Jack's housing arrangements

[Fisherman]

Thatīs correct, of course, Sam. The one thing I tries to point to, is that it cannot be ruled out in any way that Jack could have stayed at a boarding house. And just like you say, we cannot tell at what time Jack came or left, regardless of the striking times of the murders.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Ben, Fish

Lodging-house keepers/deputies were asked specifically whether anyone had entered immediately following the murders - so it's not an issue of hundreds (or even scores) of entrances and exits, overpopulated thought the doss-houses were, at those times of the morning.

Of course, the "H" Division sweep concentrated on those doss-houses in a specific area (cf. Swanson's report), and it doesn't follow that Jack would necessarily have chosen to return to any of them on the nights in question. He could have gone further afield - "J" Division territory wasn't all that far away, and had lodging-houses of its own.

That said, if Jack had his own key, and there was no deputy standing at his door, he need have had no such concerns.

[Ben]

Absolutely, Fish. Good points.

It's all very well asking a deputy to look out for anything "unusual", but if there was nothing remotely unusual about one of the hundreds of nightly lodgers coming back in the small hours, there was simply nothing noteworthy to remark upon, especially if the killer had the wherewithal, as you suggest, to avoid appearing shify or suspicious.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"There would have been many men departing and leaving the buildings around the time the killer was likely to have been making his escape - too many to make mental notes of."

I think it also deserves mentioning that those boarding house employees that kept an eye out for Jack would probably have been looking for a deviating behaviour or appearance more than anything else.
When it comes to the timing, there is nothing that urges us to believe that he would have gone out half an hour before the respective strikes and return half an hour after them.
If we instead imagine a man who acts very undramatically, and who perhaps even supplies his boarding house attendant with a perfectly plausible reason to go out at nighttime - he could, for example, state that he worked as a night watchman or that he held a job with more irregular hours - then he would just be one out of thousands of people who seemed to be going about his business in a perfectly legal manner.

The sheer numbers of boarders would make it very hard to single out somebody who behaved unsuspiciously, just like Ben says. There were thousands of people staying in boarding houses in Dorset Street only!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Jez,

Lodging house deputies were asked by the police about anyone who had arrived in their houses after the murders.

Even if the lodging house deputies were quizzed along those lines, sheer numbers precluded the possibility of them remembering one single individual. There would have been many men departing and leaving the buildings around the time the killer was likely to have been making his escape - too many to make mental notes of.

[Jez]

Hi Ben, the problem remains that the " Lodging House Ripper" was almost the main suspect from the beginning. Lodging house deputies were asked by the police about anyone who had arrived in their houses after the murders. People like Donovan seemed to know everyone. Could your Jack have successfully managed to avoid this problem time after time?

[Ben]

One of the first things the police did was to investigate all latecomers to lodging houses after the murders

The trouble with the term "latecomer" is the attendant implication that these doss houses conformed to a "routine" of sorts, which wasn't the case. These were not twee establishments where everyone minded everyone else's business. That was impossible even if they had the inclination to do so, which was very unlikely. They were chock full of men going about their daily routine, working at various different jobs and various different hours, and as such, no lodging house deputy was likely to single out any one lodger as a "latecomer" - late for what, anyway? There would have been men leaving for work by the time the killer arrived home.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jez]

Just another viewpoint.
Jack mutilates five women and each time he creeps home to a lodging house. He is "lost in the crowd" of the lodging house and slips quietly into bed to munch his trophes etc [which I doubt he ever did]
One of the first things the police did was to investigate all latecomers to lodging houses after the murders. It was virtually their first line of enquiry. Did Jack escape the vigilance of lodging house deputies time after time following each murder?

[Sam Flynn]

You may be right...there was so few this local poor killer of 5 couldnt get one...

On that point, Mike, it's worth knowing that Peabody Buildings in Glasshouse Street, Whitechapel, had 628 separate rooms.

Hi again Ben,

My point is not that there was a plethora of private rooms...enough for all who desired them...just that we now know that there were indeed such rooms within reach of the local poor.

You may be right...there was so few this local poor killer of 5 couldnt get one.....or I may be, that the fellow who takes organs had one. Its that either scenario is possible...and in my opinion, one is preferable for the killer.

Cheers amigo....Im not as tenacious as FM, so I am going to leave this one undecided my friend.

[Ben]

Since weve been over the first but before, and you stubbornly refuse to concede that privacy would be far better for the killer

A desert island filled with limitless knives and whores would have been "better for the killer", but it doesn't mean either was actually available, and the same may well have been true of private rooms in an area well known for its poverty, homelessness and overcrowding. If cheaper private rooms were truly available to everyone, then the lodging houses would be deserted.

No, it isn't certain or even likely that the consumption or partial consumption of a kidney would result in the killer getting a disease, ..

Best regards,
Ben

Since weve been over the first but before, and you stubbornly refuse to concede that privacy would be far better for the killer, and something we know was available to very poor people....Ill just take the bit left over.

If he ate the organs, then he ate a kidney afflicted with a form of Nephritis, and it would have been visibly diseased.

Im not certain, but I would imagine consuming diseased organs might cause health risks.

All the best Ben.

[Ben]

if the killer brings these home after each of his his three organ thefts, then any witness to him at all will know that on those days he was seen to have come in quite late with some bloodstaining, and had fresh organs on him to cook the next morning.

But Mike, who are these witnesses who have the time or the inclination to moniter the actons of one particular lodger out of several hundred on a continual basis? They just didn't exist. These lodging houses were veritable meccas for the trasnsient masses. Most of them men simply got on with their daily routine, keeping irregular hours themselves and enduring a hard day's toil for little reward. This wasn't some quiet middle-class neighbourhood in Nowheresville, Wyoming where everyone had the leisure to spy on their neighbours for prolonged periods of time.

I've already explained that there wouldn't have been visible blood-staining, just as I've already explained that the busy, malodourous, crowded kitchens provided a very strong disinclination for any one lodger to give a monkey's about what sort of meaty victuals another lodger was eating.

Remember Ben, we are talking about 1 and 3/4 uteruses, a partial bladder and vaginal section, and a kidney with visual indications of disease. This is not traditional beef and kidney pie here.

Yes, but many of the lodgers wouldn't have been consuimg "traditional beef and kidney pie" either. In fact, the majority of them could only have afforded the dodgier meat cuts from the butchers. No, it isn't certain or even likely that the consumption or partial consumption of a kidney would result in the killer getting a disease, and any inedible grisle could be dossed onto the great fire.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

However though I couldn't personally tell you what percentage of housing in the Spitalfields/Whitechapel area is made up of lodging houses I feel fairly certain that it houses UNDER 50% of the population of this area--probably even under 30%

I doubt that very much, Pinkerton. Such was the extent of overcrowding in the district that the chances of many men in the district having private rooms was very slim. The vast majority would have been living in shared accomodation, and of that majority group, a very large chunk would have been domiciled in common lodging houses.

Right, but in the middle of the night, and on the night of a Ripper murder Ben? While this wouldn't have been unheard of I believe it WOULD attract attention

I disagree very strongly. An average lodging house would have seen men coming and going at various internals throughout the night depending on their work shedules. In the larger establishments in particular, there was very little chance of any one person's activity being committed to memory, especially if there were carmen actually heading out to work in the very small hours of the morning. Asking the doormen of deputies if they noticed anything unusal wouldn't have done any good at all. It simply wasn't unusual for men to come and go throughout the night in the busier lodging houses, including the many butchers and slaughterers.

None of these things are UNHEARD OF, but on the night of the murder even having blood on your clothes would have brought about close scrutiny from the police.

Yes, but the preponderance of medical evidence suggests very strongly that the killer would not have been bloodstained, so even notwithstanding the crucial fact that many of the lodgers worked in occupations involving blood and guts, the absence of any obvious and conspicuous blood-staining on the real killer would have markedly reduced the likelihood of the ripper returning to a busy lodging house being viewed as an unusual or even vaguely noteworthy occurance. A concealed weapon would not have been a problem, since it wouldn't have been on display by the time he arrived home, and there's no reason at all to believe that he would have been "acting strangely".

I would argue that BECAUSE he took such a huge risk by murdering women out in the street (except MJK), AND he DID actually get away with it, lUCK simply would not have been sufficient.

I'm not saying it would have been. I believe luck played a significant role, but I don't believe he was haphazard in his methods. Rather, I believe him to have been an essentially organized offender who made the most of what I perceive to be limited options.

Best regards,
Ben

[Pinkerton]

Hi Pinkerton,

I don't think it's "necessary" for the killer to have lived in a lodging house, but given the large component of the male population who were living in lodging houses in the district, it must be considered a very real possibility. I also consider it very plausible that he killed on the streets for want of better options. When you consider the serial killers who stored their organs at home (Gacy, Dahmer, Nielsen), they also tended to have killed their victims there too, because they could.

Granted I wouldn't rule it out. However though I couldn't personally tell you what percentage of housing in the Spitalfields/Whitechapel area is made up of lodging houses I feel fairly certain that it houses UNDER 50% of the population of this area--probably even under 30%. However if someone else has the statistic on this I would be curious to know what it is.

Not "on occasion" - several times every day. That was what the large kitchens were for. The occupants of these doss houses had to eat, and invariably they did so on the premises, which meant purchasing meat (not exactly prime cuts on an average lodger's budget), taking it back home and and cooking it in a large kitchen designed for that very purpose. When you consider that hundreds of men would have been doing this on a daily basis at varying hours of the day and night depending on their work schedule, the chances of anyone singling out one "diner" for random scrutiny is effectively reducted to zero.

Right, but in the middle of the night, and on the night of a Ripper murder Ben? While this wouldn't have been unheard of I believe it WOULD attract attention. And I guarantee that the police DID go to all of the lodging houses and ask if anyone saw anything unusual the night of the murders. I specifically remember reading about the police investigating the lodging houses. And I'm sure they asked if anyone saw anything UNUSUAL, the night of the murder--not anything "unheard of" . Anyone with clothing with blood on it, anyone carrying a weapon, anyone behaving strangely, etc. None of these things are UNHEARD OF, but on the night of the murder even having blood on your clothes would have brought about close scrutiny from the police. Look at all of the reports that police followed up on of people just having some kind of suspicious stain on their clothing.

Besdies, if the killer was fortunate enough to live in one of the lodging houses that boasted private cabins, there wouldn't have been any need to get his entrails out in the kitchen the moment he returned home from a kill. He could have kept them secreted about his person overnight, before taking advantage of the hustle and bustle the next day. The smell certainly wouldn't have been a factor. We known from contemporary evidence - Jack London - that the kitchens were foul-smelling places. We also know that these places were popular with the criminal fraternity precisely because they enabled their occupants to become lost in the crowd.

Fair enough.

The fact that he killed on the streets tells us immediately that he left a heck of a lot to chance, and all too often it seems that the "chance" factor exhibited a lucky preference for him.

Best regards,
Ben

I would strongly disagree with this part of your argument. You're leaning towards a "black and white" argument. Either JTR was a mastermind who planned every part of his murders, or he was a completely disorganized opportunist that left everything to chance. I would argue that BECAUSE he took such a huge risk by murdering women out in the street (except MJK), AND he DID actually get away with it, lUCK simply would not have been sufficient. To pull this off he probably had a pretty good plan ahead of time. Now even WITH a good plan he still would have had to have luck on his side not to have gotten caught. There are VERY few cases of unsolved prostitute murders during this time period. I'm only aware of a handful during the entire decade of the 1880's and I've been pouring over newspapers of the period for a long time. The Ripper murdered FOUR women out in the street, and one in her residence within a MILE of each other. This is almost unheard of in the history of crime.