Jack's housing arrangements

Ben,

I think your missing the point I and Pinkerton are making on the organs and the kill days, ...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. Each time. Does he also bring other meats home in the intervals so that these 3 instances wont be noticed as much?

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. If he ate these, theres every chance he might have acquired the disease from the kidney. I believe Brights Disease or some form of Nephritis might be communicable by eating organs afflicted with it.

Best regards Ben, Pinkerton.

[Ben]

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.

I just see it as too much of a stretch to suggest that just because some tenants on occasion brought back raw meat to a lodging house

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.

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.

I simply can't see how the Ripper got away with murdering these women out in the streets of such a crowded area by leaving too much to chance

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

[Pinkerton]

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

Ben, why couldn't JTR have just rented a room for a year at a time like many people of the area? He we have his own room to stay in and share the bathroom and kitchen with the rest of the tenants. He may have rented the same room for YEARS for all we know. Why do you think the Ripper necessarily stayed in a lodging house? I'm curious why you are leaning in this direction Ben. Is it because the victims all stayed in lodging houses in the Spitalfields/Whitechapel area?

I'm with PerryMason on the organs issue. I just see it as too much of a stretch to suggest that just because some tenants on occasion brought back raw meat to a lodging house that JTR could safely bring in human organs into one of these places without being noticed and easily dispose of them. ESPECIALLY if he did so the night of one of the murders.

Policeman: Did anyone notice anything unusual last night with any of your fellow tenants?

Tenant X: Not that I recall...Oh, well there was one bloke that came back in the middle of the night with a hunk of bloody entrails...I just figured he liked organ meat and got hungry in the middle of the night.

I'm not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE just unlikely. The only scenario I could envision where this would be plausible would be if he immediately wrapped the organs to a point where they couldn't be seen or smelled. Then maybe he could dispose of them later in the Thames or out in the countryside. Not out of the question...but it adds to the possibility of discovery. I just think that the fact that he got away likely means that everything went his way. Yes he took an incredible risk in killing women out on the open streets (the thrill of possibly being discovered probably added to his excitement). But I believe he probably planned some of this out ahead of time. He probably made 'dry runs' so to speak, knew the beats of the policemen of the area, knew how to listen for their approach, and knew how he was going to dispose of the organs ahead of time.

I simply can't see how the Ripper got away with murdering these women out in the streets of such a crowded area by leaving too much to chance.

[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

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]

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

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,

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

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]

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

[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)'.

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.

[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

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 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