|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Question about Batty Street and Boarding Houses
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Question about Batty Street and Boarding Houses
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 07:11 pm |        | | I was wondering about the way boarders( such as our Batty Street boarder,for instance ) back in 1888 would enter their residences...Did the Batty Street boarder have his OWN key,thereby bypassing the homeowner having to let him enter? Likewise,what was the procedure for other boarding homes,if anyone knows......Reason I ask is that if the Ripper hypothetically did lodge in Whitechapel and had to require assistance in entering his flat,then he had to do a hell of a clean up prior to returning NOT to be noticed by his landlord...Anyway,did the average landlord hold the key or what? |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 10:53 am | | Hi, Howard:
In Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer, p. 220, Evans and Gainey imply that Tumblety, who they theorize to have been the Batty Street lodger, could come and go at will. The notion is then that he had his own key to the street door and would not have had to have been let in.
This is borne out also by the testimony of the landlady at 22 Batty Street as quoted in the Daily News of 16 October 1888 wherein it is stated that she confronted her lodger after he returned home early Sunday morning and disturbed her "by his moving about." It was only then that, on confronting him in his room, she noted the blood saturating his shirt.
Howard, I hope this helps to answer your question.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 02:59 pm | | | Dear Chris........Thanks very much for the information. Much appreciated. Howard |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 03:24 pm | | Surely the answer to this is "depends". It depends on the nature of the landlord/landlady, the nature of the tenancy and layout of the house. If you think back to 29 Hanbury Street, for instance, the layout of the house lent itself to the door straight through to the passage (passing the stairs) being left unlocked so that each tenant could come and go at will, presumably with keys to their own rooms. If a house was completely let out this was the sensible arrangement. On the other hand, if a household with a small house (such as many of the houses in Berner and Batty Streets) took in just one or two individual lodgers, they might or might not get a key according to the landlord's whim. Since there was a high demand for cheap lodgings in the area by people working long and often variable hours, a key usually made sense. But no doubt there were 'board and lodgings' establishments for people with regular schedules. It isn't possible to make hard and fast rules about these things.
The common lodging houses were different. A representative of the landlord was on duty (the deputy) and perhaps also a doorman to provide the security function. Closure times varied (around 2 a.m. seems to have been common though), but when the house shut, that was it. Anybody late or who couldn't pay for their bed was locked out without a key, examples being Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman.
My own view is that for the reasons hinted at by Howard Brown, at very least the murderer must have had access to an individual room with the freedom to come and go from it at will. That implies that he had his own key.
Regards, V. |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 09:53 pm | | | Many thanks,Viper..........That conclusion of yours is really the only one applicable.....What disturbs me is the level of irresponsibility that the landlady displayed after ostensibly seeing a bloody shirt on the mystery tenant and NOT immediately sending someone off,or going herself,to locate a policeman.....I'd love to have been a fly on the wall,when she saw the shirt that night.......... |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 10:35 pm | | | Next question.since you folks in England know better than I,was the Batty Street house one that took a specific clientele ? Meaning a house that would NOT take lumpen proles(..working class/drinker/rough-edged types...). Or was it one that catered to types like Stephenson,Dr.T,and that sort? |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 12:57 pm | | Hi, Howard:
First of all, we should clarify that Batty Street is not in Whitechapel. Rather it is in the neighboring borough of St. George's-in-the-East.
The answer to your question about who would have lived in the lodging houses on Batty Street at least, can be partially answered by reference to the Lipsky Case of 1887. Israel Lipsky, accused of murdering fellow lodger Miriam Angell, was a working class Polish immigrant who lodged at 16 Batty Street and who worked as an umbrella maker. Thus, most probably the lodgers in Batty Street and other streets in the East End were probably a mix of working class people such as Lipsky, shabby genteel types, of which Tumblety and D'Onston might qualify, and a few people of higher middle class status.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 04:43 pm | | | Thanks once again for the information,Mr.G ! This Batty Street reminds me of a neighborhood in Philadelphia,known as East Falls. Within one half mile,3 distinct economic classes are situated.The welfare/proles....the middle class..and the rich ( Arlen,"Single Bullet Theory" Spector lives there as did Princess Grace (Kelly),who was born there. Thanks again,Chris............. HB |
|
|
|
|
