Did JTR live in a lodging house?

Hi Ben,

Im going to use your post to illustrate what I mean, youve already profiled a killer and sought out explanations that fit that type of man.....

...Limited options in terms of money and shelter are by no means tantamount to a lack of "survival and defense mechanism", it just meant he belonged the majority population in the district.

Your explanation is founded on a killer's profile, one that is not a matter of record by any stretch, and its skewed some perceptions I believe.

Nor is psycopathy remotely at odds with survival instinct. It heightens it if anything, just as poverty does.

I know youve studied these types of men, but as a layman I would be shocked to hear that their mania and impulses didnt place them in situations logic and commonsense dictates were "against their best interests", which were primarily staying free and getting to do more of what hes doing. Is that the reason that every serial killer who was caught gets caught? Slipping up somewhere, taking a larger risk than normal, being sloppier based on rising confidence levels, ....I would guess that almost every serial killer caught that didnt turn himself in, and didnt kill himself, or wasnt killed by authorities....had a very avoidable evidence issue bring them down. Like BTK's film.

As far as the destitute and desperately poor go, each day begins and proceeds based upon the needs at the time. If they need food, they'll focus on anything that might get them that, trading something, earning some money for selling something, begging, maybe even stealing. But until that need is met, thats their whole life. Once accomplised, the next issue might be booze, or a bed. And the cycle starts once again.

You said earlier that poor people schedule their days activities, and I knew at once youve never known someone in those conditions. Each moment of each day is focussed on what immediate needs are to be met....and when they are, or if they fail, then who knows whether they'll get drunk and sleep away the rest of the day or move onto another immediate need.

Meaning on a day to day basis, the desperately poor cannot be presumed to follow any kind of pattern, other than the "pattern" of needing food shelter and often booze. Their daily plans are meeting Maslow's base needs, unless they have addictions.

Yet Jack the Ripper killed only on Holidays or weekends, and only within the same 10 day period each month.

That not only hints of a man with a M-F job, which by the statistics above could be a job that takes him outside the East End for 2/3 of the month, ....making him not in the desperately poor category, but of a working man that has regular schedules.

Meaning the "pattern" of kill dates leaves the liklihood of his leaving East London for periods of time very plausible, making it virtually impossible to be a regular every night lodging house patron anwhere,...one that would blend in easily because he is always around. That pattern might suggest the most he would ever spend in one place might be 8 or 9 nights....and that is not the local, nightly lodging house patron you suggest Ben.

But there is evidence that suggests that this was perhaps the actual profile of the killer.

My best regards Ben.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I think there have been some good arguments put forward on both sides here, and there is probably as much evidence for Jack (singular or plural) having been a regular in a doss house as not.

Of course it could have been that he was a regular doss house user, most of the time, but on the nights of the murders he would sleep rough somewhere just to play safe.

There were plenty of places locally to sleep rough, like Itchy Park at Christ Church, under railway arches, sheds and empty buildings that he could kip for the few hours until morning. In Annie's case of course it was morning, so he could just have gone about his daily business, or even straight to a local casual job.

The drawbacks of sleeping rough might have been that the policeman on his beat would routinely check doorways and a lot of the places used, but there were so many sleeping rough, he would be hard pressed to put them all on the suspect list.

Add to that the fact that the police seemed to have had a certain kind of suspect in mind for most of the time, if Jack didn't fit their perceptions of what Jack should have looked like, they may well have just dismissed the real Jack out of hand as being 'too normal'.

The same could be true of any lodging house keeper that might well have known Jack by sight, known him as one of the regulars and a good sort, and just refused to believe that he could be JtR.

If Jack did stay at a lodging house on the night of the murders, then I suspect it more likely that he was a regular, and just accepted and overlooked by the deputy for this reason. A vast majority of the deputies were on the make, taking back handers and involved in illegal activities It is very likely that a deputy would have selective blindness and deafness much of the time.

Even if a man came in smelling really pretty grim, with hands that had obviously just been handling meat of some kind, or even with a little package bulging in his pocket, they would probably think nothing of it.

Many of the lodgers worked at the docks, at Billingsgate, at Smithfield or one of the local abattoirs, and so much fencing of stolen goods went on in the doss houses that it was the mainstay of most of their incomes. Things like stolen bacon, called 'Sawney' was traded regularly, fish, and offal from the abattoirs. Jack had a lot of mitigating factors in his favour for getting away with it, and whether by luck or judgement if he was a local, he would be a fool not to take advantage of them.

Of course, none of that means that he was a regular doss house user. There is as much likliehood of him living on his own, although if he did, I would have to think that it was not in the immediate area of Dorset, Thrawl or Flower and Dean Street.

Rooms in those streets were almost always let to families or couples at least and not single males. There are some instances I can think of where a room in somewhere like Miller's Court was let to a single man, but it seems to have been uncommon. Of course there were male lodgers living in houses with families, as in the case of the Batty Street Lodger, but there would be far more chance of any nocturnal activity being noticed.

Well, seems to be six to one and half a dozen to the other........

Interesting thread though.

Much love and a Happy New Year to everyone.

Jane

xxx

[Sam Flynn]

every kill could have been in enclosed surroundings of some sort...Annie could have been cut and left in the privy for example, Liz in the back of the yard in an unused stall...there were abandoned houses in Mitre Square.

Again, he'd have to have coaxed them into those premises and risked them smelling a rat, instead of which he seems to have struck his victims at his earliest opportunity, without having to wait around to "go that extra yard". It may well have been that he sometimes offered to take a victim to an indoor spot in order to hoodwink her, catching her unawares before she got there ("After you, Annie...").

None of this is particularly relevant to the discussion of whether Jack lived in a doss-house anyway, Mike. He'd still have had to have done something with the organs he'd removed, whether he killed outdoors or not.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

It doesn't really matter how many victims you assign to the same killer. I strongly suggest that the same principle applied in each case, even if they were all killed by different people. In none of the cases would I ever claim that the killer "acted against his best interests", but failure was always an option and he had to persevere in spite of its ever present risk. Limited options in terms of money and shelter are by no means tantamount to a lack of "survival and defense mechanism", it just meant he belonged the majority population in the district. Nor is psycopathy remotely at odds with survival instinct. It heightens it if anything, just as poverty does.

You need that "survival instinct" to kick in when times are tough, not when you're ready made and comfy. Ask Ray Mears.

I think Ben that the fact the kills attributed to Jack are only on days associated with work stoppage...holidays or weekends, we at the very least have a working man.

A reasonable suppostion considering that lodgers were required to pay their doss. Then again, anyone who wasn't it regular work generally spent his days in pursuit of it, or he wouldn't be lodging for long.

Best regards,
Ben

Just a quick retort Ben,

The reason why we arent sympatico is pretty easy to diagnose, I am not convinced a serial killer killed the 5 Canonicals. Maybe a man killed some, but I cannot reconcile at least 2 victims by MO, or any other definable trait exhibited in the "Canon" prior to their kills. Therefore the killer Im looking for doesnt have to be local, doesnt have to be poor, doesnt have to have any financial restrictions or movement restrictions....(perhaps other than being unavailable in East London almost 3 weeks each 31 days, or on weeknights), and he doesnt have to take the risks and chances that are associated with a mad psychopath serial sex killer who takes chances because his impulses and lack of means outweigh his survival and defense mechanisms.

I believe that there was a man involved with some of these murders, and I dont believe he allowed failure to become an option, I believe he acted in his best interest, not according to some limits many locals suffered from.

Best regards and bon soir mon ami.


edited: I think Ben that the fact the kills attributed to Jack are only on days associated with work stoppage...holidays or weekends, we at the very least have a working man.

Thats True Sam, but it also means that only 20 % of the victims attributed to Jack the Ripper were killed indoors, the overwhelming majority left over was not.

If we only had that single fact to use, my interpretation would not be he had wanted the indoor kill all along....seems to me, if he had wanted to, every kill could have been in enclosed surroundings of some sort...Annie could have been cut and left in the privy for example, Liz in the back of the yard in an unused stall...there were abandoned houses in Mitre Square.

All the best Sam.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Im sure I cant imagine every possible equation, but suffice to say we do not have enough information about "a" killer here to make any assumptions on why the kills were in public.

No, but we have enough crime scene evidence, eyewitness testimony, and knowledge of the district and the occupants dwelling therein to seperate the wheat from the chaff when assessing the various theories that address the manner in which the killer was likely to have approached his victims, and "I have a nice room" plummets right to the bottom for me in terms of plausibility. If he had a nice room, the chances are ridiculously strong that they'd take him up on the offer, and there still weren't any of these deserted, abandoned flippin' buildings.

The assumptions made as to the likely ecominic status of the killer are inextricably allied to the social conditions in the district, and the propensity of serial killers to operate within localities with which they are familiar. So by suggesting that the killer was local, relatively poor and working class on that basis, we're actually engaging in pretty "good business".

I was thinking that dramatic bloody events in that area may have political underpinnings....as was often the case

Often the case with what - serial murder? I'm afraid that couldn't be further from the truth, and arming Jack with a political motive for committing his murders on the street not only runs contrary to what we know of serial killers who engage in extreme post-mortem mutilation, it tends to cement my perception of him as someone who killed outdoors for want of more "snug" options.

I can only say that clothes mean little in the witness descriptions I believe, they can be changed so easily...and people could misrepresent themselves at any level of society by using the appropriate clothing, that knowing the streets could easily come from being a businessman who moves throughout the East End, or London generally

But why do we need him to be a businessman-commuter? What's wrong with the idea that he apparently dressed like the average East-Ender because he was one? I just sense this need to elevate the killer's status to an "interesting" level above that of the average Proley Joe, and I don't see why we need to do that. I'm not saying it wasn't "smart" to have more than one organ-disposal base, but if it was beyond his means to acheive this, it doesn't make him any less "smart". It would simply have been a factor beyond his control; a factor that he relied on his "smartness" to make the best of.

I'm sure he would have LIKED to have this and that at his disposal, but whether it was all available to him is another matter, and I for one don't think it was.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

he could have led, he could have sought out victims near abandoned housing

And risked never finding a victim at all? Perhaps he started out that way, but realised he'd have to wait for years before an opportunity presented itself.

he could have balked or feigned fee re-negotiation

And risked letting an opportunity pass?

he could have started with "I have a room nearby, much more comfortable"

He may well have done so - whether he had a room or not - just to lull them into a false sense of security, then struck whilst they were off-guard.

But I dont believe thats good "business" for resolving this situation, nor that we can see a solid case made for that kind of man merely by the few details we have at our disposal.

Ah - but one unassailable fact we do have at our disposal is that most of the C5 victims were claimed in the open air; the only exception was one killed in a private room, which presumably did not belong to the killer. In fact, no victims - canonical or otherwise - were found in abandoned buildings, private dwellings or other potential "bolt-holes".

Sam, Ben,...

First your point Sam, which addresses some of Ben's... he could have led, he could have sought out victims near abandoned housing, he could have balked or feigned fee re-negotiation, he could have started with "I have a room nearby, much more comfortable",..he could have lured them with grapes ....Im sure I cant imagine every possible equation, but suffice to say we do not have enough information about "a" killer here to make any assumptions on why the kills were in public. We can if we profile him first, assign him none or very few options due to his personal economic status. But I dont believe thats good "business" for resolving this situation, nor that we can see a solid case made for that kind of man merely by the few details we have at our disposal.

When I mentioned his choosing outdoor venues Ben and Sam, I wasnt referring to a heightened sense of gamesmanship between him and the coppers, perhaps that applies but I dont personally see any taunt letters as being authentic "Jack" authored lit...I was thinking that dramatic bloody events in that area may have political underpinnings....as was often the case. You may say that the fact they are women, their privates are exposed, and that they are whores makes these sex crimes,...my answer would be that some may well be. You may say that the local knowledge, the ease of passage in the streets there day or night, the fact that "knowing the streets" also infers poverty on some level, and the witness descriptions add up to ward style poverty, maybe.. at best.

I can only say that clothes mean little in the witness descriptions I believe, they can be changed so easily...and people could misrepresent themselves at any level of society by using the appropriate clothing, that knowing the streets could easily come from being a businessman who moves throughout the East End, or London generally, very frequently...like perhaps every 20 days or so,...and I cannot say it any other way Ben, and I know youll disagree, but for my money, a man that doesnt want to be caught, or even seen moving about, would be very smart to have a special place to base those activities from.

To keep organs...to keep bloodied shirts, coats, to leave a jar or two that he could plop organs into from a torn apron section, to have a landlord who never visits, one that you could pay rent by going to his office or house, or through his agent. I could get dramatic and suggest also whiskers and disguises, but I dont believe that so I aint selling it.

Sorry,...I think I blended my responses, addressing both your issues simultaeneously,...fortunately on this issue it is clearly you two on one side, so I hope it all works in the end.


editted to add: With this killer the actual killing itself seems a means to an end, nothing he prolongs or extends, its the organs that drive this guy, or the mutilations, so what does it matter to him where he kills them? Its after that...when he has the organs...which he does 3 times...supposedly.

Cheers mates.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

With that in mind, it is quite possible that outdoor locations in public were intentionally chosen.

Ah, but this is where it's most essential to utilize our knowledge of past cases. Dahmer, Nielson and Gacy had the option to murder on the streets, but they obviously elected to make use of their own bolt-holes instead because they could, and it markedly decreased the risk of being caught in the act. It is only assumed that the killer deliberately sought out the streets to kill in, but if we learn from the past, I'd say there's a much stronger case for a killer resorting to the streets because he couldn't kill where he lived.

However, if you want to argue that he deliberately sought out the streets (because he loved the cat and mouse thrill, or whatever), you inadvertently bolster my argument, since I could argue precisely the same thing about him being resident at a lodging house - he enjoyed the thrills and near misses that came with hiding in plain sight. It's very difficult to justify an argument that he sought out the streets because he enjoyed the risk, but stayed away from lodging houses because they were too....risky.

The unfortunates that were killed outdoors might well have gone with someone to a room, or an abandoned building,....which despite your assurances Ben, there were plenty of around in the East End

They might have done, but when it came to the ripper, it's obvious that they didn't. No, there weren't many abandoned buildings because the extent of homelessness was such that no abandoned building wouldn't remain so for long.

The only "restriction" I see possible in evidence is the 20-21 consecutive days that occur between his regular monthly activities, on Weekends or Holidays. There would be no "restrictions" if the man was poor

I've already explained, Mike, that the absolute reverse was true. In the East End, it was invariably the poor who worked the hardest, sweating it out all day at menial tasks for very little pay. It was the poor who had the most restrictions on their time, and the poor who therefore benefitted most from weekends and holidays.

I didn't say he ate the organs on account of poverty.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

it is not fact that he was forced to kill them where they led, or where they chose to go.

What was he to do? Go through the motions of shagging them, and keep them entertained until a better opportunity to pounce emerged later on?

Hi again Ben,

Just about to head out for a few hours, but I wanted to address something about your last post.

There is no evidence in existence that suggests the only place the killer could kill them was in public. With that in mind, it is quite possible that outdoor locations in public were intentionally chosen.

The unfortunates that were killed outdoors might well have gone with someone to a room, or an abandoned building,....which despite your assurances Ben, there were plenty of around in the East End, it is not fact that he was forced to kill them where they led, or where they chose to go.

The women that were killed outdoors had nowhere else to go, the one indoor obviously did, but that does not translate to the killer having similar restrictions. I think the fact that 4 of the alledged 5 Ripper victims were killed and left outdoors could easily reflect choices that were made by the killer, rather than his restrictions, if any.

The only "restriction" I see possible in evidence is the 20-21 consecutive days that occur between his regular monthly activities, on Weekends or Holidays. There would be no "restrictions" if the man was poor, stuck in the East End, and could kill any given night of the week. And if he is eating the organs due to poverty, what does he eat those 20-21 consecutive days he isnt harvesting?

Catch you later Ben, cheers.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

and I find it ironic Ben that you suggested he eats the organs yet discount a communique with an organ section that suggests he does eat the organs

It would only be ironic if I dismissed the letter for that reason, rather than the numerous other reasons that point towards a hoax as a more likely explanation in that case. If it is a hoax, as most believe, then there's no reason at all to think that Eddowes' kidney went anywhere near any "spirits of wine", and by extension, equally no reason to think he needed to have some convenient hidey-hole of the order that were incredibly few and far between in Whitechapel.

It isn't really a question of what was "desirable" for the killer, but was he was likely to have acheived. A desert island filled with prostitutes and sharp implements may have been desirable, but I think there's a better case to be advanced for an offender who made the most of limited options, and by blending into the masses, he was hardly drawing the short straw.

But what we may have is an employed or "pensioned" man in some form, that does not have the restrictions of having to rent only one room, that does not have intentions of eating the organs but rather collecting them or even selling some

And yet frequently we learn that offenders who do have the comparative luxury of private accomodation also dispatch their victims there rather than resorting to the streets. I think it's likely that JTR used the streets because he didn't have the sort of privacy enjoyed by a Dahmer or a Nielson. The trouble with your explanation is that it's dependent upon the killer being of significantly greater fincancial means that the average denizen, and there's simply no reason to think he was, despite the fact that such a person might make a more "interesting" ripper.

There just seem to be too many excuses to elevate the social and financial status of a barbarous criminal operating in a closely clustered pocket of a very grotty district. Since most serials of this nature and geographical restriction are committed by local agent, it's worth bearing in mind that the average local in that area was working class and relatively poor, and such a person could easily have evaded capture by becoming the proverbial needle in a haystack. It was the only viable means of evading capture in that environment, which was why criminals were known to resort to lodging houses. There's simply no need to have him "maintaining two sites" or selling organs and all the rest of it.

the point being that the ward style explanation only plausibly works for someone who had no means to stay elsewhere or maintain 2 "sites", was "mad" enough to eat the organs, and who could maintain a cool demeanor when arriving home to a room full of men, without blood staining, with human remains in his pocket, after committing vile acts with a knife.

Yep, seems perfectly reasonable to me. I wouldn't worry about the difficulty in maintaining a cool demeanour. If you're a psycopathic serial killer who feels no remorse at murder and mutilation, that's precisely what we can reasonably expect. What's so problematic about him eating the organs? Andrei Chikatilo was an organised serial killer who no visible signs of psychosis who went around gnawing on a uterus.

I think your explanation is possible Ben, but I dont think that the evidence suggests such a person specifically, and your answer is geared to that one type specifically.

I'm not talking about any "specific" type. I'm talking about the majority of the male population living in the district. If my explanation is geared towards that majority group, it's because I feel that's where the evidence points.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben, Chava,

Its a crucial piece of the puzzle .....what he actually did with the organs, and one thing that we do have to estimate any particular usage is by the edibility of what he takes. I think what Chava and I are saying is that cannabalism is one of a few options on the table.....and I find it ironic Ben that you suggested he eats the organs yet discount a communique with an organ section that suggests he does eat the organs,...but the section also reveals some "spirited" method of preservation as well.

Its entirely possible that he keeps the organs in some state, in spirits, dried, and if that is the case,...as I was indicating before, a ward style existence would be far less desireable when compared to complete privacy.

I think you revealed something by that suggestion Ben, that madness, or extreme poverty might encourage him to eat the organs. I think thats in keeping with a poorer, mad, ward style lodger, or homeless man. I know your suspect is among those choices.

But what we may have is an employed or "pensioned" man in some form, that does not have the restrictions of having to rent only one room, that does not have intentions of eating the organs but rather collecting them or even selling some, and he might be well accustomed to the area because he owns a business or two locally. The owners of East End businesses could live anywhere their means allowed. And even a well paid employee. Or a man on a stipend from his family, inherited wealth, a retired Military officer .....the point being that the ward style explanation only plausibly works for someone who had no means to stay elsewhere or maintain 2 "sites", was "mad" enough to eat the organs, and who could maintain a cool demeanor when arriving home to a room full of men, without blood staining, with human remains in his pocket, after committing vile acts with a knife.

I think your explanation is possible Ben, but I dont think that the evidence suggests such a person specifically, and your answer is geared to that one type specifically.

All the best Ben.

[Ben]

I believe that he carried material from Eddowes' body in the piece of apron, but whether he stashed that in his pickets, or whether he stashed anything in his pockets, is a matter of interpretation rather than of fact.

To an extent, Chava, but it would be incredibly odd for him to chose to cart them around outside his pockets when he could wrap them up in the apron piece (or whatever) and then place them in his pockets. I think that would be spurning an obvious opportunity to be as inconspicuous as possible.

Well that's the thing. An educated guess is still a guess.

Well, in the same way that the statement "Jack the Ripper was probably not an manic midwife" is just an educated guess.

Best regards,
Ben