Why not always indoors?

[Michael W Richards]

From 'The London of Jack the Ripper Then and now'. Page 31.

'It is difficult today to understand the plan of the building (George Yard Buildings) and unfortunately there are no known INTERNAL images of it, but it appears that a large archway in the front wall preceded a short alley. At the end of the alley an open doorway led to the staircase to the upper floors, which turned back on itself at the landings.

Because of the easy access to the building and the relatively extensive open floor area outside individual's dwellings, it was not at all unusual for the homeless to ENTER the building and sleep on the floors of the corridors to protect themselves from the elements.'

(My capitals.) not shouting, but it seems clear that the staircases and landings were inside the building. Unlike tenement buildings in North America it was quite rare for British domestic architecture to feature outside stairs, fire escapes etc. There were a few but they certainly weren't common and don't seem to have been a feature of George Yard Buildings.

What we are discussing is a prostitute taking a client somewhere, not someone sleeping inside out of the elements. The prostitutes turned a few tricks per night, and couldn't risk disturbing tenants or else they would lose access to a place to go that didn't require additional room costs.

Lets be clear ourselves, this is a question that isnt clarified for us....so we have to imagine the situation from the service provider and her client. And the fact that many staircases led to floors, which then led to hallways and individual rooms. It may have been an enclosed staircase, but it was a staircase, not simply stairs.

Cheers

[Rosella]

Yes, but these were stairs inside a building, just as people living in two and three storey houses have staircases and corridors. They weren't outside the building, enclosed or not.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, but these were stairs inside a building, just as people living in two and three storey houses have staircases and corridors. They weren't outside the building, enclosed or not.

Please find me a quote that states empirically that the stairs and landing in question were inside the house.

[Batman]

Please find me a quote that states empirically that the stairs and landing in question were inside the house.

Stating something doesn't make it empirical. What makes something empirical is that you can measure it scientifically which we can't do because it is gone.

If you have photographs then that might help.

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/heritage/jack-the-ripper/5am_august_7_1888_woman_found_murdered_with_39_stab_wounds_1_2364040

I am not sure how legit this photograph is, but even if the building had galleries the landing where the body was found must be inside the building because:

1. It is lit. The lights can be turned off and where turned off at 11.
2. It is completely dark after they are turned off because it's inside and the witnesses described that they may not have seen the body, not because it wasn't there, but because the lights where off.

And like Rosella says, even those outside galleries go inside the building.

[Observer]

See link below

http://jacktheripper.de/forum/index.php/topic,1021.0.html

The interior landing shot featured in this forum some years ago. Although not an interior shot of George yard Buildings, it shows a shot of the landing of the adjacent building namely St George House I believe. The landing where Martha Tabram was found would have looked something similar to this if I'm not mistaken.

Observer

[Ausgirl]

.. why is it assumed Martha was taking a client anywhere, when she was killed?

Is a semi-'outside' landing at all analogous to an outdoor doorway or frequently trod alley? As opposed to the interior of an actual room with a lockable door.

And once again, I am floored by astonishing rudeness.

[Batman]

See link below

http://jacktheripper.de/forum/index.php/topic,1021.0.html

The interior landing shot featured in this forum some years ago. Although not an interior shot of George yard Buildings, it shows a shot of the landing of the adjacent building namely St George House I believe. The landing where Martha Tabram was found would have looked something similar to this if I'm not mistaken.

Observer

If you look at the link I posted they share the same photographs but the 'interior' one has me wondering if it really is the same place. For example the contemporary accounts describe a concrete staircase and concrete landing. Those look like wood.

[Rosella]

According to the East London Advertiser George Yard had 'for years been a regular rendezvous and hiding place for army deserters'.

[RockySullivan]

I think killing on the street shows that's part of the rippers comfort zone. Most telling is how Robert Paul said the spot where Nichols was killed had a reputation for criminal activity.

[Rosella]

I just think Jack was a complete opportunist. Inside or out didn't really matter to him once the need to kill and mutilate was paramount. It just so happened that his first victims were virtually 'bag ladies', carrying all their possessions with them. They weren't able to offer their own rooms, so the Ripper just killed in a dark spot outside.

[Harry D]

Bear in mind that killing indoors also has its own element of risk. A lot of the women he would've targeted lived in overcrowded doss houses which wouldn't have given him much freedom to move undetected or a means of escape should someone catch him in the act.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I believe that if the killer had not been disturbed by someone coming in the distance Nichols would have displayed much more mutilations, like that of Chapman. The difference between Chapman and Nichols is large in terms of degree of mutilations, but the difference between Chapman and Eddowes is quite small, if any at all. One could even say that if the killer felt more comfortable (under less time pressures) what he did to MJK would have been also present with Chapman, Eddowes and likely Nichols too.

I believe the best forensic pathological interpretation of this is that JtR wanted to dehumanize his victims by assaulting their feminine properties as much as possible. His knife (penis) is the mechanism by which he did this for his own satisfaction.

If we are actually looking for a revenge motive, then the best answer seems to be that JtR had syphilis contracted through prostitution use and because his own maleness was being assaulted by a slow and painful degrading, he was going to turn the tables. Hence why Eddowes face displays some notion of a design like a woman with advanced syphilis. It's not a bad suggestion, but at the same time meant that JtR must have been sexually functional in some sort of normal way at some time. Maybe he was and this was a trigger event that changed all that.

The question I would have is why JtR didn't attempt indoor mutilations until MJK? This in itself may be a clue. He tried and was nearly caught. I seem to recall quite a few witness testimonies involving strangers with knives being chased out of women's rooms when they turned nasty in the months before the Nichols murder. So there were women with rooms who could turn a trick.

I am not so sure disorganized offender taking any old opportunity makes sense that much with these murders. Maybe some but if MJK was his fantasy why outdoors so much before it??

I agree that given the chance the mutilations would have been worse.

I would estimate that he was an opportunist and disorganised. He took what was on offer. Clearly he didn't target any old person because there will have been hundreds whom he passed by. But, certainly opportunist in the sense of targetting any woman he could maneouvre out of the reaches of prying eyes.

With Mary Kelly, I'd imagine he struck lucky with a woman who had her own place rather than resident in lodgings.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Both Peter Sutcliffe and 'The Blackout Ripper' murdered women on the streets and in their own homes. I imagine him to be someone similar, blitz killers who took whatever opportunities presented themselves, not necessarily a loner or someone unable to converse with women because sadistic killers aren't necessarily lacking social skills (apart from the obvious); and possibly using alcohol to densensitise himself to that which he was about to commit.

[Trevor Marriott]

Both Peter Sutcliffe and 'The Blackout Ripper' murdered women on the streets and in their own homes. I imagine him to be someone similar, blitz killers who took whatever opportunities presented themselves, not necessarily a loner or someone unable to converse with women because sadistic killers aren't necessarily lacking social skills (apart from the obvious); and possibly using alcohol to densensitise himself to that which he was about to commit.

The main question regarding the commission of these murders is the fact that the killer or killers kills and mutilates in a frenzied fashion.

But then is able to compose himself to be able to remove organs with some precision, the two don't go together ! If you then add the suggestion that he was under the influence of alcohol then it make it even more unbelievable he was able to extract the organs.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

The two don't go together. That's ordinarily the case.

However this isn't ordinary. What would it look like if someone with medical/anatomical knowledge was a lust murderer with a knife?

Answer:JtR