Left or right handed.

[curious4]

Lefties

Just noticed this has already been dealt with. Just ignore me!
C4

[curious4]

Lefties

Hallo again,

Although to be fair, naturally, among the poorest of the poor I think no-one would have bothered, unless they had had some schooling.

Best wishes,
C4

[curious4]

Left-handed

Perhaps your wording here is what's confusing to me. If you mean to say that the situation in Kelly's room would have been slightly easier for a lefty to deal with, I'd agree. To say the circumstances favored a left-handed killer implies to me that it is more likely the killer was left-handed than right. If this is not what you're saying, then I've misunderstood.

Mike

Hello,

As being left-handed was frowned upon for superstitious reasons, I don't think anyone would have been exclusively left-handed. A left-handed child would have been forced at an early age to use its right hand by having its left hand tied behind it. This practise was still going on up until at least the 1920s, when my mother was a child. She always used her right hand, in spite of being born left-handed. Fortunately the next generation's lefties (and there are several) were spared this.

Best wishes,
C4

[The Good Michael]

To Mike, based on the crime scene, the position of the deceased when attacked, the available space that he could have reasonably located himself in to do the mutilations, and the most compelling fact that Mary was almost certainly on her right side and facing the wall when she was attacked, what Im suggesting is that the evidence, the actual physical set-up and resulting mess made by the killer indicates, or favors, a theory that the killer was left handed.

To do what was done in that room would have been awkward for a right handed man. Particularly when cutting the throat of a woman close to the wall and with her back to him. Does that mean it must have been a left handed man? No, it just means the crime scene does not reflect the positioning concerns or probable mechanics issues a right handed killer would have encountered.

If he was right handed, why wouldnt he have moved the bed from the wall and worked from the right hand side? If he was right handed, how exactly did he cut the stomach flaps and place them behind himself, to his right? If he cuts with the right hand, then he likely puts the knife down to grab the excised materials with both hands then pivots around to place the materials behind him to his right. Problem is is that there is no record of any knife smears or impressions on the sheets or Marys chemise.

Your interpretations of the various components of the crime are logical, but many other interpretations are valid as well. Whatever the exact details of the scene were don't really matter. There are many feasible ways a right-handed man or a lefty could have done the same stuff in the same conditions. There was body movement in the room to be sure; the bed was probably moved/turned a bit as it wasn't flush to the wall; it would be simple enough to cut away flesh, put the knife down and transfer it to a table to the right with ones right hand. All right-handed people would do it that way (though I'm disgusted thinking about it) if they were faced with the situation. After all, the table was on the right and placing things with the same hand that you are comfortable with would be normal procedure. The absolute point of this is that if people are left-handed at a rate of 1 lefty to 9 righties, then the killer would have had a 1 in 9 chance of being left-handed. The crime scene conditions don't dictate handedness. Opportunity dictated the murder and handedness comes before the fact.


Mike

[RivkahChaya]

Thankyou Jon, yes it would have been interesting to read how he explains his reasoning. As you know, the idea of strangulation is long standing and was first seriously proposed by both Francis Camps, then by James Cameron, both Pathologists.

I first read the strangled til they passed out --> laid down but still alive --> throats cut, maybe 15 years ago, as an explanation for the killer not having blood-soaked clothes. A doctor, or slaughterman wouldn't attract attention if he had spatter, blood on his cuffs, or blood transfer (when you brush up against something with blood on it), but blood-soaked would still attract attention, supposedly, especially after the Nichols murder, when people were sort of on high-alert for a fiend in the area.

I remember after September 11 (the Twin Towers attack in Manhattan); there had always been people prejudiced against Arabs, and suspicious of Muslims, but they weren't afraid to get behind them in line at the store, especially if it was the end of a long day, and they were at the end of the shortest line. New York is full of all kinds of people, and no matter what your biases or suspicions, you have to go out of your way, if there is a group you want to avoid. After 9/11, though, people went out of their way to avoid anyone Arab-looking, including people who weren't even Arab (like people from India-- yeah, some people are that dumb).

Anyway, I wonder if there weren't a few months that Whitechapel wasn't like that-- as ubiquitous as people with blood on their clothes may have been, people still might have been on high-alert.

With that in mind, does anyone else think it's possible that JTR changed his MO to avoid getting blood on his clothes, or at least avoid the appearance of it, by wearing a black overcoat, or something?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

Many thanks for the links to those interesting articles, especially Part II (44).
It would have been interesting to read why he questions the common belief that the victims throats were cut whilst they were on the ground.
Personally, I thought the pooling of blood by the neck suggested this. Mind you, he also argues that Kelly was a copycat killing.

Sorry, can`t help with any info on him, but there may be a bio with the articles in The Rip.

Thankyou Jon, yes it would have been interesting to read how he explains his reasoning. As you know, the idea of strangulation is long standing and was first seriously proposed by both Francis Camps, then by James Cameron, both Pathologists. And as we know, the fact the throats were cut while they were laid out was a contemporary view.

I think Mr Magellan had his work cut out for him, unless he was also a Pathologist, Physician, or Surgeon I would doubt his interpretation would gather any favour with the more knowledgeable students of the case.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon

Many thanks for the links to those interesting articles, especially Part II (44).
It would have been interesting to read why he questions the common belief that the victims throats were cut whilst they were on the ground.
Personally, I thought the pooling of blood by the neck suggested this. Mind you, he also argues that Kelly was a copycat killing.

Sorry, can`t help with any info on him, but there may be a bio with the articles in The Rip.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

The reason I said "very possible" is because its not definitely proven, and your last post seems to suggest someone else questions the "fact" that they were lying down when the throat was cut. As to the choking part, both Polly and Annie had signs that they were choked, a protruding tongue among them. And only choking explains how someone could get another person to willingly lay down without struggle or noise.

I wont get into all the areas that you seem to disagree with me based on your post #47, but there is medical opinion that her throat cut, and artery severance, splashed the partition wall, and that can be easily understood if one imagines a sleeping person woken by the pressure on her throat and turning to face the threat...flailing her arms. By the way, theres your defensive wounds. I would imagine the slashing of her face, still partially covered by the sheet she had to her chin while sleeping on her side, began then. On what people heard....2 witnesses heard a cry out, neither heard anything more though they both listened for it. One person was in the same house. So, no, the cry of "oh-murder" is relevant to the investigation but not indicative of a starting moment of any knife attack.

To Mike, based on the crime scene, the position of the deceased when attacked, the available space that he could have reasonably located himself in to do the mutilations, and the most compelling fact that Mary was almost certainly on her right side and facing the wall when she was attacked, what Im suggesting is that the evidence, the actual physical set-up and resulting mess made by the killer indicates, or favors, a theory that the killer was left handed.

To do what was done in that room would have been awkward for a right handed man. Particularly when cutting the throat of a woman close to the wall and with her back to him. Does that mean it must have been a left handed man? No, it just means the crime scene does not reflect the positioning concerns or probable mechanics issues a right handed killer would have encountered.

If he was right handed, why wouldnt he have moved the bed from the wall and worked from the right hand side? If he was right handed, how exactly did he cut the stomach flaps and place them behind himself, to his right? If he cuts with the right hand, then he likely puts the knife down to grab the excised materials with both hands then pivots around to place the materials behind him to his right. Problem is is that there is no record of any knife smears or impressions on the sheets or Marys chemise.

Using his left hand to cut, standing on the left side of the bed in front and to the left of the night table, he cuts the materials free, and while still holding the knife, now at an angle, ...he uses the pad of his left hand to support the materials he has grabbed with his right hand and by twisting at the waist, deposits them behind him.

He doesnt need to change his foot position everytime he cuts and places, and he can easily work from the left side of the bed.

Thats why I say a lefty here. Based on what was done, starting with that throat cut.

Best regards

[Wickerman]

It`s only very possible that their throats were cut while they were on the ground?
Michael, I have news for you, their throats were cut whilst they were on the ground.

Hi Jon/Mike.

On that note, I wondered if either of you had read the two dissertations by Karyo Magellan.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-victorian-autopsy.html

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-victorian-autopsy-2.html

In the final sentence of the Autopsy-2, Magellan writes:

Given the considerable amount of medical evidence that we are fortunate enough to have available, I am puzzled that there is continued popular support for the suggestion that Jack the Ripper, as part of his killing routine, partially throttled his victims before wounding them and that the initial neck wound was inflicted with the victim on the ground. I hope to visit these aspects of Ripper folklore at a later date.

Does anyone know who this Karyo Magellan was, professional credentials?
I know he wrote one Ripper book, but I cannot find his biography anywhere.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jon Guy]

Nichols and Chapman were both likely choked, and its very possible that their throats were cut while they were on the ground.

It`s only very possible that their throats were cut while they were on the ground?
Michael, I have news for you, their throats were cut whilst they were on the ground.

Strides scarf was grabbed and twisted and she may have been cut while falling.

Yes, that`s why I wrote possibly Stride.

In the first 2 cases there are a few variants available with respect to the position taken by the killer when he makes the cuts, so its much more difficult to recreate the physical requirements without knowing the actual parameters.

What ?!?! :-)

What I can see by your last line above is that you have not reconstructed the crime scene accurately to the moment when the first throat cut occurs.

Well, I haven`t created the lurid scenarios you enjoy writing about, if that`s what you mean.

We know the splashes on the wall indicate the artery was cut while Mary faced the wall,

Wrong, the right carotid artery is on the right side of the throat so if she was facing the wall when the artery was cut the arterial spray would be on the wall behind the head board.

we also know she was on the right hand side of the bed when that happened

Correct, and judging by the arterial spray pattern on the wall she was lying on her back.

[QUOTE]We must consider that the attack woke no-one, since no-one reported hearing any such thing...[QUOTE]

Ermm .. I thought a couple of people did report hear something.

No doubt, since it appears the poor woman has moved over to the right side of the bed to accommodate her late arrival.

Bit of artistic licence here Michael, no proof of this.

She is therefore, on her right side, facing the wall

Hey? How do you know she`s facing the wall?

there is no room for anyone on the right side of the bed between it and the wall, and it is too far to reach Marys neck from the foot of the bed. So...he is on, or semi on the bed, behind Mary.

Somewhere near her left shoulder, yes, maybe even sitting on her midriff.

How the hell does he get his right hand knife to her throat from that position....without slipping his right arm under her pillow?

Errr .. he just leaned over and inserted the knife on the right side of the neck?!?!? Not quite as symbolic or cinematic as your right arm under the pillow scenario.

I am surprised and genuinely confused why this seems unclear to you and others. .

I can see why it surprises and confuses you. It`s all these lurid, unsubstantiated scenarios you have going on in 13 Millers Court.

Clearly.....clearly....the situation favors a left handed killer there.

As I`ve just shown, clearly ... clearly not.

[RivkahChaya]

Yeah-- can you picture a left-handed guy with a knife knocking on women's doors, looking for a room-&-bed set-up that seemed appropriate for his handedness? If Mary Kelly had just slept with her head at the other end of the bed, she might have lived to a ripe old age.

[The Good Michael]

Your condemnation of absolutes doesnt seem to apply to your own assertions Mike, and If you find it insulting to have to be told Im amazed at how difficult this seems to be for some, it would seem that you include yourself in that group. So to explain....

A killer and mutilator would take whats available....yeah, and who said anything different? What I said was that what was done and how it was done favors a left handed killer....not that a left handed man was looking for just the right scenario to work comfortably in. Or whatever youre insinuating.

I dont require that you see the logic Mike, I just needed it to be where logical people could read it and decide for themselves.

Perhaps your wording here is what's confusing to me. If you mean to say that the situation in Kelly's room would have been slightly easier for a lefty to deal with, I'd agree. To say the circumstances favored a left-handed killer implies to me that it is more likely the killer was left-handed than right. If this is not what you're saying, then I've misunderstood.

Mike

[curious4]

Nichols and Chapman were both likely choked, and its very possible that their throats were cut while they were on the ground. Strides scarf was grabbed and twisted and she may have been cut while falling. In the first 2 cases there are a few variants available with respect to the position taken by the killer when he makes the cuts, so its much more difficult to recreate the physical requirements without knowing the actual parameters.

What I can see by your last line above is that you have not reconstructed the crime scene accurately to the moment when the first throat cut occurs. We know the splashes on the wall indicate the artery was cut while Mary faced the wall, we also know she was on the right hand side of the bed when that happened and later, moved to the middle by her killer.

We must consider that the attack woke no-one, since no-one reported hearing any such thing...so it was quick and unexpected. No doubt, since it appears the poor woman has moved over to the right side of the bed to accommodate her late arrival.

She is therefore, on her right side, facing the wall, at the right hand side of the bed...there is no room for anyone on the right side of the bed between it and the wall, and it is too far to reach Marys neck from the foot of the bed. So...he is on, or semi on the bed, behind Mary. How the hell does he get his right hand knife to her throat from that position....without slipping his right arm under her pillow?

Then add the mutilations, extractions and placements, working from the left side of the bed and Mary, to placement behind him to his right, on the night table.

I am surprised and genuinely confused why this seems unclear to you and others. Clearly.....clearly....the situation favors a left handed killer there.

Best regards

There were defence wounds to Mary's hands and it is considered likely that she had the sheet pulled up over her face when attacked. This may seem an odd thing to do, but in the press reports there is an account of a vicar losing the plot/having a breakdown and threatening the household with a gun. When he entered the maid's bedroom and pointed the gun at her, she did just that - pulled the sheet up over her face. Not a logical thing to do perhaps but in fear and panic trying to block out the sight of the man who was threatening her.

Best wishes,
C4

[Michael W Richards]

This is absolutely wrong. If the killer were left-handed, and if he was cuddling with Kelly while he cut her throat, it would have been preferable for him to have been left handed. He wouldn't have had to make any adjustments. Cut with the left, put organs over to his right with his right hand...etc..., but it doesn't favor the killer being a lefty. A killer and mutilator would make do with what conditions were available. This is where the argument fails and where it is insulting to say that we don't understand what you are talking about. We do understand, but it's evidence of nothing.

Mike

Your condemnation of absolutes doesnt seem to apply to your own assertions Mike, and If you find it insulting to have to be told Im amazed at how difficult this seems to be for some, it would seem that you include yourself in that group. So to explain....

A killer and mutilator would take whats available....yeah, and who said anything different? What I said was that what was done and how it was done favors a left handed killer....not that a left handed man was looking for just the right scenario to work comfortably in. Or whatever youre insinuating.

I dont require that you see the logic Mike, I just needed it to be where logical people could read it and decide for themselves.

Best regards

[The Good Michael]

She is therefore, on her right side, facing the wall, at the right hand side of the bed...there is no room for anyone on the right side of the bed between it and the wall, and it is too far to reach Marys neck from the foot of the bed. So...he is on, or semi on the bed, behind Mary. How the hell does he get his right hand knife to her throat from that position....without slipping his right arm under her pillow?

Then add the mutilations, extractions and placements, working from the left side of the bed and Mary, to placement behind him to his right, on the night table.

I am surprised and genuinely confused why this seems unclear to you and others. Clearly.....clearly....the situation favors a left handed killer there.

This is absolutely wrong. If the killer were left-handed, and if he was cuddling with Kelly while he cut her throat, it would have been preferable for him to have been left handed. He wouldn't have had to make any adjustments. Cut with the left, put organs over to his right with his right hand...etc..., but it doesn't favor the killer being a lefty. A killer and mutilator would make do with what conditions were available. This is where the argument fails and where it is insulting to say that we don't understand what you are talking about. We do understand, but it's evidence of nothing.

Mike