Left or right handed.

[Errata]

Wow. If you can murder someone, and take a picture at the same time, I will be very impressed.

Kill with the right, snap with the left. Or maybe I'll have him hold camera.

I have killed one of my cats on occasion. Although instead of a knife I use a finger, and instead of the cut throat it's a chin scratching. Cats work perfectly fine for addressing balance issues and posture. And she loves a good chin scratch.

[Wickerman]

She could have gotten it out right before he cut her throat. As in he saw she was passed out, no need to strangle he gets his knife to and she awakes and screams just before her throat is cut.

The strangling is not essential, there is no real evidence of strangulation with Eddowes but I do not rule her out on that basis.

The issue on this thread appears to be the direction of the cut to the throat. I am offering what I think is a reasonable explanation which demonstrates the same killer could have used the same method's. He cut her throat from left to right, and from behind to avoid the arterial spray.

[Abby Normal]

Agreed, but if she was passed out, who cried "murder"?

She could have gotten it out right before he cut her throat. As in he saw she was passed out, no need to strangle he gets his knife to and she awakes and screams just before her throat is cut.

[RivkahChaya]

Seriously, when my live-in murder victim comes home from his conference I'm just going to have to take a picture of my doing exactly that.

Wow. If you can murder someone, and take a picture at the same time, I will be very impressed.

I'd take a picture right now of me pseudo-murdering my cat, but I think the scale would be unsatisfactory.

[Wickerman]

Hi wick
If MK was already passed out drunk then there would be no need to strangle her as in the other victims, befor he cut her throat.

Agreed, but if she was passed out, who cried "murder"?

[Abby Normal]

Hello Michael.

I am making a very basic assumption that we have one killer responsible for the Whitechapel murders.

Embedded in that assumption I suggest we have a killer who demonstrably has used strangulation to subdue and silence some of his previous victims.
On the strength of that, I assume he did the same with Kelly.

In previous cases this same killer appreciates the need to cut the throat away from himself, that is to say, not take up a position where he is in direct line to be sprayed by arterial blood.
Therefore, Mary Kelly was not laid on her back when she was killed.

We only hear one scream of "murder", therefore, Mary was not able to defend herself beyond the first initial surprise, which was likely associated with him grasping at her throat.

The cuts on her arms are not defensive wounds. If they were we would have to assume she struggled in silence, which is incomprehensible.
Several cuts to her forearms would indicate she had more time to scream, yet she only screamed once?
Therefore, those superfluous cuts to her arms & hands are no more indicative of a struggle than the same superfluous cuts to her cheeks and mouth.

In the previous sketch the left side of her neck is nearest the partition, this is where the arterial spray will be ejected, precisely where detected.
The left carotid artery was the first cut, which then sprays the wall and stains the top corner of the mattress, just as described.

Dr. Phillips only suggested the right carotid artery was the first cut because he assumed Mary was laid on her back when the attack commenced.
Dr. Bond made it clear that direction could not be determined to any of the cuts to her throat, whether left to right, or right to left.

I suggest Mary was laid face down, perhaps thrown down after she had been strangled, he climbed on the bed and pulled her head up as previously described.
Once her throat was cut, the killer rolled her over onto her back, which is the position in which she was found - 2/3rds of the way over the bed away from the partition.



I see the same technique's applied by the same killer.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi wick
If MK was already passed out drunk then there would be no need to strangle her as in the other victims, befor he cut her throat.

[Errata]

Im sure you agree, that a left handed killer would put a huge question mark on the identity of Marys killer.....like there isnt one now ...and Its my belief that is at the heart of the resistance to this idea.

It likely makes Mary a victim of murder for some other reason, by some other man....and thats not cricket intellectually for many.

Cheers errata

I actually am already convinced she was killed by someone other than the Ripper. Her murder is both overkill and yet poetic in a gruesome way. To me it's personal. The other murders were not. Can't prove it, but that is my belief. And I'm not especially invested in the handedness of the killer, since I have never approached this mystery with an eye towards solving it. But I know knives, and I know knife work. Would it be easier for a lefty? Sure, but not by so much that a right handed killer would have been stymied at the situation. I can easily do it by reversing the knife in my hand. Now as I have some skill with daggers, I may be able to do that more adroitly (no pun intended) than others, but I kinda don't think so.

The thing it all hinges upon is how far away he was from her. And how invested he was in not waking her up. I mean, she is going to wake up, but if you are trying not to wake her you go about it differently. You'll fail, but the approach is different. Now, I see no reason why he couldn't have been on the bed for this. Kneeling at her back for instance. But if for some reason he had to stand, even a couple of inches is going to make a huge difference. Rule number one, don't fall into the victim. And there is a limit as to how far you can lean over without doing that, and there is a limit as to how far you can lean over and then jerk your arm back suddenly without tipping over. Based on the size of the bed, if she was about six inches away from the wall that's quite a lean. And the bed is kind of short, so it's not like your whole lower body is braced against the bed.

I think he had to use a hand to brace himself, and then you gotta ask where. Not on her, and not near her on the bed or she would have turned over. And you can't plant your hand between you and her, because then you are still leaning over your balance point. The opposite wall makes a certain amount of sense, but then he is pitched over at a really odd angle. His legs would no longer be straight vertical, and he would have to push off the wall pretty hard in order to get back to a standing position. Which doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things, but it puts his head and shoulders over her shoulder, so he is attacking her more from the front than the back. Which means the angles change pretty dramatically. In that position, both hands are awkward in the same way. I would cut with my right hand, despite it not being my strength hand because I would instinctively avoid cutting around my support arm, but it's not that big of a deal. In that position, both hands work equally well.

If he planted his arm on the bed on the other side of her, he would have to use his right hand, because he wouldn't be able to get around his right arm with his left. Or I suppose he could just give in to gravity and flop down on top of her, which if he weighs enough it doesn't matter if she wakes up, she can't move. Left handed I could put my hand on the headboard, but that's a pretty bad angle to cut her throat. Essentially coming in from the top of the head, while above. Your arm has to be bent at more than a 90 degree angle, and that seriously reduces the strength of your cut.

But there is nothing to say she was on her right side. If the spray on the wall was from the carotid, that speaks to her being on her back. The carotid is on the side of the neck. So the artery should be pointed towards the spray, thus on her back. And if she was on her back, that's a whole new ballgame. And there is nothing to say he cut her throat in one motion. He could have just stabbed her on the right side of the neck, pulled the knife out and then started cutting. Given how deep the wound was, it's impossible to say that she wasn't stabbed. And it's certainly easier and faster than killing someone with a slice to the neck. Certainly requires less finesse.

Personally, I think she was on her back. I don't particularly think she had defensive wounds, but the bruises on her arm could have been because he was kneeling on it. That's my opinion.

[Wickerman]

I appreciate the illustration errata,....oops, Im sorry, Jon..... I now see what you are suggesting clearly. 1, we have no evidence Mary was strangled....not that there would be with the slicing and all. 2, you suggest a violent encounter with Mary unable to attempt to repel the attacker.....sidestepping the defensive wounds on her left arm. 3, look at her hair in the MJK photo, it is off her forehead and down her back, its not askew which a grab of it would inevitably cause. 4, the way you portrayed the physical positions, Marys throat splashes the wall of her headboard, not the side partition wall. 5, .... how does this guy grab Mary silently while she is standing and choke her...with her feet flailing on the board floors.

Hello Michael.

I am making a very basic assumption that we have one killer responsible for the Whitechapel murders.

Embedded in that assumption I suggest we have a killer who demonstrably has used strangulation to subdue and silence some of his previous victims.
On the strength of that, I assume he did the same with Kelly.

In previous cases this same killer appreciates the need to cut the throat away from himself, that is to say, not take up a position where he is in direct line to be sprayed by arterial blood.
Therefore, Mary Kelly was not laid on her back when she was killed.

We only hear one scream of "murder", therefore, Mary was not able to defend herself beyond the first initial surprise, which was likely associated with him grasping at her throat.

The cuts on her arms are not defensive wounds. If they were we would have to assume she struggled in silence, which is incomprehensible.
Several cuts to her forearms would indicate she had more time to scream, yet she only screamed once?
Therefore, those superfluous cuts to her arms & hands are no more indicative of a struggle than the same superfluous cuts to her cheeks and mouth.

In the previous sketch the left side of her neck is nearest the partition, this is where the arterial spray will be ejected, precisely where detected.
The left carotid artery was the first cut, which then sprays the wall and stains the top corner of the mattress, just as described.

Dr. Phillips only suggested the right carotid artery was the first cut because he assumed Mary was laid on her back when the attack commenced.
Dr. Bond made it clear that direction could not be determined to any of the cuts to her throat, whether left to right, or right to left.

I suggest Mary was laid face down, perhaps thrown down after she had been strangled, he climbed on the bed and pulled her head up as previously described.
Once her throat was cut, the killer rolled her over onto her back, which is the position in which she was found - 2/3rds of the way over the bed away from the partition.



I see the same technique's applied by the same killer.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, so are you saying this mode of attack does not work for you?



The killer strangles her while standing by the bed, he threw her face down on the bed where her head is nearest the top corner.
He then climbs on her back, pulls her head up by the hair, and proceeds to slice her throat.
He then climbs off, rolls her over on her back, she assumes the position in which she was found, and he proceeds to mutilate.

Are you saying this is not possible?

.

I appreciate the illustration errata,....oops, Im sorry, Jon..... I now see what you are suggesting clearly. 1, we have no evidence Mary was strangled....not that there would be with the slicing and all. 2, you suggest a violent encounter with Mary unable to attempt to repel the attacker.....sidestepping the defensive wounds on her left arm. 3, look at her hair in the MJK photo, it is off her forehead and down her back, its not askew which a grab of it would inevitably cause. 4, the way you portrayed the physical positions, Marys throat splashes the wall of her headboard, not the side partition wall. 5, .... how does this guy grab Mary silently while she is standing and choke her...with her feet flailing on the board floors.

Im not saying anything is impossible errata, Im saying that Possibilities and Probabilities can be miles apart unless some evidence gives credence to one or the other. Your scenario is possible if the man was right handed, though Ive shown you 5 quick reasons why its improbable. And..Ive shown other reasons, including the motion and physicality of his cut-and-place technique with the viscera on the table.

Im sure you agree, that a left handed killer would put a huge question mark on the identity of Marys killer.....like there isnt one now ...and Its my belief that is at the heart of the resistance to this idea.

It likely makes Mary a victim of murder for some other reason, by some other man....and thats not cricket intellectually for many.

Cheers errata

[Errata]

And what Ive been saying over and over is that a right handed man cannot hold and press a knife tip into the right edge on the right hand side of a persons neck while they are facing away from the knife holder, and lying on their right hand side. And what the evidence suggests is that Mary was killed while facing the partition wall from her right side, on the right hand side of the bed.

Seriously, when my live-in murder victim comes home from his conference I'm just going to have to take a picture of my doing exactly that. I can't use any other words then I have already used. I'd take a picture right now of me pseudo-murdering my cat, but I think the scale would be unsatisfactory.

As for the head being on a pillow and the neck exposed... that's not really how that works. Unless you have one of those old Japanese head pedestals. People pull their pillows to their shoulders to reduce the angle at which their head bends. Something I recently got this huge lecture on for apparently sleeping in a way deliberately calculated to aggravate my back surgeon. You have more clearance for the neck without a pillow that with one. There's a whole niche of late night infomercials telling you how your neck bends in freakish angles when sleeping on inferior pillows. Not exactly science, but it does give a large cache of images of people sleeping on their sides for those who want to google it.

I suggest an experiment. If your SO sleeps on his or her side, while they are sleeping take a marker (washable please) and see if you can draw a dot about a pinkie's width around on the side of their neck they are lying on. Without them waking up and asking you "what the holy crap are you doing". I'm betting that without sleeping pills it can't be done. Now I can do it on my fiance, but I can also tap dance on him and he won't wake up so I don't particularly consider that a fair test.

[Wickerman]

And what Ive been saying over and over is that a right handed man cannot hold and press a knife tip into the right edge on the right hand side of a persons neck while they are facing away from the knife holder, and lying on their right hand side. And what the evidence suggests is that Mary was killed while facing the partition wall from her right side, on the right hand side of the bed.

Michael, so are you saying this mode of attack does not work for you?



The killer strangles her while standing by the bed, he threw her face down on the bed where her head is nearest the top corner.
He then climbs on her back, pulls her head up by the hair, and proceeds to slice her throat.
He then climbs off, rolls her over on her back, she assumes the position in which she was found, and he proceeds to mutilate.

Are you saying this is not possible?

.

[Michael W Richards]

What I'm saying is, I don't know why you think a righty couldn't work from the left side of the bed. A lefty would presumably be on the left side of the bed angled towards her head, a righty would be on the left side of her bed angled towards her feet. And as for cutting the throat, reversing his grip on the knife gives him the necessary angles he needs. Or he could just stand at her waist and come at her from a more straight on angle.

And what Ive been saying over and over is that a right handed man cannot hold and press a knife tip into the right edge on the right hand side of a persons neck while they are facing away from the knife holder, and lying on their right hand side. And what the evidence suggests is that Mary was killed while facing the partition wall from her right side, on the right hand side of the bed.

So, she is on her right side, on the right hand side of the bed, and facing the wall. Gee, that sounds like she is sleeping or resting on her right side. The right side of her head, not neck, on a pillow. And why is she on the right hand side of the bed, considering its so small to begin with? Well, that could explain a lot...how the man got in, why she is on her side facing the wall when she gets attacked, and why she is in her chemise, how she gets attacked without raising an alarm or causing noise that could be heard, and why her face gets egregiously mutilated....she knew the person intimately.

The cry of "oh-murder" was heard by 2 sources, 1 as close a staircase and a few extra feet apart,...who heard it "as if from the court", and 1 who heard the call "as if at her door", neither source heard any scuffle or any kind of noise with the cry or after it. An attack commencement, one with defensive wounds, would certainly cause more noise than simply 2 words. The words themselves were used frequently out of context in that area and during those years. Hence....we do not have a start of an attack signaled by the cry out.

In summary.... Marys murderer was someone she had been or was intimate with at some point, he was very likely someone who was left handed,.. and her murder, her actual murder, was heard by none of the witnesses interviewed.

I believe thats likely just a small group of men, particularly due to the left handedness, ...the problem here has to do with trying to determine who were Marys male friends without direct leads, suggestive sources, or names to work with other than some "Joe" who wasnt Barnett.

Joe Isaacs moved into Little Paternosters Row a few nights before Marys murder....(Barnett had just moved out, as did Maria by the 3rd)...he acted so strange his landlord reported her concerns after he disappeared the night she is killed. He is said to have owned a coat with Astrakan trimming. It might be interesting to know what his predominant hand was.

Its just using what is known and finding little bits of detail that could be strung to it,..though its often misunderstood as blind speculation.

Best regards

[Errata]

All I can say to you Errata is that I do not believe that a reasonable case can be made for the killer in room 13 to be kneeling in blood, or acting in a mannerr that does not show some effort to avoid the excess staining on his clothing.

In the other assume Ripper crime scenes the killer, who was right handed, could have located himself virtually anywhere around the corpse but in the blood pool to accomplish his slicing without the stains...its even been suggested that he cut the apron piece from Kate to wipe himself off.

After the throat cut and any of the cuts made on Marys body after that cut the bed would be bloody...kneeling between her legs in that mess makes no sense. The only dryish spot, the spot furthest away from the mass of blood adjacent to Marys body, was on the left side of the bed. He cut her throat on the right hand side, and moved her into the middle of the bed. The only blood on the left side would be blood dripping from the flaps and other materials he placed behind him on the night table.

I cannot see any explanation that makes any sense other than a killer who was able to work from the left side of the bed even when Marys back was turned to him. And Marys artery sprayed the partition wall....not upwards and cascading back onto herself, not in every direction....a severed artery can spew quite a distance....its not really a debate where she was first cut, and where the cut started.

Best regards

What I'm saying is, I don't know why you think a righty couldn't work from the left side of the bed. A lefty would presumably be on the left side of the bed angled towards her head, a righty would be on the left side of her bed angled towards her feet. And as for cutting the throat, reversing his grip on the knife gives him the necessary angles he needs. Or he could just stand at her waist and come at her from a more straight on angle.

[Michael W Richards]

If we are running with the theory that he wakes her up by positioning the knife, then yeah a left could do it. A righty could do it just as easily. My scenario was that she was sleeping and some care was taken not to wake her. Which I stated. I think your problem is that you are picturing a right handed person and a left handed person standing in the exact same spot facing the same way in the same pose. Which of course doesn't work. Left handed people do not write in the same position as right handed people. They tilt the paper differently, they position their arm differently, they square up to the paper differently. But both lefties and righties get it done.

As it happens, I have no preconceptions about Kelly's murder. I don't have a clue what hand her killer used, I don't know that her killer was standing (or sitting, or lying down), I don't even know that she actually had defensive wounds. I don't know if the table was there, I don't know that he had ever gotten on the bed to force her to scoot over to the right. I don't know that the blood splashes on the wall were arterial spurts as opposed to cast offs. I do know that had he killed her on the far side of the bed, the easiest way to move her to center would be to grab the sheet she was lying on and yank it towards him. But we also know he didn't do that. Some of his mutilations look like they have to have been done from between her legs, but we know he worked from her left.

I also don't know where the blood is. Clearly it is pooling under the bed. Which means it's has to soak through the covers and mattress. But the sheets in the photograph appear to be mostly white, which just should not have happened. Two thirds of her has been mutilated. It would not be unreasonable to assume she lost an equal percentage of blood. There appears to be some staining under her head where organs were piled, even her chemise is only bloody where it is contacting the wounds. It's cotton. The capillary action of cotton means that the whole thing should have been soaked through. So I don't even know that he didn't strip her and the bed, and the redress them both before he left. I admit it would be insane to have done so, but I can't rule it out. But if he did do it, that totally screws up conclusions based on blood staining.

While we ponder these mysteries, I suggest that next time you picture the event in your head with a lefty, see if it's so impossible with right hand, even if he has to face a different direction or move himself in relation to Kelly's throat.

All I can say to you Errata is that I do not believe that a reasonable case can be made for the killer in room 13 to be kneeling in blood, or acting in a mannerr that does not show some effort to avoid the excess staining on his clothing.

In the other assume Ripper crime scenes the killer, who was right handed, could have located himself virtually anywhere around the corpse but in the blood pool to accomplish his slicing without the stains...its even been suggested that he cut the apron piece from Kate to wipe himself off.

After the throat cut and any of the cuts made on Marys body after that cut the bed would be bloody...kneeling between her legs in that mess makes no sense. The only dryish spot, the spot furthest away from the mass of blood adjacent to Marys body, was on the left side of the bed. He cut her throat on the right hand side, and moved her into the middle of the bed. The only blood on the left side would be blood dripping from the flaps and other materials he placed behind him on the night table.

I cannot see any explanation that makes any sense other than a killer who was able to work from the left side of the bed even when Marys back was turned to him. And Marys artery sprayed the partition wall....not upwards and cascading back onto herself, not in every direction....a severed artery can spew quite a distance....its not really a debate where she was first cut, and where the cut started.

Best regards

[Errata]

I think we are disagreeing based on the above opinion Errata....because I believe that a left handed man could easily get the tip of the blade under her chin and to the starting point on the right of her throat by reaching around her left shoulder while holding the knife. He presses with a sharp knife....if you wonder how sharp just look at the leg wounds.....as it cuts Mary... startled.. she turns her upper body and raises her arms involuntarily in defense.

I dont believe this is rocket science to figure out, but I do believe some preconceptions die harder than others.

Best regards

If we are running with the theory that he wakes her up by positioning the knife, then yeah a left could do it. A righty could do it just as easily. My scenario was that she was sleeping and some care was taken not to wake her. Which I stated. I think your problem is that you are picturing a right handed person and a left handed person standing in the exact same spot facing the same way in the same pose. Which of course doesn't work. Left handed people do not write in the same position as right handed people. They tilt the paper differently, they position their arm differently, they square up to the paper differently. But both lefties and righties get it done.

As it happens, I have no preconceptions about Kelly's murder. I don't have a clue what hand her killer used, I don't know that her killer was standing (or sitting, or lying down), I don't even know that she actually had defensive wounds. I don't know if the table was there, I don't know that he had ever gotten on the bed to force her to scoot over to the right. I don't know that the blood splashes on the wall were arterial spurts as opposed to cast offs. I do know that had he killed her on the far side of the bed, the easiest way to move her to center would be to grab the sheet she was lying on and yank it towards him. But we also know he didn't do that. Some of his mutilations look like they have to have been done from between her legs, but we know he worked from her left.

I also don't know where the blood is. Clearly it is pooling under the bed. Which means it's has to soak through the covers and mattress. But the sheets in the photograph appear to be mostly white, which just should not have happened. Two thirds of her has been mutilated. It would not be unreasonable to assume she lost an equal percentage of blood. There appears to be some staining under her head where organs were piled, even her chemise is only bloody where it is contacting the wounds. It's cotton. The capillary action of cotton means that the whole thing should have been soaked through. So I don't even know that he didn't strip her and the bed, and the redress them both before he left. I admit it would be insane to have done so, but I can't rule it out. But if he did do it, that totally screws up conclusions based on blood staining.

While we ponder these mysteries, I suggest that next time you picture the event in your head with a lefty, see if it's so impossible with right hand, even if he has to face a different direction or move himself in relation to Kelly's throat.