Did JTR live in a lodging house?

[Sam Flynn]

There's the problem of the organs he keeps as trophies.

We don't know that he kept them, Chava. It might have been sufficient to his twisted needs merely to remove the organs and discard them at his earliest opportunity. They wouldn't have lasted long once the stray dogs, cats and alley-rats of the East End got wind of them.

The Eddowes kidney--at least I believe it to be the Eddowes kidney--was preserved in wine.

... spirits of wine, Chava. Not the same thing. A technicality - however, you can bet your bottom shilling that it wasn't Eddowes' kidney.

[Chava]

I'm not gonna bet that Gareth! But I'm pretty sure it was Eddowes's kidney. For reasons that don't have much to do with the kidney, and everything to do with the wording of the letter...

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not gonna bet that Gareth! But I'm pretty sure it was Eddowes's kidney. For reasons that don't have much to do with the kidney, and everything to do with the wording of the letter...

OK, Chava, but let's not get too much into Lusk Letter territory on this thread

[perrymason]

....On the night of the Eddowes murder, I now believe he carried the kidney etc off with him in a piece of cloth he cut from her apron. Deposited it somewhere safe. Then ventured out again to get rid of evidence that he knew for certain would incriminate him if he were caught with it. So I also believe he had somewhere private to conceal his little momento without the concern of someone finding it while he was out.

I think thats the first time Ive read something from someone other than me that precisely sync's with my own conclusions to date, its great to have you aboard Chava.

I dont really understand what objections there are to this scenario, unless the favoured suspect by each individual is elminated by such conjecture....such as a poor man unable to secure another room, or that the favoured suspect is known to have been a ward style lodger.

I believe that this idea is one of the only signifigant contributions Pat Cornwells book makes...a bolt hole.

If not, as Chava indicated, there are at least 3 occassions where organs left with the killer, if he didnt drop them off and keep them, then "Burke and Hare" is a real possibility for one or more, something Im sure you Sam and others wouldnt want to entertain. If he isnt eating the organs, he is trying to sell them, or is keeping them, at least thats how I see the options here.

And if the letter and package you mentioned was from the killer....you have those three options narrowed to one.

Best regards folks.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

where you eat, and in this case, bringing the evidence in the form of any bloodstains or pocketed organs to a place that, as you say, has lots of tenants means that he is at greater risk of being caught by someone

No, the absolute polar opposite occurs. The more tenants, the greater the chance of getting away with naughtiness unnoticed. That's why we have expressions like "Hiding in plain sight" and "Needle in a haystack". The more individual pieces of hay, the more the needle is concealed, and the same is true of lodging houses. If he wasn't doing anything conspicious, there was little chance of him being singled out for random scrutiny in a 400 strong lodging house, especially if there was private cabins available, as there were in the Victoria Home for instance.

People did bring pocketted meat back to their busy lodging houses to cook and consume in the lodging house kitchen - unpleasant pices of meat. They did it all the time. That's what the vast, foul-smelling lodging house kitchens were for. It doesn't matter about the "psychological" implications of bringing home organs if, to the eyes hundreds of lodgers, he wasn't doing anything unusual.

The man becomes less capable and quite thick headed every assertion that has him doing something that might have got him caught....like carrying organs about in his pocket, or bringing organs to a bed inside a ward full of men, or writing taunting letters.

None of that makes him thick-headed at all. It makes him a risk-taker who made the most of less-than-ideal situations. The act of bringing organs into a lodging house when other lodgers were bringing home their meaty treats entailed far less risk than committing murder on the streets, but if he was a member of the working class poor, he was forced to persevere in spite of those factors.

Thats why he chose the weakest prey, and thats why I dont believe he "dared" fate to catch him by carrying on him evidence of murder while in the company of others.

But according to you, he dared fate by kiling on the streers because he wanted to (in contrast to my view that he had no other option), so he was willing to risk the company of others there. If he was a lodger, he simply had no option but to kill in the streets and return home with the organs, and such a domestic set-up would not have made him "thick".

As far as the Lodger story goes, that man was thick enough to leave evidence about if he was Jack, and it remains one of the reasons the story is not more widely accepted

That's because he was only one lodger with only him to focus on. He couldn't have lost himself in the crowd as a doss house dweller could. Besides which, the lodger story you referred to involved the man leaving his bloody shirt behind to wash, and nothing of the kind would have occured in a larger house.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hey Ben,

Lets put it this way, Im sure your argument holds water, in that he might get away with carrying human organs on him in a "crowd"...I just dont see why this would be a preferable scenario for us to embrace to one that allows him to change virtually unnoticed, leave his organs if he is keeping them, and come and go using his own key.

Its the best scenario for a man that is keeping his organs, not eating them, and it eliminates a score of people who would see him come and go...like the bunk mates in the ward for example.

Its not just whether he could carry organs into a ward, its why would he? The answer to that can only be because he could not afford another place, even though he could easily have found some spot in abandoned warehousing that was free, ,...and for me, the evidence is far from concusive that this killer was desperately poor, somewhat poor, or even marginally employed. What the suspect was wearing when seen with a victim is an indicator of lower class men, yes,...but only Lawendes man is most likely the killer of a victim in his presence, he is not described as dirty and scruffy, and even if he was that could be easily a facade.

Poor people wouldnt have any restrictions on when they could kill, they would be unable to leave the area, so the frequency would be based soley on his whims. The killer of the Canonicals killed only within the same 10 day window, starting the end of the previous month to the 9th of the next. That speaks of a possible schedule....something poor people dont have, and it also means he might actually leave the area for sometime after a kill, what of the organs then?


Best regards Ben

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I just dont see why this would be a preferable scenario for us to embrace to one that allows him to change virtually unnoticed, leave his organs if he is keeping them, and come and go using his own key.

It's preferable because the over-crowded nature of the district meant that private houses with keys (etc) were extremely hard to come by. If we're dealing with a local agent here - and we almost certainly are - he was unlikely to have had a domestic set-up that allowed him the sort of privacy that allowed Gacy, Dahmer and Nielson to both kill AND store bodily parts where they lived. They didn't need to kill on the streets.

JTR might have preferred a private home, but we have to assess the likelihood of him having one in that area. There are two demonstrably successful forms of evading capture and justice; one is to avoid being seen, the other is to avoid being noticed. It is the latter strategy that would have proved most successful in a densely populated district known for its "vicious and semi criminal" element.

As I mentioned, abandoned buildings really didn't exist in the area. Such was the extent of povery and homelessness in the district that no abandoned building was likely to remain so for long. Most men in the district were working class and far from wealthy, but that doesn't mean they had to be "dirty" or "scruffy".

That speaks of a possible schedule....something poor people dont have

Oh but they do, Mike. Poor people are by far the most likely group to adhere to a schedule; working at arduous, menial tasks for long hours and very little pay, and if they were out of work, their daily hours would be filled by the pursuit of work. There's nothing in the ripper's schedule that remotely hints at someone from the wealthier classes - quite the reverse, if anything, nor is there any reason to think he left the area between murders.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Chava]

Yes Ben. But even the poorest man in the doss-house isn't going to eat a piece of meat that has been preserved in spirits of wine (thanks for that, by the way, Gareth!). And it's documented that men in doss-houses and workhouses were at pains to try and keep their pitiful belongings close to their person at all times because other inmates were always trying to steal 'em. (See Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell.) Which means that (1) he trundles round the East End clutching his nasty little box of bits to himself at all times or (2) he leaves it lying around for some nosy venal codger to find it and work out the truth, thus ensuring for himself at the very lease a lifetime of free booze, and ensuring a hangman's noose for our boy.

I just don't see how he would allow himself to run that risk. And I equally don't see him finding a little nook or cranny off the beaten track that he would use as a hidey-hole for his trophies. Because, if it was found, a canny copper might stake it out and wait for the biggest catch in Met history to swim into his net.

[perrymason]

Hi again Ben,

The type of room that Im talking about was likely available all over the area, small cheap, dirty and hardly ever tended to by an outsider. Not the type like on Berner, where the man hands his shirts over to be laundered. A bolt hole would be by choice, a place no-one else would likely see someone coming or going. A lodging house ward, by neccesity, is a place that many can see anyone in the room come and go.

If he has a place to leave all his "Jack" personna, then when he leaves that room, he leaves "Jack" behind...allowing him to act and behave like a man with nothing to hide...which is precisely how this killer must have acted during the day. Carrying something he knows he could hang for in his pocket sounds to me like a man playing a game of "catch me when you can", and personally, I dont think this was any game to him, nor do I believe that he had any desire to be caught.

Despite your sound argument about hiding in plain sight, it is not preferable to hiding where no-one knows where you are. Its is a choice. You think he would choose that environment, I dont. You may think he had to....I dont agree with that either. We dont know his means at all.

We only know he knew the East End well, and could blend in there. That could be said about anyone predisposed to being in that area often, not just local residents.

Cheers Ben.

[perrymason]

one more thought Ben....

If you wanted to sell me on the idea that after he dumps his take at a safe house he then slips into a ward bed in a lodging house....I would go along with that kind of hiding in plain sight.

Cheers again.

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

Yes Ben. But even the poorest man in the doss-house isn't going to eat a piece of meat that has been preserved in spirits of wine (thanks for that, by the way, Gareth!).

True, but I don't believe for a moment that the killer did preserve the kidney is spirits of wine, so that's rather a moot point. I'm not suggesting for a moment that he either carted the organs around the streets or stashed them in storage for days at a time. That's most implausible -they'd rot vert quickly. More likely in my view, the organs were cannibalized not long after the murder, with the inedible bits cast onto the great fire.

Hi Mike,

The type of room that Im talking about was likely available all over the area, small cheap, dirty and hardly ever tended to by an outsider.

Yes, but these would come under the catergory of lodging houses, and they wouldn't have been nearly as suitable for his intentions as a larger, busy doss house. If there are a fewer people to monitor your movements, there's a greater chance that any unusual activity would be noted, as it apparently was in the alleged Batty Street account. The greater the number of lodgers, the greater the chance of the killer's actions and movements passing unnoticed. If he wasn't doing anything concpicuous or openly dodgy, there was simply no incentive to single out a specific individual 27 beds to the left.

The sort of rooms you appear to be envisaging; single rooms which weren't part of a lodging house and which didn't have a landlord/lady on site would have been incredibly rare if they existed at all.

Carrying something he knows he could hang for in his pocket sounds to me like a man playing a game of "catch me when you can"

Not sure what you mean. He did carry the organs in his pockets as he escaped from the crime scene. I'm not suggesting that he carried them secreted about his person for any length of time afterwards.

Despite your sound argument about hiding in plain sight, it is not preferable to hiding where no-one knows where you are.

I disagree. It doesn't matter if people know where you are as long as they don't know who you are, and what you've done. Hiding in plain sight is by far the most viable form of "hiding" in a densely populated urban environment such as Whitechapel and Spitalfields. He may have desired a nice little hidey-hole with just him and no landlord or other lodgers, but they were a rare commodity in that district, and time and again we learn that many of the serialists who do have private accomodation (and lived alone) killed and disposed of their victims there, not in the streets. It's not a case of "choosing" his environment. On the contrary, I think he was making the best of a lack of "choice".

We don't know his means for certain, or where he was likely to have lived, but we can make educated guesses in that regard on the basis of what we've learned from past cases, and combine it with our knowledge of the social and geographic set-up that formed the backdrop to the Whitechapel murders.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chava]

Not sure what you mean. He did carry the organs in his pockets as he escaped from the crime scene. I'm not suggesting that he carried them secreted about his person for any length of time afterwards.

Ben, you don't know this for sure and neither do I. 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. For all we know, he had a handy American-cloth parcel to carry stuff in.

We don't know his means for certain, or where he was likely to have lived, but we can make educated guesses in that regard on the basis of what we've learned from past cases, and combine it with our knowledge of the social and geographic set-up that formed the backdrop to the Whitechapel murders.

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

[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

[perrymason]

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]

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