Organised or Disorganised?

[Limehouse]

I think the Ripper may well have had private accommodation. He needed somewhere to go to clean up and change his clothes. He needed to have a space private enough to clean his clothes or dispose of them altogether. He would therefore have needed to have access to additional clothes. He also needed a place to store his 'trophies'. We know he owned a sharp knife and could disappear, as it were, into a hiding place following his crimes. I think a lot of the evidence points to him being much better off than many others in Whitechapel and Spitalfields.

[Sam Flynn]

I think the Ripper may well have had private accommodation...

...like a room in a place like Miller's Court, Julie? Not wishing to point a finger at J Barnett - God forbid! - just observing that it was by no means inevitable that the Spitalfields poor had to share a doss-house room with a dozen or more companions. Of dossers, it's worth remembering also that it wasn't necessary for them to go "home" on any given night.

[Ben]

Hi Limehouse,

The chances of anyone having the luxury of single private accomodation in Whitechapel and Spitalfields was incredibly remote. He certainly didn't need private accomodation to evade detection. A change of clothes would only have been necessary if his clothes were heavily bloodstained, but as we learn from the preponderance of medical evidence, the chances are that strong that they wouldn't have been.

Trophy storage wouldn't have been remotely a problem had the killer lived in one of the larger lodging houses, where men returned home at all hours with less-than-prime meat victuals for consumption and storage in the large, unhygenic and maloderous kitchens. Bolting into any such establishment enabled the perpetrator to become the proverbial needle in a haystack, which was undoubtedly the reason so many of them became essential meccas for the "vicious and semi-criminal" fraternity.

[Wickerman]

Or if he didn't have private accomodation.

I'm not too sure about the prevalance of "abandoned buildings" though. Considering the extent of homelessness in the district, the chances of any derelict building remaining "abandoned" for any length of time was incredibly slim.

Agreed, I should have said what I meant, , I meant unnoccupied premises.

[Wickerman]

Hi Limehouse,

The chances of anyone having the luxury of single private accomodation in Whitechapel and Spitalfields was incredibly remote.

I know 1891 isn't 1888, but the census records for that year do show single men occupying rooms by themselves in Whitechapel, its not rare, nor to be seen as a luxury.

[Limehouse]

...like a room in a place like Miller's Court, Julie? Not wishing to point a finger at J Barnett - God forbid! - just observing that it was by no means inevitable that the Spitalfields poor had to share a doss-house room with a dozen or more companions. Of dossers, it's worth remembering also that it wasn't necessary for them to go "home" on any given night.

Agreed Sam. I didn't mean to suggest that without private accommodation the Ripper would have necessarily had to share with others in very cramped conditions. However, I do feel that JtR would have valued private space to reflect on his crimes and to refresh his clothes and clean his hands etc. I do not believe his clothes would have been totally free of blood and other matter and think it likely that he had access to somewhere where he could clean up and gather himself a little. Perhaps it was not a private home, but a workplace, office, store, shop or similar.

[Ben]

He may well have valued private accomodation, but the chances of him having any were less likely given the overcrowded nature of the district. It was simply the case that the majority of men in the district could not have lived in totally private accomodation. Private ROOMS were a possibility, but even then there was the problem of scrutiny from fellow lodgers. Fewer people = greater chance of one of them being "noticed". In a larger doss house (i.e. one that was home to 400+) sheer numbers rendered that an impossibility.

I don't know if the clothes were likely to have been completely devoid of blood, but darkish stains on an already shabby overcoat would hardly have presented a problem.

Best regards,
Ben

[Mutt]

By a lot of time, I was referring to the period that begins when the killer and victim enter the crime scene and the point that the killer flees the scene after completing the act. I think that time is a relevant issue here. I believe that the Killer did spend a lot time with his victims (to a lesser degree Elizabeth Stride).

The extra time comes into play when he chooses to stay around and mutilate his victim's. Which the killer does at the increased risk of discovery (Excepting Mary Kelly, where he appears to take full advantage of the solitude). When the killer fails to flee after the death stroke, the murderer steps away from his M.O. and is now deeply engrossed within his signature. Everything from that point forward is risk.

If the victim's were stabbed or slashed several times and left in the alley, then time would be a diminished concern. Multiple stab wounds are relatively common in sharp force related homicides, taking the time to remove the intestines and place them on a shoulder, while performing this act in a public alleyway or side street... I believe that is something else entirely.

Dr. Phillips testified that it would take him about 15 minutes to complete the job in the Annie Chapman case. I would submit that this is an eternity for the commission of a violent crime.

I agree that Dr. Phillips had more to say. After three autopsies (four if Tabram is included), he must have formed some overall opinions that may not be relevant to the individual death certificates.

[Limehouse]

He may well have valued private accomodation, but the chances of him having any were less likely given the overcrowded nature of the district. It was simply the case that the majority of men in the district could not have lived in totally private accomodation. Private ROOMS were a possibility, but even then there was the problem of scrutiny from fellow lodgers. Fewer people = greater chance of one of them being "noticed". In a larger doss house (i.e. one that was home to 400+) sheer numbers rendered that an impossibility.

I don't know if the clothes were likely to have been completely devoid of blood, but darkish stains on an already shabby overcoat would hardly have presented a problem.

Best regards,
Ben

But ben, you are assuming the killer lived in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area, but he could easily have lived in Poplar or Limehouse where accommodation was much less crowded and where many 'respectable' working class people lived quite comfortably.

[Sam Flynn]

he could easily have lived in Poplar or Limehouse

...you do yourself an injustice, Limehouse

[Ben]

Hi Limehouse,

I think it's a safe enough assumption that the killer lived within easy walking distance of his crimes. It's usually the case with closely clustered crime scenes that the offender has a bolt-hole relatively central to the locality in question, and in this case the locality was host to a heck of a lot of lodging houses.

Cheers,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I think the Ripper may well have had private accommodation. He needed somewhere to go to clean up and change his clothes. He needed to have a space private enough to clean his clothes or dispose of them altogether.

You recall Reginald Christie?, he was married and still able to commit murder in his own house. 'Jack' didn't need to live alone, he could quite easily work around having one other adult in the same room or rooms.
Our killer was likely coming home in the hours normal people (his partner?) are sleeping anyway. In the 1891 census a good many couples occupy 2 rooms, alternately, a man living in 1 room, shared with a young son.

He also needed a place to store his 'trophies'...

We don't 'know' he took bodyparts home with him, its only one of many theories. Neither do we 'know' those bodyparts were viewed by him as trophies. Once again, the lack of an identifiable or agreeable motive is one of thee biggest obstacles in these cases.

We know he owned a sharp knife and could disappear, as it were, into a hiding place following his crimes.

We 'know' he had a sharp knife, we only 'think' he may have had somewhere to hide other than his place of residence.

You remember the description given by Lawende? (Eddowes murder).
This is perhaps thee most likley description given of the actual killer, seeing as it was so close to the crime scene and, the time of death.
Yet this person 'sailor-like' in appearance wore a "pepper and salt" jacket, essentially that is a light grey almost silvery-grey.
Funny colour to go hunting humans in!
How did he know he wasnt going to get his light coloured jacket covered in blood?
This idea of the killer being covered in blood is perhaps another one of those urban myths, he may not have even thought it necessary to wear dark clothes.

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Ben, I think you are allowing too much by suggesting that he could walk in and out of lodging houses, even with blood on his clothing. That might be a fair guess if we are talking about a single crime,.. a single instance where he might have appeared suspicous looking based on the time, and dark stains. Maybe a man could get away with sneaking back into his bed in a large doss house once. But not 5 times, 3 of which involve transporting organs.

He could have been bloodied some each time he kills, and a lodger with a coat that is increasing dark stained and soiled after every murder would be noticed. A man in that scenario would not have multiple coats, or pieces of clothing perhaps. Plus, where does he deposit the organs? He cant very well keep them under his bed.

I think based on the above, on a killer who has killed supposedly 5 separate times with a bloody package from 3 of them, had to have changes of clothing....and had to have someplace where he could keep the organs that no-one would find or stumble across.

I see your thinking, that hiding among a crowd of perhaps 200-400 lodgers, with only a small management staff and no nightly sign in might be a perfect place to hide...in plain sight as it were. But that solution is at best secondary to one that allows him to come and go and have a room to leave bloody clothing and organs in. Thats a solution that means he need not live in the kill zone himself....as those kinds of houses, the larger doss houses, were institutions that were primarily found where there are large numbers of indigents needing such housing. Like in The East End.

If he can walk at least as far as perhaps he may have walking from the Victoria Working Mens Home to say Bucks Row, but in the opposite direction, West, then he could walk to all the sites and back easily...and have a room to himself outside the "zone".

Im not sure if this was the case, but I am sure its a far better solution for the killer than to have to deal with being among a ward or with multiple beds around his.

Best regards Ben.

[Sam Flynn]

This idea of the killer being covered in blood is perhaps another one of those urban myths, he may not have even thought it necessary to wear dark clothes.

Indeed, Jon. My father (a former slaughterman) affirms that butchering a freshly-killed animal wouldn't contaminate the hands overmuch with blood, if the beast had been effectively bled. Jack seems to have ensured that his victims lost a large amount of blood before he embarked on his abdominal butchery, by inflicting very deep wounds to their throats. In the context of this thread, I guess that'd be seen as "organised" behaviour - not that I find such categorisation of any real use.

[Ben]

I think you are allowing too much by suggesting that he could walk in and out of lodging houses, even with blood on his clothing

Not remotely, Mike.

If anything, I haven't sufficiently reinforced the suitability of a doss house for evading detection on a continual basis, in contrast to other domestic options.

That might be a fair guess if we are talking about a single crime,.. a single instance where he might have appeared suspicous looking based on the time, and dark stains.

He wouldn't have appeared suspicious at all. The larger doss houses were home to some 400 or 500 men coming and going at all hours of the night, many of them dirty, and many of them employed in capacities that would expose them on a regular daily basis to dirt and/or blood and guts. No lodging deputy was likely, or even able, to single out a particular lodger for random scrutiny, and certainly no fellow lodger was likely to inquire into the habits of a random lodger 27 beds to the left. Sheer numbers utterly precluded that possibility, which is why WE KNOW they were popular with the criminal fraternity in the district.

Blood wouldn't have been a problem at all. He wouldn't have been bloodstained owing to the manner in which the killer tilted his victims' heads in the opposite direction to his person and garments, a point on which most medical commentators agree. We can certainly dispense with the notion that his coat became "increasingly dark stained" - medical evidence says otherwise. As I've already said, doss houses such as these were home to any number of butchers and slaughterers coming home from work at varying hours.

Maybe a man could get away with sneaking back into his bed in a large doss house once. But not 5 times, 3 of which involve transporting organs.

Where does "sneaking" come from?

He wouldn't have had to "sneak" at all.

He would have been one of the hundreds of men coming home at varying hours of the night; another nameless, faceless example of the peaked-capped, grubby-coated Proley Joe Average. Business as usual. The kitchens were used by lodging house patrons to cook and eat. Being poor, the majority of patrons could only have afforded the non-choice cuts from the butchers, a factor which led to the foul-smelling atmosphere specifically described in Jack London's "People of the Abyss". Transporting organs would not, therefore, have been a problem. He would have been just another lodger bringing home his meat victuals, not that the doormen were genuinely in the habit of conducting meat-searches at the door.

Heck, he could even cook and consume them at breakfast the next day - again, with hundreds of others - with precious little chance of the activity being inquired about.

Plus, where does he deposit the organs? He cant very well keep them under his bed.

Why not, if they were concealed in his pockets, and there were hundreds of others sleeping there all at different times? If he lived in one of the Peabocy establishments, he could even secure a small cubicle for a couple of pence extra, enabling him to retrieve the organs and marvel at them into the wee hours if inclined. Again, this is all detailed in Jack London.

But that solution is at best secondary to one that allows him to come and go and have a room to leave bloody clothing and organs in

Absolutely no way.

It's arguably preferable to the single accomodation scenario, given that the availability of the latter was severely restricted, and the fact that we know lodging houses were popular with the vicious and semi-criminal. Believe me, these places did not earn their reputation as meccas for criminals if there was a tight security regime in place. No, they enabled their occupants to be wholly lost in an already seedy crowd. Just look at Sadler's attackers did directly after the robbing - bolt inside a lodging house.

If he can walk at least as far as perhaps he may have walking from the Victoria Working Mens Home to say Bucks Row

That isn't far at all. All he had to do was turn left out of his door and walk down his own road, at the end of which was the entrance to Bucks Row.

By all means hypothesise that he had some house of his own outside the district and envisage him as some well-off West End commuter, but it would be very much at odds with what we've learned about serial killers and their behaviour in relation to their geographic and demographic evironment.

I've strongly encourage you to read the previous thread on this topic:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1496&highlight=scrutiny

Regards,
Ben