Is this a realistic theory?

[Reynard]

I wasn't sure where to ask this so I ended up putting it here. Like I said in another topic, I am planning to write a JTR story as an off-shoot of a larger project, both way down the road.

I only have a few general ideas for what I want to do and I wanted to run a few of those ideas past the wonderful researchers here, while still keeping as much of it to myself as possible of course.

Okay, I had wanted my Jack to be an original character, and the current problem is background. He is a young man, around 30 or so. He grew up around the East End, abandonned.

The thing is, I like the idea that Jack had at least some basic anatomical knowledge. But I also like the theory that he was a local person and that he had a less than stellar education.

So my original idea for how he could acquire that knowledge (I did not want to go with a butcher) is that when he was a bit younger he managed to become a doctor's assisstant, and learned basic anatomy by watching doctors do their work. But he was, for reasons I will not elaborate on, unfairly fired from that position and left in the East End, losing possibly the only chance he would get to get out of it.

Does this all sound plausible and realistic for my character? I wasn't sure. Then again, I may just be too hard on myself. I do have a tendency to be paranoid.

[lynn cates]

mortuary assistant

Hello Reynard. You might take a cue from Trow and make him a mortuary assistant. It might be harder to have him unfairly dismissed, but you could likely bridge that gap.

The best.
LC

[Reynard]

A mortuary assistant, that would make sense, going from watching dead bodies being opened up to opening them up.

Thank you.

And I never thought dismissal would be a problem, since I had planned it to involve a bit of bribery and lots of money given to medical superiors.

[lynn cates]

dismissal

Hello Reynard. Well, with a doctor's assistant, a small mistake could be considered grounds for dismissal since a life is at stake. Not so the mortuary chap.

The best.
LC

[Reynard]

Hmm, now that I give it a bit more thought, a doctor's assistant might be much more appropriate. The dismissal I had in mind coincided with a very unfortunate meeting and I suppose if you worked in a morgue you wouldn't meet many people.

Thank you

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

I think, that Jack the Ripper could have been a wanna-be-surgeon...

Back in the 1970s, when I heard about Saucy Jacky for the first time, my conclusion was, that he must have been a policeman.

He was shortly mentioned in the Finnish press, while the Yorkshire Ripper was in the headlines.

All the best
Jukka

[tnb]

Reynard,

If you look at all the 'Jack' related fictions (and some masquerading as fact!) over the years you will soon realise that, given the little we know and a fair amount of 'artistic licence', cases have been imaginitively made for him being everything from a member of the royal family to Joseph Merrick ('the elephant man') to the inspiration for Count Dracula! I am making no value judgements on any of the authors referenced there, I have my own opinions but this list is purely illustrative.

So I would concentrate less about whether your plan fits with 'Jack' as a persona, as almost anything could frankly (or certainly couldn't be disproven), from a working class local such as yours to an upper class toff 'slumming it' of a night, and concentrate more on whether it fits together as a character (rather than plot) driven progression, which your doctor's assistant seems to to be honest. You are delving into a potentially very useful field here (in terms of the imagery, associations etc you will be able to pick up on) but also one that has been saturated with good and bad, and where a number of people will come to your book with a good impression of their personal idea of 'Jack', and so to hold any portrait together, which may jar with their own, you need to suspend disbelief in other ways at little as possible.

The one bit of advice I would give you as someone interested in the realities of the case (I am a long way off being able to call myself a 'researcher') is please do not have him in a top hat with a gladstone bag and a 'sinister' twirly moustache, and the East End as a wall-to-wall slum full of 'ere geezer' prostitutes who no-one notices disappearing! Not only will that go a long way to distance yourself from many other such books but it may just get you a seal of approval from the 'researchers' here too.

Fair play to you for coming on here and I strongly suggest you make use of what is a wonderful resource not just into the crimes and their victims, potential suspects etc but also, through much of the minutiae of the case, the social fabric and context of the place and time. A skilfully woven detail can make all the difference, and even details you absorb but do not eventually use will come through in a greater understanding of your setting, at least to those who know.

And as I would say to anyone writing about the murders, fiction or non, commercial or research, please ensure that you treat the victims with respect, and as complex human beings in their own right, rather than crude tragic stereotypes. I am sure you would be respectful anyway, but call it a bit of a personal crusade if you will.

Good luck!

[perrymason]

Hi Reynard,

There is a plausible way that your killer could acquire some modest information about surgery and the internal structures...in exactly the same way that Francis Tumblety did.....by cleaning operating rooms and hanging around watching procedures. He need not be a physician's apprentice, which would bring into question his probable level of education...something that likely many East Enders lacked formally past grade school.

But as a young lad laboring.....sweeping, cleaning, and being curious about what he sees....theres a realistic education source I think.

Best regards Reynard

[Observer]

Hi all

But are you quite quite sure that Jack the Ripper demonstrated any surgical skills whilst carrying out his mutilations? I don't beleive he did.

all the best

Observer

[lynn cates]

which?

Hello Observer. Were you referring to C1 and C2; or, C4 and C5?

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

Hello Observer. Were you referring to C1 and C2; or, C4 and C5?

The best.
LC

As Lynn points out, depends on what murder you are talking about.

Mary Ann's killer was thought to have some skill with a knife and knowledge of where to cut to cause certain death,... Annie's killer was assumed to have had both some skills with a knife based on the "clean" uterus extraction in the near dark, and some anatomical knowledge, ....Liz Stride's murderer was said to know where to cut to cause a fatal injury, and Kate's killer was said to have possessed some knowledge and skill to extract her kidney through her midsection while she lay face up in the dark.

Despite the protestations that are readily available here and on any Ripper site I would imagine, we do in fact have contemporary senior medical opinions that suggest the killers of the women mentioned above had some knowledge of where to cut and what they were doing.

Thats why in September 1888 troubled medical students were looked at. Its also why we still have suspects based on only their knowledge in these areas.

The only obvious newbie to this practice was the guy in Room 13.....since the only thing he does that shows some pre-existing experience is to cut the abdomen open by removing flaps of skin...something that was done to Annie and printed about in most of the papers.

Best regards

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Addressing them individually, and borrowing Lynn's abbreviations:

C1: The examining doctor believed that the perpetrator might have possessed "rough" anatomical knowledge, which describes the majority of human beings. Nobody needs instruction in an institutional capacity to acquire "rough" anatomical knowledge.

C2: The single instance of any medical professional detecting "surgical skill" from any crime scene or victim, marred in this case by both an absence of any second opinion, and the fact that the doctor who attributed such skill to Chapman's murderer believed that Eddowes fell victim to a different hand. The suggested absence of "meaningless cuts" is at odds with an apparent attempt to sever the spinal column (which has no "meaning" as far as organ extraction goes), and it's almost impossible to accept that the killer meant to extract only two thirds of a bladder.

C3: The partial severance of the carotid artery is heavily at odds with a medically trained/experienced offender. Why, if the killer knew where to cut, did he only partially sever the crucial artery?

C4: Firstly, three out of four medical practitioners (including Dr. Phillips) did not believe the killer had much, if any, anatomical knowledge, and the outnumbered Dr. Brown believed the killer could have been accustomed to cutting up animals, which is quite different to being "surgically" skilful.

C5: No medical knowledge detected. Bond on record as stating the killer of the C5 had no anatomical knowledge - not even that of a butcher.

The preponderance of evidence militates heavily against an offender with surgical skill. I'm not sure, incidentally, that there are any credible suspects out there who are kept in the frame because of their medical/anatomical credentials.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi

Every single one of them. He does not show any surgical skill at all

all the best

Observer

[lynn cates]

groups

Hello Ben and Observer. My point was that C1 and C2, on the whole, show more skill that C4 and C5. Which is yet one more reason to put these in separate groups. (Oops! Heresy.)

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Ben I think what you did with the fleshing out of the comments I made regarding possible skill and or knowledge is then make your estimate on such matter using all of the victims stats cumulatively, which would have the murders that do not show any skill at all very clearly...the Kelly murder....lumped in with one that does indeed show both skill and anatomical savvy, the Hanbury murder.

I think the ONLY way you can assess any of their killer(s) skill or savvy is by addressing them as individual murders.

And when you do so you find that at least 2 murders had acts performed that someone without any knife skill or anatomy knowledge could not perform, indoors or out, with light or not.

I think what you did is Ripperology today Ben...without risking some "speculation",.. most scholars seem to come to terms with the very evident contradictions about the killer seen in the Canonical Group, and despite recognizing the huge gap in evidence that might be used to construct a 5 woman kill spree, they accept it anyway.

Seems to me when you have a bunch of unsolved murders it would be natural to look for similar traits in those crimes. 3 Canonicals were picked up, all were attacked first without a knife and kept from resisting or crying out, all 3 had their throats slit while they lay helpless on the ground...almost to the extent of decapitation, and all had abdominal injuries inflicted post mortem. All the victims were middle aged homeless women, and all were killed while they plied their trade outdoors after midnight.

I have no problem with that as a realistic and much more logical Ripper group. Based almost solely on the methods used and the results achieved. And those 3 showed some indications of skill and knowledge.

Best regards Ben, all.