Discourse about left-right-handedness

[Trevor Marriott]

[quote=Pierre;403566]

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott

Trevor. Let me put is this way: Why were they guessing specifically about his handedness and why did their ideas about it differ?

The reason they differed was because they all had their own opinions, and now modern day medical experts now tell us that those opinions were nothing more than guesswork.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[kjab3112]

[quote=Pierre;403566]

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott

Trevor. Let me put is this way: Why were they guessing specifically about his handedness and why did their ideas about it differ?

Hi Pierre

I think the answer to your question lies in the beliefs about left handedness in the late 19th century. This was a time of cod-science where certain features were considered diagnostic (see Lambroso) of criminality. Now it would be used to narrow down suspects, then it was considered a clear sign of criminality. I still stand by my earlier comment that direction of cut can be determined by lift off and drift aspects which combined with the possible positions determines likely used hand.

Regards

Paul

[Elamarna]

[quote=Pierre;403566]

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott

Trevor. Let me put is this way: Why were they guessing specifically about his handedness and why did their ideas about it differ?

Hi

From previous debates on this issue I agree with Trevor to a very great extent.

The simple facts are that while it is possible to determine the starting point for a cut, it is not in my opinion possible to tell the hand of the killer. It really does depend on the relative position of the victim and the killer.

One can make reasoned guesses depending on what was more practice, for instance it seems probably in the case of MJK that if the killer was to her right that is not between bed and partition wall he probably used his left hand as that is the easier hand to make the cut.

However it must be noted that it is not impossible that he used his right; just very very difficult.

One assumes that the medics made their opinions based on where they assumes he attacked from: be that behind, in front , or to the side while nealing beside an already prostrate body.

Paul seems to have plenty of knowledge and experience of this area of expertise by the way.


Steve

[Elamarna]

[quote=kjab3112;403628]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Hi Pierre

I think the answer to your question lies in the beliefs about left handedness in the late 19th century. This was a time of cod-science where certain features were considered diagnostic (see Lambroso) of criminality. Now it would be used to narrow down suspects, then it was considered a clear sign of criminality. I still stand by my earlier comment that direction of cut can be determined by lift off and drift aspects which combined with the possible positions determines likely used hand.

Regards

Paul

Paul

Agree with you 100% on the issue of lift off and drift.

It of course as you rightly say very dependent on the possible positions.


Steve

[Pierre]

[quote=kjab3112;403628]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Hi Pierre

I think the answer to your question lies in the beliefs about left handedness in the late 19th century. This was a time of cod-science where certain features were considered diagnostic (see Lambroso) of criminality. Now it would be used to narrow down suspects, then it was considered a clear sign of criminality. I still stand by my earlier comment that direction of cut can be determined by lift off and drift aspects which combined with the possible positions determines likely used hand.

Regards

Paul

Hi Paul,

So you think that a reason for the discourse being as it is, was that the doctors had a bias and/or were prejudiced?

If that was the case, why were they biased and/or prejudiced sometimes but sometimes not?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[quote=Elamarna;403638]

Originally Posted by kjab3112

Paul

Agree with you 100% on the issue of lift off and drift.

It of course as you rightly say very dependent on the possible positions.

Steve

Hi Steve,

And this is not even an attempt to answer the questions about the discourse but you hang on to the old question.

The new questions were:

Why did they interpret the wounds and marks on the victims as having been done by a left hand, by a left handed killer, by a right hand or by a right handed killer?

What can explain the variations in the discourse?

In what instances is a left handed / right handed cut /killer described?

Are the descriptions of the two types conflicting or not?

There is evidence that Jack the Ripper was left handed. There is evidence that Jack the Ripper was right handed. Why?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[quote=Elamarna;403637]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Hi

From previous debates on this issue I agree with Trevor to a very great extent.

The simple facts are that while it is possible to determine the starting point for a cut, it is not in my opinion possible to tell the hand of the killer. It really does depend on the relative position of the victim and the killer.

One can make reasoned guesses depending on what was more practice, for instance it seems probably in the case of MJK that if the killer was to her right that is not between bed and partition wall he probably used his left hand as that is the easier hand to make the cut.

However it must be noted that it is not impossible that he used his right; just very very difficult.

One assumes that the medics made their opinions based on where they assumes he attacked from: be that behind, in front , or to the side while nealing beside an already prostrate body.

Paul seems to have plenty of knowledge and experience of this area of expertise by the way.

Steve

Hi Steve,

you agree with Trevor, who often criticises "the old ideas". And still, you continue with the old ideas, i. e. you continue to ask about the handedness and its components, such as positions.

The object of study here is not that old question. In this thread I ask questions exclusively about the discourse produced in 1888-1889:

Why did they interpret the wounds and marks on the victims as having been done by a left hand, by a left handed killer, by a right hand or by a right handed killer?

What can explain the variations in the discourse?

In what instances is a left handed / right handed cut /killer described?

Are the descriptions of the two types conflicting or not?

There is evidence that Jack the Ripper was left handed. There is evidence that Jack the Ripper was right handed. Why?

I certainly hope that you can see the difference between the question: Was Jack the Ripper left- or right handed? and the questions above.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[quote=Pierre;403648][quote=Elamarna;403637]

Hi Steve,

you agree with Trevor, who often criticises "the old ideas". And still, you continue with the old ideas, i. e. you continue to ask about the handedness and its components, such as positions.

The object of study here is not that old question. In this thread I ask questions exclusively about the discourse produced in 1888-1889:

OK, let´s see if I can try to answer my own questions, just as an example:

Why did they interpret the wounds and marks on the victims as having been done by a left hand, by a left handed killer, by a right hand or by a right handed killer?

Answer: Professional people tended to believe things about their objects of study. These people believed that the killer was left handed. They also believed he was right handed. The core concept here is belief in the meaning of Bourdieu. It means that these professionals have invested their time and interest in the science of medicine and they obtained knowledge and a cultural capital which is expressed as belief in the sources - contrary to "guessing" as in a lottery.

What can explain the variations in the discourse?

Answer: They believed two things at the same time or they changed their belief and started believing the opposite. This leads to the questions: Why did they do so?

In what instances is a left handed / right handed cut /killer described?

I must analyze this properly before I can answer it.

Are the descriptions of the two types conflicting or not?

A conflicting description - what would that be? This is a very difficult question, I think. There may be a conflict between the statements of one person or between two persons. There may also be other types of conflicting descriptions. I can not answer it right now.

There is evidence that Jack the Ripper was left handed. There is evidence that Jack the Ripper was right handed. Why?

Answer: This evidence is in the discourse. If we analyze it, we will probably have some evidence that is more valid and some that is less valid.

Some people think that the evidence for Jack the Ripper being left handed is not present in the case of Kelly but there was a purely material problem in the room: he "could not" stand between a bed and a door.

Is this an established historical fact?

Did anyone in his time believe - and is it visible in the discourse - that Jack the Ripper choose the other side, not because of a small space but because of something else?

And: Could not Jack the Ripper lift or move a bed?

What does the discourse say about this small space between the bed and the door?

As you see, the questions about the discurse generates new questions, and this is very interesting.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Hi Steve,

And this is not even an attempt to answer the questions about the discourse but you hang on to the old question.

The new questions were:

Why did they interpret the wounds and marks on the victims as having been done by a left hand, by a left handed killer, by a right hand or by a right handed killer?

We will have to disagree on if it gives an answer, maybe I am not back up to speed yet!

The angle of cut, the direction and depth of cut, may help us to decide which hand made the actual cut. And the medics would have based their views on these factors.


In the first 4 of the C5 the cut appears to be from left to right, in MJK its right to left.

Alice Mackenzie is back to left to right by the way.

However a important factor is the position of the killer.

There is a lot of guess work involved, the forensics at the scenes was so limited that it does not really help.

To demonstrate, the Kelly case which may give the most evidence on this count, however even in this case there is an alternative view offered as to the killers positioning for the neck cut.
And depending on which view one takes, the probably hand is different.

The forensics are poor and the wounds do not conclusively prove which hand was used, the medics are making educated guesses, that is why they have different views !

Originally Posted by Pierre

What can explain the variations in the discourse?

I read Paul's comments about left handedness and how it was viewed.

While one cannot discount such a process being involved, I do not believe it would have been a major factor in the views reached. Although it may have had an effect if one could not reach a true scientific conclusion.

Originally Posted by Pierre

In what instances is a left handed / right handed cut /killer described?

The descriptions are not enough to confirm which hand was used in the first four cases, this is because we do not know the position of the killer.
Any suggestions by the medics are simply guess work.

However in the case of MJK, it seems the killer was on her right and so he probably cut Left handed there, it being the easier cut from that position. That is not the same as saying left or right handed of course.

.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Are the descriptions of the two types conflicting or not?

Not really for the reasons given above.
However one cannot ignore that MJK was apparently cut in the opposite direction to the others. This may suggest a separate killer to some, however it could equally be he was forced to cut in this direction in this case.

Originally Posted by Pierre

There is evidence that Jack the Ripper was left handed. There is evidence that Jack the Ripper was right handed. Why?

I would suggest there is limited evidence from the wounds to make a strong case for either as being conclusive.

Or course the old suggestion that he may have been able to use either hand cannot be discounted.

The science used here by the medics and by many writers is far from scientifically conclusive.

This is the reason why their is disagreement here about the cuts.

Regards,




Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Originally Posted by Pierre

This is not a thread where I am asking if Jack the Ripper was left handed or right handed.

It is a thread where I am asking why the doctors thought he was left handed or right handed.

Why did they interpret the wounds and marks on the victims as having been done by a left hand, by a left handed killer, by a right hand or by a right handed killer?

What can explain the variations in the discourse?

In what instances is a left handed / right handed cut /killer described?

Are the descriptions of the two types conflicting or not?

There is evidence that Jack the Ripper was left handed. There is evidence that Jack the Ripper was right handed. Why?

Pierre

The handedness was determined by identifying where each throat cut was initiated and where it completed. Logic is used to identify the most probable mechanical method, and whether the killer was behind or looming above the victim. As you recall, some assumptions were that the throat cuts were made while the victims were already lying down.