Left or right handed.

[Michael W Richards]

I wasnt sure of the intention originally Scott, but thanks for the follow up.

As for the "pull out" debate, I agree with Scott,...the tub is simply a tin wash tub suitable for washing up clothes or dishes, the fact that it is tucked under the bed, almost out of sight, is likely due to the available space in a 10 x 10 room.

With a pump just outside the room I wonder if Maria made use of that tin tub while she stayed with Mary after Barnett left...presumably she was "taking in laundry" prior to the clothing that we are aware of.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

And the tub under the bed was made to pull out, not for lower frame support.

In what way was it "made to pull out", and how is this apparent?


Its important details like this that keep membership on the edge of their seats...

[Scott Nelson]

Which side did Barnett have? And the tub under the bed was made to pull out, not for lower frame support.

It's important aspects like these that define the penultimate moments in Ripperology.

[Wickerman]

I don't know about that. Did you look at the bed frame? Hardly sturdy enough to support two people.

I think we are required to assume Barnett & Kelly laid together at some point?

Who knows, perhaps the tub under the bed was not only for bathing, but also to add extra support?

[Scott Nelson]

It was a joke Michael, at the expense of the flimsey Victorian bed frames that were made.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't know about that. Did you look at the bed frame? Hardly sturdy enough to support two people. And then there's Michael suggesting an accompliace assisting with the mutilations. Three people on the bed at the same time? Surely it would have collapsed!

Surely my suggestion wasnt that accomplices were in on the action Scott. I suggested that the evidence in this case points towards a man with who used his left hand with the knife which is contrary to earlier Canonical physical evidence. The suggestion was of course that someone other than the right handed man killed Mary, and that the Pardon may have been impacted by that evidence. Something like more than one man involved in the murders, but not necessarily in the cutting.

I dont know what the statistics were for percentage of ambidextrous people in 1888 in London Rivkah, I rather doubt that they were investigated back then. I do know that the figure of 1% is accurate based on statistics gathered in more modern times, but I would assume that the size of the population wouldnt affect that number much...its based on the number within any given population.

The issue this addresses is perhaps why the killer didnt move the bed from the partition wall, why we see intestines on the night table instead of over the right shoulder, why Marys body is slightly inclined towards her left.

Cheers

[Scott Nelson]

I'm allowing for the possibility, however briefly, that the killer was on the bed with her some of the time.

I don't know about that. Did you look at the bed frame? Hardly sturdy enough to support two people. And then there's Michael suggesting an accompliace assisting with the mutilations. Three people on the bed at the same time? Surely it would have collapsed!

[RivkahChaya]

1% is the modern figure. Is it possible it was higher? We have a lot of left-handers in our family, and my grandfather, who was born in 1905, was made to switch, but while he learned to write right-handed, he could also still do so left-handed-- he could do parlor tricks where he wrote his first name with his left hand, and his last name with his right hand at the same time. He signed his name that way for fun, sometimes. He could switch-hit in baseball, and change hands when carving a turkey.

Now, I realize that in the 1880s, not everyone went to school, but the "switch hitter" population may have been higher then. If it was 5 or 6%, that makes a big difference.

[Michael W Richards]

What good does it to firmly establish that hand the killer held the knife in? I don't believe we know the handedness of any serious suspect, and not of most of the non-serious ones (exceptions are probably Sickert and Prince Eddy), becauser at any rate, knowing the writing hand doesn't mean knowing the knife hand, as most children were made to write right-handed then, regardless of their naturally dominant hand back then.

What it would establish is a material difference in the physical evidence left at the crime scene from the prior Canonicals, the difference being the probable "handedness" of the killer. There seems to be no dispute that the early victims were likely victims of a man using his right hand with the knife. Since 1% of any given population is what can be termed ambidextrous, it would suggest that the man that killed Mary isnt the same man who held the knife at those earlier scenes.

Maybe thats why the Police finally offered the Pardon for Accomplices,... maybe they wondered if 2 men or more were to blame for these crimes based upon the primary hand evidence in the Kelly murder.

Cheers

[RivkahChaya]

What good does it to firmly establish that hand the killer held the knife in? I don't believe we know the handedness of any serious suspect, and not of most of the non-serious ones (exceptions are probably Sickert and Prince Eddy), becauser at any rate, knowing the writing hand doesn't mean knowing the knife hand, as most children were made to write right-handed then, regardless of their naturally dominant hand back then.

[Wickerman]

... Thats why I see a left handed man here, when placed side by side with the evidence that Mary was most probably attacked from behind, while on her side, while facing the partition wall. A left handed man would have greater reach to the throat area in that scenario.

I'm none committal one way or the other concerning evidence which might suggest the killer was right or left handed. However, for him to stand beside the table where you suggest (and I agree), then to reach under the ribcage into the Pericardium to extract the heart from that standing position is decidedly a left-handed action.

As to the cutting of her throat "all around down to the bone". I find it difficult to envisage him doing this from her left side and standing regardless whether he was left or right handed.
I'm sure this was done from behind before he lays her down on her back, so I'm allowing for the possibility, however briefly, that the killer was on the bed with her some of the time.

[Michael W Richards]

There is also the evidence on the night table to consider when assessing the "handedness" of Marys killer. If he stood between the bed which Mary was on, having moved her onto her back and to the middle of the bed, and the night table, then he would have to turn to his left rear, or to his right rear to make the deposits on the table. If he pivots to his left, he is facing the fireplace..at least from the waist up. If he pivots to his right, then the night table would almost be in view peripherally. There is no evidence that he was on the bed, or working between Marys legs, so he stood on one side of the bed, and there was no room for that on the side of the bed closest to the partition wall. Thats why I suggest a position that is in keeping with the known evidence.

Based on that movement requirement, I could easily see a man working with his left hand, cutting materials free, and with the base of his right thumb bracing what he removes, he can life the material out without letting go of the knife, and deposit the extracted materials on the table with a simple pivot right and slight turn. The shortest distance of the 2 choices, to the night table, would be to his rear right.

Re-enacting this motion with him turning to his rear left, he has to in effect pivot and turn completely around to place the materials there. In my suggested scenario with a right handed cutter, he would need to bring the materials held closer to his body while turning as a result of the position of his right arm in relation to the target area. A little more awkward to accomplish, and likely messier.

I think those actions suggest that the man who would choose the most convenient spot from which to do his cutting would also select a position that allows him to access the table behind him without much fuss. Thats why I see a left handed man here, when placed side by side with the evidence that Mary was most probably attacked from behind, while on her side, while facing the partition wall. A left handed man would have greater reach to the throat area in that scenario.

Cheers

[RivkahChaya]

While I agree that rear, rather than front approach, is more likely, I think it's very hard to make judgments about people's handedness based on any behavior other than actual writing.

I saw a TV show where someone was supposedly proved to be right-handed, because he kept his cell phone in his right pocket-- but I'm right-handed, and I keep my cell in my left pocket, because my left ear is a little better than my right, and because I like having my right hand free. Also because I drive a stick shift car in the US (I pull over or tell people to call me back if it's more than a quick question, and don't chat on the phone while driving, but I do answer it if the ringtone is my husband, my mother, or my son's school).

Also, my left eye is better than my right eye, so I fire a gun left-handed. It's not uncommon to fire cross-handed-- about 10% of my basic training platoon did.

So I question the usefulness of the left-right debate, especially since I'm not sure we know the handedness (for writing) of any suspect.

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

He could of used his right hand by having the knife in reverse grip,this is blade down thumb at the pommel end ,he could reach round with the knife the point touching the right side of her neck and press her body down by the left knee on the mid section left hand gripping arm or shoulder main thing is control of the neck so she cannot get away from the blade then all that is needed is for the knife hand to be raked towards himself it may seem an odd grip but a raking cut is strong.

[Errata]

There is every reason to suppose its true Jon,... the man had the qualifications to make that statement for one, and secondly, there is no indication on that bed that Mary Kelly was moved anywhere but into the middle of the bed after the throat cuts. There would have been some evidence had she been face down then turned over...there wasnt.

I know you fancy your idea a new spin on the Kelly murder, but when you follow the experts you will see that the most probable position for Mary Kelly to have had her right artery cut first then splash the wall is with Mary facing that wall, and a left handed man reaching his knife around under her chin from behind.

Killing her from behind is almost a certainty, killing her while riding her back like a horse isnt.

Cheers Jon

Actually if she was facing the wall there would have been no arterial spurt on the wall since the carotid is on the side of the neck. Basically if we assume that the wall splashing is from the carotid, then we know she did have to be in two different positions. Maybe only slightly different, but different. First of all carotid arterial blood spits out maybe two feet tops. It is certainly possible to sever a carotid through the front, but blood takes the path of least resistance. If it is forced to go out the front, it doesn't come out at force. So it pretty much had to come from the side, probably from right behind the jaw joint. But the spray is higher than one would expect from a fully reclined position, and the angle at which she is found appears to put the wound at the correct height, but way too far away. But closer to the wall at that angle, which would explain the spray does not explain only a corner of the bed getting soaked through. So she had to have been shifted either on her side or front to bleed out on the corner of the mattress. Because the spray is too far from the corner to have come from her actually being in that corner. If that makes sense.