Census

[GregBaron]

Lodging and JTR.....

Hey Pinkerton,

I thought this same thing about lodging houses and JTR but Ben chimed in that these places were crowded as hell and filled with butchers and people bringing in hunks of meat to eat so someone coming in bloody and with a knife would have been no big deal. Now I don't know if one could come in at 3 or 4 in the morning even if they had paid their doss money? Someone else might be able to answer that? But I tend to agree with you, I imagine JTR had his own residence or a shared residence (as he probably had a job and maybe a decent one?) from which he could escape to whatever post murder rituals he indulged in.............?

Sincerely,

Greg

[Ben]

This is the area where most of the prostitutes lived and is mainly made up of lodging houses. Combine this with the question: do we REALLY believe that Jack operated out of a lodging house? I find this almost inconceivable

No, I'm afraid you're quite wrong about this, Pinkerton.

Firstly, "private" accomodation was very difficult indeed to secure in so densely populated a district as Whitechapel and Spitalfields, and with shared accomodation (i.e. with a handful of others), you had the problem of others being able to home in on your activity. In the larger doss houses, sheer numbers prevented this from being a problem. You simply couldn't "home in" on one out of 500 lodgers a few beds to the left, unless the activities of one in particular stood out from the rest. If the real killer kept himself to himself and remained, for the most part, inconspicuous, he was just one of the masses coming and going throughout the night; a proverbial needle in a haystack.

Many lodging houses were open all night for patrons with money to pay for a bed, while others closed at a late hour to any lodgers not in possession of a daily or weekly ticket. If the killer had secured such a ticket, he'd have no problem. Nor, as Greg pointed out, would he have had any trouble returning home with extracted viscera. The large, foul-smelling kitchens (see Jack London's book) provided lodgers with a means of cooking their less-than-prime cuts from the butcher.

It's also assumed that Jack killed on the streets because he particularly wanted to. I don't buy that at all. Jeffrey Dahmer and Denis Nielsen took strangers home and killed them there because they could. They lived alone. Who's to say the ripper would not have made similar use of private accomodation if he had some?

Best regards,
Ben

[Mascara & Paranoia]

It's also assumed that Jack killed on the streets because he particularly wanted to. I don't buy that at all. Jeffrey Dahmer and Denis Nielsen took strangers home and killed them there because they could. They lived alone. Who's to say the ripper would not have made similar use of private accomodation if he had some?

I don't know, I think Jack actually wanted to kill them on the streets. Leaving the mutilated bodies out in the open was something he wanted, otherwise there'd have been signs of him having tried to dispose of the bodies. I think he wanted people to see his handiwork.

Why take someone back to his place only to kill them and then dump the bodies back onto the streets? Might as well kill his victims where they were found.

[GregBaron]

Indoors or Out?

That's an interesting one Ben and M & P...........!.......One would think bringing home a women would increase the probability of being seen with said woman. And when she never left some might become suspicious. Of course, here I'm assuming a not terribly private East End residence. If one were to drag the body away, again, the chance of being caught seems to go way up.....But then, like Dahmer, the psycho might decorate his home with the viscera. Look what he did to MJK! Who knows? I do know Dahmer's neighbors repeatedly complained of the smell........I agree with M & P that JTR most likely enjoyed making fools of the police, horrifying the public and experiencing the thrill of near capture...........

Sincerely,

Greg

[Ben]

Leaving the mutilated bodies out in the open was something he wanted, otherwise there'd have been signs of him having tried to dispose of the bodies

Again, you're just highlighting an assumption that I personally consider to be baseless, M&P. I don't see any evidence that he particularly wanted to kill on the streets and display their bodies there (etc etc). I believe he was making the most of what limited domestic and financial options he had available.

Leaving the bodies out in the open was not a reflection of his unwillingness to dispose of the bodies, but more of an indication of the lack of time he had available at each crime scene. If he'd tried budging Eddowes' body to a more secluded location, he'd have been caught by PC Watkins. However, if he had private accomodation, it's arguable that his ability to bring his victims home would have ennervated the time/disposal factor.

Why take someone back to his place only to kill them and then dump the bodies back onto the streets?

Any killer with private accomodation could have buried his victims at home, thus delaying both the discovery of the body and a realization that the victim had even gone missing. It's just assumed that he wanted them found as quickly as they were.

One would think bringing home a women would increase the probability of being seen with said woman

Didn't see to bother Nilsen and Dahmer though, Greg.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

NB: This thread is about the census

All this is very interesting, but has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. The census may or may not be useful in tracking down the Ripper, but as sure as eggs is eggs it won't tell us anything about his MO, how he lived, or the constraints he may have encountered in shared accommodation.

Which conditions/constraints would apply if he lived in a lodging-house is an interesting enough topic in itself, and it's easy enough to start another thread - e.g. "Could Jack have lived in a doss-house?". As to whether Jack "wanted" to leave his victims in the street - that's yet another topic in itself, more to do with motives/psychology than censuses or the layout of buildings.

At least by keeping discussions broadly on track, and "budding" threads where necessary, readers of this site stand a fighting chance of finding appropriately "filed" headings that might interest them.

Just trying to be helpful.

[Mike Covell]

Unless we find an entry that states, "Occupation; East End Serial Killer"

[claire]

Even then, Mike, there'd be someone with an argument against him

[Ben]

Right you are, Gareth. Apologies for my part in the diversion.

So that so-called "Maybrick" diary - what does everyone reckon?

[Sam Flynn]

Right you are, Gareth. Apologies for my part in the diversion.

So that so-called "Maybrick" diary - what does everyone reckon?

FX: Footsteps running along a wooden pier, accelerando. Pause. Loud splash.

[Ashkenaz]

Leaving the mutilated bodies out in the open was something he wanted, otherwise there'd have been signs of him having tried to dispose of the bodies. I think he wanted people to see his handiwork.

.

I agree.

Another serial killer- Ramirez/Romirez also like to leave his victims posed for those who would find them. Like jtr, he like to leave dead women lying on their backs with their legs parted, as was the case with Mary Kelly, Kate Eddowes, and the Hanbury St victim. Probably other too, if not all.

They probably get a thrill knowing how shocking and nausiating the sight will be to the finder

[Ashkenaz]

All this is very interesting, but has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

At least by keeping discussions broadly on track, and "budding" threads where necessary, readers of this site stand a fighting chance of finding appropriately "filed" headings that might interest them.

Just trying to be helpful.

Good point Sam. I never thought of that. Every thread is of course part of a filing system, or should be.

[Ben]

Like jtr, he like to leave dead women lying on their backs with their legs parted

We don't know that he "liked" to do that, Ashkenaz.

The parting of the legs was almost certainly a by-product of his attempts to access the abdominal cavity, and probably had very little to do with deliberate "posing".

But back to the topic of the thread.

Best regards,
Ben

[jmenges]

Any killer with private accomodation could have buried his victims at home, thus delaying both the discovery of the body and a realization that the victim had even gone missing. It's just assumed that he wanted them found as quickly as they were.

Someone can start another thread, apologies to S.F. and all for this diversion that I'm briefly continuing

Note the case of Fritz Honka, landlord of an apartment house in Hamburg, Germany. He would pick up the dregs of the prostitute population at the local pub, take them back to his apartment, rape, murder, mutilate and dismember their bodies. Then he stuffed them into false walls and under the eaves of the lodging house.

Although tenants complained of the smell, and one moved out, no one alerted the authorities even though these women were locals and known to be missing.

His crimes were finally discovered when a tenant left a cigarette burning and caught the house on fire. Bodies, and body parts, fell out of the burning walls.

Good Morning!

JM

[Ashkenaz]

We don't know that he "liked" to do that, Ashkenaz.

The parting of the legs was almost certainly a by-product of his attempts to access the abdominal cavity, and probably had very little to do with deliberate "posing".

But back to the topic of the thread.

Best regards,
Ben

We'll never know what he "liked" Ben thats true. So we just get to hypothesise here.

It's my hypothesis that he did like to pose the bodies like this. Almost certainly for the same sick reason Ramerez did it. To shock and horrify the discoverer.

I cant agree with your second point. The leg parting was no by-product of accessing the abdomen.

To gain access to the abdominal organs, the simplest way is via the abdomen, as the sketches of Kate Eddowes body reveal.

The leg parting then, had other significance.