Left or right handed.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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]

Lefties

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

[GregBaron]

South paw logistics...

I think what Michael W. Richards is suggesting is simply that the conditions of the room more easily reflect a left handed perpetrator. Period. Can anyone say the killer was left handed, No. It appears the execution would be more cumbersome for a right hander. But this isn’t an engineering project and we’re obviously not dealing with a sane man. Perhaps he stripped naked and danced around the bed in all kinds of contorted positions as he went about his work, we simply don’t know…

If Mary was on her back, it would probably be easiest for a right hander to mount her and grab her head with his left while slashing with the right. I think this would get more blood on his person though and would leave more blood on the bed rather than pooling beneath. It does seem more likely that she was in the fetal position facing the wall when the perp pulled her slightly toward himself, maybe she briefly awoke and instinctively pulled the sheet over her face, and then the cut was made. This would be awkward for a right hander standing or kneeling above her left shoulder. Again, just speculation based on the conditions of the scene.

The only reason I think this discussion is of interest is because the killer(s) of Cs 1-4 was/were almost certainly right handed.

As I said before, I’d like to know in which hand Blotchy carried his beer……..?

Greg

[The Good Michael]

I think what Michael W. Richards is suggesting is simply that the conditions of the room more easily reflect a left handed perpetrator.

No, what was said was that the killer was more likely left-handed because the conditions and situation of the victim as she was killed would have been difficult for a right-handed man. The fact is the handedness doesn't enter into what opportunity was presented. Therefore, the killer had the same chance as anyone else in society of being left-handed, period.

Mike

[Wickerman]

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?

I honestly do not think it would be necessary to wear a top coat to hide blood stains. The way we interpret the method of kill, and the direction of cuts, assuming we read this right, it seems to me the killer in a worst case might get blood on his cuffs, but nothing more than that.

With the Kelly murder, he could have rolled his sleeves up, but so long as there was no splashing of blood any spots he got on his clothes would be minimal. Out on the street at night no-one would detect small blood stains on dark clothing.

[Errata]

There is a third, and technically more accurate answer than right or left.

The truth is, very little in any of these six murders indicates handedness which we interpret to mean the hand that someone writes with. A person who writes with their right hand is termed right handed, even if they do nothing else with this hand. Nor is hand dominance really an issue. The hand you use the most is the hand you use the most. The only way hand dominance comes into play is that it is the hand you protect. If someone throws their hands up to ward off a blow, typically arm crossed in front of the face, the hand on the bottom is the dominant hand. It's the one you reflexively don't want injured. It doesn't indicate a weakness in the other hand. And hand dominance is linked to eye dominance.

I'm right handed, left hand dominant, left eye dominant. So, if I did these killings what would that mean? Well, not a lot. If I came up behind someone and cut their throat, I would hold the knife in my left hand. I could just as successfully do it holding the knife in my right hand, I would just choose my left. Making the abdominal cuts, I would primarily use my right hand. Cutting out a uterus I would use my right hand, facial mutilations is a toss up, but I'd probably go with my right. Cutting an apron piece off would be my left hand.

Why would I switch up? Most people do. They just don't think about it. Barring true ambidexterity, people generally have a strength hand and a fine hand. And then they have the eye dominance. Things like batting, swinging, etc. don't have to do with hand dominance. It has to do with eye dominance. I see much better out of my left eye. So I bat righty. Muscle memory dictates that at this point in my life, batting lefty would not go well, but there is nothing inherent saying I can't do it. Fine skills like writing, crochet, tracery, carving I do with my right hand. It's my control hand. I hammer with my left, bang on doors with my left, and typically steer with my left, because it's my stronger hand.

In this case everything is determined by circumstance. Some things require certain motions in order to be effective. If those motions are not included with the hand that you would ordinarily use, you switch hands pretty unconsciously. For example. Cutting someone's throat, whether from the front or the back requires you to draw the knife cross body. So if you are facing someone, you use the hand that is on the other side of your body, put the knife across your body, and then draw towards you, pulling that hand back to it's own side of the body. If that makes sense. If Mary Kelly's killer was facing her on her left side, even if he was left handed, he used his right hand to accommodate that drawing motion. That motion is what is required for that to be successful. Not whether or not the knife is in the dominant hand. So that's actually a terrible cut to try and decide handedness.

Not that it matters, because if it was a smallish knife that was tough to use, a dull knife, or a knife with a large handle he would have used both hands. Which blows directionality completely. And not that it matters, because most knives are right hand knives. It's a subtle difference, but a lefty using a righty knife has the blade sharpened on the wrong side, and the handle is shaped backward. And some lefties I know use their right hand for a knife because they can't settle it properly in their left. And not that it matters, because he could be right handed but used used his left because his right arm was weaker. And it doesn't matter because most people would have shifted the hand they used so many times during the course of a murder like this that there is probably evidence enough to point to either hand equally.

And not that it matters, because there is no way you can use a knife bigger than a scalpel in a way that indicates with which hand you write, so if they were hoping to see some guy signing a document and have a big Perry Mason moment, they were going to be sorely disappointed. All they can hope to determine is what hand the killer was holding the knife in.