Discourse about left-right-handedness

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;403638]

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=kjab3112;403628]

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

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=kjab3112;403628]

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

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;403566]

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

[kjab3112]

[QUOTE=Pierre;403566]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Pierre;403566]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;403561]

I am not arguing, and have no intention of doing so. I am telling you what are facts. I am telling you that many facets of the original medical evidence have now been proved to now not be correct.

They differed because they were simply guessing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Pierre;403551]

I am not interested in dismissing Biggs. The interesting thing is that he is part of the discourse about the discourse. He is saying things similar to those who saw the wounds but he was not there. The reason for it is that he is not part of the history about the sources. But you, who think that the "old sources" are to old and not reliable, trust a source from you own time that will soon be old and not reliable, even more so since he was never there.



Do you mean that all research about the past is meaningless?



The practical point of view is uncertain, if that is the view of Biggs. You need systematical data. I asked you for it, but you prefer your expert. Of course you do. You do not understand statistics and so you have no choice but to refer to one single person and his statements.

And the practical point of view was also the point of view of Dr Phillips and Dr Bond et al. They created a small discourse. Why is it like it is?



And how come that the opinions were "flawed" in particular ways?



And how come they guessed that the killer was left handed or right handed? What is the basis for that talk? What is the basis for the discourse?



And so the discourse says the person could have be "either" left or right handed. How come the discourse contains that "either" perspective?



Trevor - but they "challenge" the sources with the same type of arguments. How come?



It is no "mystery". It is a set of real existing sources left to us by the past. The sources describe real events.



The theories are flawed, yes. But many of the sources from the past are not. They are in the original and many of them are very reliable and valid.



I do not accept those theories. But the sources from the past tell us something important. They are the discourse about what the doctors thought about the handedness of the killer. WHY did they think what they thought? WHY is the discourse like it is?

Is it because "it is too old"?

Is it because "it is flawed"?

No, Trevor. Your arguments are not valid. They generate irrelevant arguments and tautologies and they can not explain why the doctors differ in their statements.

WHY did they differ in their statements in that particular way?

Regards, Pierre

I am not arguing, and have no intention of doing so. I am telling you what are facts. I am telling you that many facets of the original medical evidence have now been proved to now not be correct.

They differed because they were simply guessing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;403546]

Dr Biggs is an expert you cannot dismiss what he says lightly in favour of your own beliefs.

I am not interested in dismissing Biggs. The interesting thing is that he is part of the discourse about the discourse. He is saying things similar to those who saw the wounds but he was not there. The reason for it is that he is not part of the history about the sources. But you, who think that the "old sources" are to old and not reliable, trust a source from you own time that will soon be old and not reliable, even more so since he was never there.

You ask for answers to question you raise, when the reality is there are no specific answers, there never was, and never will be, we are talking about a series of murders that took place 128 years ago.

Do you mean that all research about the past is meaningless?

All modern day medical experts can do is offer their opinions based on their modern day medical experience in their field of expertise.

The practical point of view is uncertain, if that is the view of Biggs. You need systematical data. I asked you for it, but you prefer your expert. Of course you do. You do not understand statistics and so you have no choice but to refer to one single person and his statements.

And the practical point of view was also the point of view of Dr Phillips and Dr Bond et al. They created a small discourse. Why is it like it is?

But what they can do is prove to us now that the opinions of the medical men back then were flawed,

And how come that the opinions were "flawed" in particular ways?

and at times based on nothing more than guesswork, which the courts and the press then readily accepted as being correct, as do many modern day researchers who cannot, and will not accept this as fact.

And how come they guessed that the killer was left handed or right handed? What is the basis for that talk? What is the basis for the discourse?

Take the case of Eddowes she was stabbed from sternum to her pubic bone the person who inflicted that wound could either have been left handed, or right handed, there is nothing to tell the difference, there can be no scientific way of telling, there are no sources to refer to, the same applies to all the other victims wounds.

And so the discourse says the person could have be "either" left or right handed. How come the discourse contains that "either" perspective?

There is you, and at least one other on here who do nothing but keep asking for sources, or scientific evidence, when one part or another of the old accepted theories are challenged. The sources to challenge the victorian medics come from modern day medical men. In the case of Eddowes the challenge to the conflicting newspaper reports some seek to rely on come in the form of the official signed depositions.

Trevor - but they "challenge" the sources with the same type of arguments. How come?

These are significant and when you dig deeper into the mystery there are many others to be found, which when all put together portray this mystery in a totally different light, to that which has been accepted for many years.

It is no "mystery". It is a set of real existing sources left to us by the past. The sources describe real events.

Why cant we look at what the new challenge is and just say " You know perhaps the old theory is flawed after all" instead or readily accepting it without question, and asking for sources or scientific evidence to nail down the challenge.

The theories are flawed, yes. But many of the sources from the past are not. They are in the original and many of them are very reliable and valid.

Where are the sources, and the scientific evidence to corroborate the old accepted theories?

I do not accept those theories. But the sources from the past tell us something important. They are the discourse about what the doctors thought about the handedness of the killer. WHY did they think what they thought? WHY is the discourse like it is?

Is it because "it is too old"?

Is it because "it is flawed"?

No, Trevor. Your arguments are not valid. They generate irrelevant arguments and tautologies and they can not explain why the doctors differ in their statements.

WHY did they differ in their statements in that particular way?

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Apart from you own hypothesis about the mythological elements in the case, and apart from my own agreeing with you on this - you refer to Biggs and I will comment on it here:



But have you any research, or does Bigg have any research, for

a) how common it is that left/right-handedness is postulated by doctors for the same victim or/and

b) for a series of victims killed by the hypothesized same killer?



And this is the variation in the discourse which is the subject in this thread.

Since you, Trevor, have your own idea about the Whitechapel murders, and since you think things about this variation - do you know any research for such a variation, i.e. systematical research in articles, or do you have a scientific answer to the question:

Why is there a variation in the discourse about left/right-handedness?

Also, are you capable of asking new questions and giving new answers analyzing the material - since you say the old answers are not relevant - and if you are capable of asking new questions and giving new answers:

Why is there a variation in the discourse about left/right-handedness?

Best wishes, Pierre

Dr Biggs is an expert you cannot dismiss what he says lightly in favour of your own beliefs.

You ask for answers to question you raise, when the reality is there are no specific answers, there never was, and never will be, we are talking about a series of murders that took place 128 years ago. All modern day medical experts can do is offer their opinions based on their modern day medical experience in their field of expertise.

But what they can do is prove to us now that the opinions of the medical men back then were flawed, and at times based on nothing more than guesswork, which the courts and the press then readily accepted as being correct, as do many modern day researchers who cannot, and will not accept this as fact.

Take the case of Eddowes she was stabbed from sternum to her pubic bone the person who inflicted that wound could either have been left handed, or right handed, there is nothing to tell the difference, there can be no scientific way of telling, there are no sources to refer to, the same applies to all the other victims wounds.

There is you, and at least one other on here who do nothing but keep asking for sources, or scientific evidence, when one part or another of the old accepted theories are challenged. The sources to challenge the victorian medics come from modern day medical men. In the case of Eddowes the challenge to the conflicting newspaper reports some seek to rely on come in the form of the official signed depositions.

These are significant and when you dig deeper into the mystery there are many others to be found, which when all put together portray this mystery in a totally different light, to that which has been accepted for many years.

Why cant we look at what the new challenge is and just say " You know perhaps the old theory is flawed after all" instead or readily accepting it without question, and asking for sources or scientific evidence to nail down the challenge.

Where are the sources, and the scientific evidence to corroborate the old accepted theories?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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

I think that Steve may be the only one here who has the sufficient knowledge to analyze the problem and answer these questions.

I myself am not able to do it. I just have data telling me the answer. But Steve is a medic and I am just a simple historian.

[Pierre]

I have set out below an extract from my book "Jack the Ripper the secret police files."

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/?page_id=191

It relates to an assessment and evaluation of some of the evidence relative to this thread from Dr Biggs a modern day working forensic pathologist

"As with much of what went on ‘back in the day’, learned medical men would assert things without backup, and this would be taken as fact without challenge. By way of example, it is not possible to say that all injuries were caused by the same instrument, comment on the blade’s sharpness or suggest that the injuries were caused with ‘great violence’. This is just somebody giving their opinion as though it were fact, and giving it in such a way that it is virtually meaningless. Saying that the wounds were made ‘downwards’ means nothing without a frame of reference. Stating that the wounds were made ‘from left to right’ is not as clear as it might at first seem, and of course cannot be relied upon. The witness states that the injuries might have been done by a left-handed person’. But equally, they could have been done by a right-handed person. Or a one-handed person!"

"What is important to realise is that much of the myth and legend that has become ‘fact’ over the decades might be based upon testimony such as this... and therefore, is open to question?"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Apart from you own hypothesis about the mythological elements in the case, and apart from my own agreeing with you on this - you refer to Biggs and I will comment on it here:

"As with much of what went on ‘back in the day’, learned medical men would assert things without backup, and this would be taken as fact without challenge.

But have you any research, or does Bigg have any research, for

a) how common it is that left/right-handedness is postulated by doctors for the same victim or/and

b) for a series of victims killed by the hypothesized same killer?

The witness states that the injuries might have been done by a left-handed person’. But equally, they could have been done by a right-handed person. Or a one-handed person!"

And this is the variation in the discourse which is the subject in this thread.

Since you, Trevor, have your own idea about the Whitechapel murders, and since you think things about this variation - do you know any research for such a variation, i.e. systematical research in articles, or do you have a scientific answer to the question:

Why is there a variation in the discourse about left/right-handedness?

Also, are you capable of asking new questions and giving new answers analyzing the material - since you say the old answers are not relevant - and if you are capable of asking new questions and giving new answers:

Why is there a variation in the discourse about left/right-handedness?

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=kjab3112;403515]

Hi Pierre

Regards drift: the hand position is determined by the relative pronator and supinator muscles of the forearm. As the elbow is flexed and extended that alters the wrist position. If one draws a straight line there will be drift and lift off due to this change in wrist position. Surgical training is about avoiding this biomechanical reality.

When I refer to better I am considering the most natural position. As a thought experiment switch your knife to the opposite hand, you will find the plate has to be turned. The same for the murderer, because of the walls etc the cuts were much easier on one side and in fact would not have been even possible in most cases from the opposite.

Pure is a descriptive adjective of the opinion expressed at the time by the witness. There is no evidential backing except for personal experience. I.e. Pure opinion

For most likely position and hand look at my first reply. My personal opinion is that we don't know who killed the canonical five, but looking at the surviving autopsy evidence they were likely killed by the same hand with MJK more similar to Annie and Polly than the double event but with sufficient similarities to be at reasonable doubt level.

Best wishes

Paul

Hi Paul,

I see what you mean.

And concerning the discourse constructed by doctors in 1888-1889;

What can explain the variations in the discourse?

Are the descriptions conflicting or not do you think?

Regards, Pierre

[kjab3112]

[QUOTE=Pierre;403493]

Hi,

I am very interested in what you are writing here and will comment on it in all itīs parts. "Natural drift of a straight line" - I have never heard of the concept. Is there any research for it?



And "better" is an ordinal variable so there is a possibility of different values. Therefore, how can we say that this variable is important in the case of handedness and in what way?

Also, if you convert the variable you get the variable worse. In what ways would such a variable change the idea of the killer trying to obtain a "better" position?



And when you say "pure" opinions, what is that "purity"?

And the opinions, why do they differ?



The "if" is a problem and the "a right handed...would be more likely" is a problem already, which started a long time ago, and I would like to avoid that problem here right now. So not trying to determine the handedness - but trying to determine why the discourse is as it is.

So, what do you think about all this?

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre

Regards drift: the hand position is determined by the relative pronator and supinator muscles of the forearm. As the elbow is flexed and extended that alters the wrist position. If one draws a straight line there will be drift and lift off due to this change in wrist position. Surgical training is about avoiding this biomechanical reality.

When I refer to better I am considering the most natural position. As a thought experiment switch your knife to the opposite hand, you will find the plate has to be turned. The same for the murderer, because of the walls etc the cuts were much easier on one side and in fact would not have been even possible in most cases from the opposite.

Pure is a descriptive adjective of the opinion expressed at the time by the witness. There is no evidential backing except for personal experience. I.e. Pure opinion

For most likely position and hand look at my first reply. My personal opinion is that we don't know who killed the canonical five, but looking at the surviving autopsy evidence they were likely killed by the same hand with MJK more similar to Annie and Polly than the double event but with sufficient similarities to be at reasonable doubt level.

Best wishes

Paul

[kjab3112]

Hi Joshua

I talk with ambidextrous tendencies and some surgical training. MJK was cut from the right carotid round, if one imagines the head and hence jaw position it is not easy to cut with the right hand in that fashion. The left hand however is easy. The enforced awkwardness might explain the increased violence but my personal opinion is that the killer cut MJKs throat with his (or her) left hand, simply due to physical mechanics.

Best wishes

Paul