Discourse about left-right-handedness

[Pierre]

Hi Steve.

I'm not so sure about your point with Kelly.
Her body had been shifted towards the middle of the bed. The doctors have 'assumed' she was on her back when attacked.
She may not have been.
Kelly may have been facing the partition at the far side of the bed.

I suspect she was laid like this.

The reason being, I think she was entertaining, so she was on the bed with someone else. So she was nearest the partition.
Her throat was cut at this very edge of the bed.

Her client attacked her from behind.
The mattress was saturated with blood at this top corner.


Once her throat was cut, the killer rolls her over onto her back, into the position we see her in the surviving photo.

If this is how she died then the killer was right-handed, as with the other victims.

The discourse says he was right handed. And left handed. Why?

[Wickerman]

However in the Nichols case Llewellyn, while confirming the throat was cut left to right, suggested it "MAY" have been performed by a left hand, unfortunately he gives nothing to back this view.

Kelly strongly suggests a left handed cut, that based on the generally accepted position for the killer(to the right of Kelly).

Hi Steve.

I'm not so sure about your point with Kelly.
Her body had been shifted towards the middle of the bed. The doctors have 'assumed' she was on her back when attacked.
She may not have been.
Kelly may have been facing the partition at the far side of the bed.

I suspect she was laid like this.

The reason being, I think she was entertaining, so she was on the bed with someone else. So she was nearest the partition.
Her throat was cut at this very edge of the bed.

Her client attacked her from behind.
The mattress was saturated with blood at this top corner.


Once her throat was cut, the killer rolls her over onto her back, into the position we see her in the surviving photo.

If this is how she died then the killer was right-handed, as with the other victims.

[Pcdunn]

Would there happen to be any situations where you would not be able to use your left hand?

Yes, if my left hand was injured, or missing, it would be either difficult or impossible to use it.

[Pierre]

Re "preferred hand"-- I think it is less a concept than a fact, Pierre, that most people will favor (or prefer) to use one hand more often than the other in daily activities. Some refer to it as having a "dominant hand", and discuss right-handeness or left-handeness.

I am, for instance, left-handed.

So the concept is a concept of the free will, it is a concept of rational choice, where preferences rule.

[Pierre]

Re "preferred hand"-- I think it is less a concept than a fact, Pierre, that most people will favor (or prefer) to use one hand more often than the other in daily activities. Some refer to it as having a "dominant hand", and discuss right-handeness or left-handeness.

I am, for instance, left-handed.

Would there happen to be any situations where you would not be able to use your left hand?

[Pcdunn]

Re "preferred hand"-- I think it is less a concept than a fact, Pierre, that most people will favor (or prefer) to use one hand more often than the other in daily activities. Some refer to it as having a "dominant hand", and discuss right-handeness or left-handeness.

I am, for instance, left-handed.

[Pierre]

Interesting observation, but I believe the most salient points on Kelly concern how the killer accessed and performed the excisions. I presume, based on the crime scene, that the killer faced the bed from the room. That sort of indicates what hand was probably used. Ambidexterous people make up less than 1% of any given population, so its most probable this killer had a preferred hand.

Yes, it is interesting.

And you also say: "...its most probable this killer had a preferred hand"

Could you please try to define the concept of "preferred hand"?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Have you seen anything in the discourse about Kelly being positioned higher up than the others, not on the ground but on a bed, when she was killed and mutilated?

Regards, Pierre

Interesting observation, but I believe the most salient points on Kelly concern how the killer accessed and performed the excisions. I presume, based on the crime scene, that the killer faced the bed from the room. That sort of indicates what hand was probably used. Ambidexterous people make up less than 1% of any given population, so its most probable this killer had a preferred hand.

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

I do understand the difference in the two questions, unfortunately my view is that the differing discourse which existed was because there was no clear evidence from the crimes.

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



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.

Pierre, the problem we have is that they were probably guessing; not a pure guess, what one terms an educated guess, based on the evidence.

Why do I suggest this, well there is little in the evidence which gives any indication of which hand was used. There is nothing in that evidence which is conclusive with regards to hands used.

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?

The medics were looking at individual cases, and different medics had differing views, all drawn from the same evidence.

I do not think that they therefore changed their views at all, it was simply that the evidence was not conclusive and was open to different interpretations.


Looking at that evidence the first 4 of the C5, hint that it may have been a right hander, but it is only a hint.

However in the Nichols case Llewellyn, while confirming the throat was cut left to right, suggested it "MAY" have been performed by a left hand, unfortunately he gives nothing to back this view.

Kelly strongly suggests a left handed cut, that based on the generally accepted position for the killer(to the right of Kelly).

It is easy to see why there was no clear picture from a forensic standpoint.



Pierre this is why there was a variation; because the professionals were not sure.

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.

I would suggest very little that is conclusive, and almost all of it can give a different result depending on the relative positions, sorry Pierre but it is hard to separate the discourse from the physical evidence.

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.

Surely it suggests a left handed cut, rather than right if he is on her right; not a right handed cut.

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?

I am not sure what you are asking here Pierre?
The discourse seems to show an acceptance that she was attacked from her left hand side, I see nothing in the records to suggest anyone suggested anything else, if you believe there is maybe you could highlight such material.

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

You have certainly suggested such already, the issue I have with this, putting aside any debate about partition doors and bed position, is the pattern of the arterial spray on the wall.

If JtR cut from her from the right hand side (between bed and wall.), he would have been in the way of the aforementioned spray.

Not only would he have been covered in blood, but there would be no spray on the wall. which does not appear to be the case.

He would also be standing in the large deposit of blood under the right hand side head of the bed, if only for a short time, there is no mention of any indication of this at all.

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

It tells us that the head of the bed was next to(or very close, because it cannot be more precise) the Arterial spray and large amount of blood next to it are a sure sign of where the attack took place.

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

Yes it does, however we still have the same question, why the variation?


There appear to be a few possible answers, in no particular order:

1. Different killer.

2. Ambidextrous killer.

3. Different Attack positions.

4. Medics deliberatly misleading

5. Medics just not sure

6. Anything i have not covered


Quickly I will dismiss 4, there is no source am aware of to suggest this.

1 & 2 are certainly possible.

3 does explain the differences and seems probably, and 5 is the natural lead on from there.



Steve

[kjab3112]

Hi Pierre

My personal suspicion is that the bias lay more with the police and coroner, but that is a personal belief. It must be remembered that we only have the official paper of record statements from the inquests for the most part and are missing the individual medical statements and autopsy records. Remember one of the coroners (Langham) was convinced the organ taking was for profit and asked questions along those lines.

Regards Paul

[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.

Hi Michael,

Have you seen anything in the discourse about Kelly being positioned higher up than the others, not on the ground but on a bed, when she was killed and mutilated?

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Elamarna]

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 !

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.

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.

.

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.

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

[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, letīs 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

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;403637]

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