A midwife could have committed the crimes

The argument

One of the most perplexing elements of the Ripper's crimes is the question of how the killer managed to enter into and escape from each crime scene without being identified by any witnesses. A man leaving his household late at night, wandering the streets, being covered in bloodstained clothes, and possibly being found by a body would be very likely to arouse suspicion. A woman, especially a midwife, would have had a much easier time escaping notice while committing the Ripper's killings. A midwife would have had the knowledge of anatomy and basic surgical skills needed to perform the mutilations committed by Jack the Ripper. Furthermore, in London in 1888 it would not have been unusual for a midwife to travel the streets at any hour, even with clothes covered in blood, due to their responsibilities in attending to childbirth.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The problem the theory is built to solve is largely overstated. Contemporary accounts do not establish that the killer left the scenes soaked in blood: the mutilations were performed on victims lying on the ground, generally after the throat was cut, which limits arterial spray, and the killer needed only a short walk through unlit streets in a district crowded at every hour, where a working man in dark clothes attracted no notice whatever. The difficulty the argument invents a midwife to resolve is therefore not as acute as it assumes. The anatomical claim does not favour a midwife either. The medical witnesses at the inquests disagreed among themselves about the degree of skill displayed, several attributing the cuts to rough butchery rather than surgical training, and the abdominal organs removed lie well outside the practice of childbirth attendance. Butchers, slaughtermen and knackers were far more numerous in the district and had equal or greater familiarity with cutting. Above all, no positive evidence is offered: no named suspect, no witness statement, no contemporary suspicion of a woman, and the several witnesses who described someone seen with victims described men. The sole basis is that a woman would have escaped notice, which is a statement about the theory's convenience rather than about the case — and the final sibling position, that no single person committed all the murders, weakens any single-culprit theory including this one.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The problem is overstated: the mutilations were carried out on victims lying on the ground, generally after the throat was cut, limiting spray, and a man moving at night through a crowded, poorly lit district attracted no particular attention. [Rejecting P2] Midwifery skill does not match the injuries — the inquest medical witnesses disagreed about the degree of skill and several attributed it to rough butchery, while the organs removed lie outside childbirth practice — and butchers and slaughtermen were far more numerous locally with equal familiarity with cutting. [Rejecting P3] No positive evidence is offered: no named suspect, no witness account and no contemporary suspicion of a woman, while the witnesses who described someone seen with victims described men.