer best

It depends what those requirements were. We don't know that a location to facillitate days and weeks of organ-preservation was even remotely a requirement. Again, why were these lodging houses so busy and crowded when there were cheaper private rooms available?

Regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Ben,

I think this is far simpler than its being made out to be....assuming the killer probably lived among many other men in a ward style existence and took organs there which he later consumed is much farther down the road on this killers profile than there is evidence of to support. Its possibly an answer....and I suggest one that is infinitely inferior at this stage to one that supposes he had privacy, and could do whatever he wanted with the organs.

The facts are affordable private rooms were indeed available to working people with the least means possible...so why make conjecture that this killer had absolutely no means and therefore likely lived in a bed among many men, cooking his organs in the communal kitchen. If he had any money...thats unneccesary.

Before we wonder whether he got to rent one of those private rooms that were available....and was perhaps forced into communal surroundings, maybe we should just acknowledge that there were private rooms for poor people, he could have had one of those, and continue to wonder at this stage what he did with the organs he takes.

I dont see cannibalism as something we need to assume yet at all.

Cheers Ben

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

assuming the killer probably lived among many other men in a ward style existence and took organs there which he later consumed is much farther down the road on this killers profile than there is evidence of to support.

Nobody's saying we should "assume" that he lived in such a domestic set-up. It has only been observed that a very large component of the district were domiciled in lodging houses - the majority in fact - and that they did so for want of other options. I have to ask again; have you any possible explanation for the fact that conventional lodging houses were full of patrons in spite of the fact that single rooms could be had for cheaper?

Obviously, these working men didn't want to live in a lodging house, and they can't possibly have preferred to doss down for a "ward-style existence" in favour of a cheaper private room, but they did so all the same. Why?

Surely the logical explanation is that the private rooms were simply unavailable to the majority of patrons, or were simply not known about? If neither was the case, then it would naturally follow that every single lodging house would have been deserted, and yet we know this wasn't the case.

The facts are affordable private rooms were indeed available to working people with the least means possible

So why did people use lodging houses at all?

I dont see cannibalism as something we need to assume yet at all.

Nor do we need to assume that he must have kept them in storage for many days after the murder.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi again Ben,

Of course I see your point that not everyone who wanted a private room and could pay the pittance asked for a weeks rental could get one. Its that we now know that poor men did have that opportunity. Making "poverty" and homelessness, or poverty and shared ward existence not a given anymore.

So we can now question the viability that the killer kept organs on him while in the company of other lodgers, and that he must have eaten the organs. They no longer are a natural conclusion, based on a poor local man as the premise.

I agree, we cant assume he kept the organs as keepsakes, and you agree we cant assume he ate the organs, so neither of us have the grounds to assert either one....or eliminate either. My point is that the liklihood that this killer must have had organs on him while in the company of others is diminished....not vanquished. He had options for privacy, even as a poor resident....if he was that at all.

Cheers Ben

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Its that we now know that poor men did have that opportunity

But how extensive and far-reaching was this opportunity? That's what I've been getting at so far. Surely we can take it as read that everyone would have chosen a cheaper private room over a more expensive bed in a busy lodging house if they had the opportunity? That being so, why were so many men opting for common lodging houses in spite of these cheaper rooms? If all these men had "options for privacy" but didn't take them, the logical explanation is that these smaller rooms were either full up, unavailable, or simply not known about.

So I'm afraid it doesn't necessarily follow at all that a murdering local man of limited means had the "option" of a private room, any more than his non-murdering local peers did.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi again Ben,

Heres my take on this....my guess is that the private rooms that could be rented in these establishments were coveted, but hard to keep week after week for a man with little or no work or money. Ill bet they came available and were re-rented often. Which means our man didnt just have one chance to get a private room that he could rent, men werent renting these rooms for months at a time...he may have had chances daily or weekly. He only needs complete privacy as far as I can see on maybe 3 days in over 2 months, is it conceivable that 3 days out of over 70 that he might have found privacy?

In fact, he may have lived a few places around the area, as these rooms became available. Live in one while on a waiting list for another kind of thing.

All the best Ben.

[Ben]

is it conceivable that 3 days out of over 70 that he might have found privacy

He may have coveted privacy, Mike, but what were the realistic chances of him getting any? It wouldn't have been as easy as you suggest to simply rent one of these rooms for a particular night. If that were so easy a task, every man in the district would seize upon that opportunity to escape the horrors of a crowding lodging house for a night or two, but since we know that the lodging houses were crammed full of man anyway, it only follows that a very small minority of room-seekers were succesful in their efforts.

Unless he booked the rooms months in advance, but that would mean he'd have planned the murder dates around that time too.

Best regards,
Ben