Left or right handed.

[Michael W Richards]

How does it make more logistical sense than a right-handed killer? If she was more towards the wall, it doesn't really matter. Would it have been easier for Kelly to have stood up and turned her back on the killer and say, "Ok, this should help."? Sure, but it wouldn't have mattered either way for a guy wanting to kill.
Mike

Its only logical if you dont have another pet theory preventing you from reviewing the hypothesis objectively Mike,... you want to believe Jack was there, and you know its almost certain that up until Mary the killer exhibited right hand superiority.

But what Greg acknowledges is a logical argument.....Mary Kelly was lying on her side, on the right hand side of the bed, and facing the partition wall when she is first attacked with the knife. The throat cut must have been first or Mary could have screamed and struggled noticeably. No noise was heard after the cry of "oh-murder" in any event.

The killer needs to access her throat, now vertical by her lying position,.... from behind her, from the left side of the bed. Because, once again, there is no noise that is heard from Marys room or from the courtyard that sounded like a struggle heard by 2 different women listening at the same time,...one within the same house. So he surprised her...from behind.

So....now that we have the proper context to work with....Which hand can be placed around her left shoulder to allow the blade access to her throat?

Best regards

[The Good Michael]

Its only logical if you dont have another pet theory preventing you from reviewing the hypothesis objectively Mike,... you want to believe Jack was there, and you know its almost certain that up until Mary the killer exhibited right hand superiority.

But what Greg acknowledges is a logical argument.....Mary Kelly was lying on her side, on the right hand side of the bed, and facing the partition wall when she is first attacked with the knife. The throat cut must have been first or Mary could have screamed and struggled noticeably. No noise was heard after the cry of "oh-murder" in any event.

The killer needs to access her throat, now vertical by her lying position,.... from behind her, from the left side of the bed. Because, once again, there is no noise that is heard from Marys room or from the courtyard that sounded like a struggle heard by 2 different women listening at the same time,...one within the same house. So he surprised her...from behind.

So....now that we have the proper context to work with....Which hand can be placed around her left shoulder to allow the blade access to her throat?

I have no problem with the idea of her lying down and being surprised. None. I do have the problem of someone attempting to make this be a left-handed person. If the killer were right-handed, and Kelly was lying on her right side facing the wall, he couldn't have killed her in a way that she would have been able to die on her right side with the blood hitting the wall? This is what you are suggesting and it is utter madness. It doesn't matter if the killer was left, right, or ambidextrous.

If Kelly did indeed whimper, "oh murder," it could have been the last thing she said before she was choked out. It could have been the last think she said before her throat was cut...it doesn't matter. There is no way of saying which hand was used for anything, and there's no emphasis either way except for what a deluded mind might want to project.

Mike

[Nic1950]

Hi all

Just a quick question that I have thought about previously but never really questioned. Apparently a sound of "oh murder" was heard that night, first question is ....
1. Is that something that a person would say before being murdered or would a scream suffice?
2. As vocabulary changes over decades, again, would "oh murder" be a common phrase, so to speak!!! Excluding people who haven't been murdered!?!
Would like some opinions on this as the witness statement could be questioned.
Thanks
Nic

[The Good Michael]

Nic,
witnesses suggest that the term was commonplace. It doesn't really sound like something someone who was being murdered would say. I would suggest a loud, "Aaaaaghhh!" would be more noticeable and understood than a melodramatic phrase.

Mike

[RivkahChaya]

Its only logical if you dont have another pet theory preventing you from reviewing the hypothesis objectively Mike,... you want to believe Jack was there, and you know its almost certain that up until Mary the killer exhibited right hand superiority.

This is true, however....

But what Greg acknowledges is a logical argument.....Mary Kelly was lying on her side, on the right hand side of the bed, and facing the partition wall when she is first attacked with the knife.

Do we know for certain she was attacked while she was lying down? If she was sitting up on the bed, with the killer sitting behind her, he could have attacked her with either hand, then laid her down.

Just a quick question that I have thought about previously but never really questioned. Apparently a sound of "oh murder" was heard that night, first question is ....
1. Is that something that a person would say before being murdered or would a scream suffice?

I think it's an idiotic thing to expect a person being attacked to say. People beg for their lives, they don't acquiesce to what is happening-- unless we want to construct a scenario where MJK thought she was involved in some kind of S/M role-play, only the customer wasn't playing.

It also strikes me as an odd thing for a person who has discovered a body to say, especially since in this theoretical scenario, the person does not generally sound an alarm, but just cries "Oh, murder!" then goes away.

2. As vocabulary changes over decades, again, would "oh murder" be a common phrase, so to speak!!!

According to posters on other threads, it was the Victorian equivalent of "Oh, balls," or judging by the BBC, "Bloody hell."

On another thread, someone suggested that perhaps MJK was "done" for the night, and ready to go to bed, or already in bed, when either a regular she couldn't refuse, or someone who had already given her money earlier in the day knocked on the door, and she said "Oh, murder!" in response to essentially finding out that she was working mandatory overtime. That makes the most sense of any other idea I've ever heard; certainly more than saying it just before being murdered, or upon finding a body wholly unexpectedly, ironic as it may seem at first blush.

The only other thing that makes sense to me, is that Prater heard something, it could have been "Oh, my Lord!" or "My word," or a lot of similar things, and had nothing to do with Mary Kelly, and she didn't think much of it at the time, but after she found out there had been a murder, it turned into "Oh, murder!" in her memory.

Now, once I learned that "Oh, murder," was an expression of exasperation in the 1880s, I thought it might be possible that Prater actually did hear someone say that, but again, it had nothing to do with Mary Kelly.

If "Oh, murder," were an unusual thing to say, so that one ought to understand it literally, then Prater was remarkably unalarmed when she actually heard it; she does not attach any sinister meaning to it until she learns there has been a murder (at least, so I suspect-- it's possible police questioned her before she knew Kelly was dead, but I doubt it).

[Nic1950]

Hi

Thanks for speedy response! My initial thought was Prater had heard something but not "oh murder" which it subsequently turned into once the public had learned JTR had struck again. And if that is correct then the Prater statement could possibly not have any bearing on the Kelly case.
Thanks
Nic

[RivkahChaya]

Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist (Ph.D) who has been researching memory for more than 25 years has done a lot of work on the effects of new knowledge on old memories. People constantly reinterpret their memories.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi

Thanks for speedy response! My initial thought was Prater had heard something but not "oh murder" which it subsequently turned into once the public had learned JTR had struck again. And if that is correct then the Prater statement could possibly not have any bearing on the Kelly case.
Thanks
Nic

There are still reasons for consideration of Ms Praters comments Nic, the time and source of the call, her ascent to bed, ...a few key points.

I am in no way attempting to make this killer left handed Mike. What are you imagining now, that I have a left handed suspect to announce? The evidence suggests,.... physical evidence, that Mary Kelly was killed while she was on the right hand side of the bed. Now, If she was lying face up in that location, or if she lay on her right side facing the wall...which the splashes on the wall seem to indicate,... it makes no real difference to the point being made. If she was face up it makes a "surprise attack" less likely, thats all. Since however its probable that this was such an attack, judging by the physical evidence on Marys arms and hands, and the splashes that seem to indicate Mary was on her right side facing the wall, ...the choice between the 2 likelihoods becomes easier.

In that position, the killer is behind Mary, either partially standing or on the bed behind her when he attacks. Which hand cuts the throat?

If you use the available data you would have to see that a right handed man could not easily or gracefully cut Marys throat while she was on her right side, facing away.

Thats the argument Mike....how about addressing that contention specifically when rebutting?

Cheers

[curious4]

Oh murder!

Hi all

Just a quick question that I have thought about previously but never really questioned. Apparently a sound of "oh murder" was heard that night, first question is ....
1. Is that something that a person would say before being murdered or would a scream suffice?
2. As vocabulary changes over decades, again, would "oh murder" be a common phrase, so to speak!!! Excluding people who haven't been murdered!?!
Would like some opinions on this as the witness statement could be questioned.
Thanks
Nic

Hello Nic,

I think that "Oh murder" could well have been an expression/call for help at the time, in the way that "stop, thief" was also used. Don't forget it was heard by two people, who both ignored it "because such cries were often heard."

Best wishes,
C4

[Jon Guy]

Hi Michael W Richards

Just as the killer of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes (and possibly Stride) was situated at the victims right shoulder when he commenced the throat cut, Kelly`s killer was on the opposite side.

The right handed killer was situated by Kelly`s left shoulder when he commenced the cut to the throat.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael W Richards

Just as the killer of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes (and possibly Stride) was situated at the victims right shoulder when he commenced the throat cut, Kelly`s killer was on the opposite side.

The right handed killer was situated by Kelly`s left shoulder when he commenced the cut to the throat.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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