Left or right handed.

[RivkahChaya]

Right, which is why it's more sociological than biological. There are almost no left handed Saudis, obviously. But switching handedness early for Israelis is really a more compelling argument. Same genes as the rest of us, it's the language that gives them a high percentage of left handedness. In that case the majority does not rule. The minority does because the language supports the minority.

Actually, I think among Jews, the gene is not as common, and that is true in Israel and in the US.

The gene probably originated in Europe, but Jews in Europe were deliberately isolated. I have no idea what the prevalence of the gene is in Africa, but US blacks nearly always have white ancestors, and at any rate, half the population without the gene is left-handed in the US (it has just occurred to me that all the studies I've read are from the US and post-1970s). People without the gene may be more often left-handed-- say 75%-- in Israel, and more often right-handed other places.

As far as people with the gene, all things being equal, those people will be right-handed, but brain trauma to the left hemisphere often produces lefties who write with the "hook," as opposed to lefties whose pencil grip mirrors righties. A damaged right hand from or near birth, on the other hand, with no brain damage, usually produces a left-hander with "normal" writing style (one that mirrors right-handers), and better penmanship than the "hook" writers.

It's very interesting.

Also, statistics: you can illustrate a point by explaining to people why identical twins are more likely to come in a left/right set, than a left/left set.

[Errata]

If Kelly was lying on her side, on the right hand side of the bed, with her head up near the bed post...which the evidence seems to indicate was the initial position that she was attacked in....it allows for her to have been asleep or dozing, or awake, but not for a right hand to get at her throat to begin his cutting. He would have to slide his arm under her neck, or use the knife with the point facing away from him and the blade facing her throat....Im sure you can visualize the position, its a fairly common position for knife fighting...hand like fist on handle, knife facing the rear.

But try and get leverage with that knife in that position, assuming thats how it was placed across Marys throat. He has to pull inwards before he pulls straight back on the knife,.... unless it was incredibly sharp.

A left hand makes all the difference there, and explains the viscera position on the night table much more satisfactorily.

And that would make "Jack" either ambidextrous, based on the hand used in the earlier Canonical killings, or 2 men or more.

The ambi stats are compelling when sorting out this argument. Almost certainly, not.

Cheers

There is actually a knife method that works for just that position with a right hand, where instead of treating the knife as a knife, it's treated as a sickle blade withe the hand and arm acting as the handle. It's brutal and messy, but highly effective.

But then again, we don't have a lot in the way of blood evidence. There is clearly blood on the walls, but we don't know if it's arterial spurt or cast off. There's just no way to tell. And there are blank spots, so it would appear that the killer blocked some blood from falling in some places we would expect it if say, he was at her side. And we don't have any blood evidence from the wall above the headboard, and there really should be blood there. We assume it's because the information was lost, but it also could be because the killer was blocking that blood spray, which means he was at the headboard but behind her.

We know where she bled out. In the corner of the bed. But the blood spray is further down the partition than it would be if she was up in the corner, so at least she was scooted more towards the footboard when that spray occurred, assuming it's arterial spurt. And it might not be. The severance of the carotid was profound enough that there might have been no spray, and the blood on the wall is cast off or from say, flinging organs about. She could have had her throat cut in the center of the bed and then bled out in the corner. I mean, she couldn't be say, standing at the fireplace and make it to the corner of the bed, but she didn't have to be in the corner when he attacked.

We assume he didn't wake her to cut her, but that's a bad assumption. Not that it doesn't make sense, but it assumes he worried about noise or some such. And we nothing to base that assumption on. There is nothing to say that he would not move her or wake her to get easier access to her neck.

As for ambidextrous, it's not about that. It's about hand dominance. Most people tend to have a strength hand and a detail hand. The detail hand is usually the one they write with, but not always. If this guy is yanking away at organs in the body (which he is, because he didn't cut away all the connective tissue) he using his strength hand. If he's cutting he's using his detail hand, unless the cut requires more strength than skill.

For example. I am right handed. My left is my strength hand. It's also my dominant hand despite naturally writing with my right hand, and thats unusual but not unheard of. If I was cutting open a prostitute (words I never thought I would type) the hand I would use would depend on my position. If I was straddling her or an her head, squared up with her lengthwise, I would use my left hand. Strength hand. If I was at her side, that requires more control and I would use my right.

But simply by having an uncle in the armed services, I picked up some combat knife skills that give me more flexibility than say, my sister, who rolled her eyes at such things. I didn't need to join the army to learn some Ranger tricks. The same could hold true for the killer. Sailors for example used knives differently. Different handles, different blades, different grips, either hand. Sailors are far more familiar with a reversed grip. They are used to switching hands, they are used cutting at odd angles. Say, cutting the rigging while leaning at a ridiculous angle while their dominant hand is busy holding on to something so he doesn't fall. Odd angles require both more strength and more skill. It's odd on a muscular level. It feels weird. When most people write, they turn their paper at an angle and curl in towards the side of the body they aren't writing with. Everybody does it. Writing while sitting up straight and keeping the paper straight is weird and uncomfortable. Its the same with knife cuts. Angles matter. If he is on the edge of the bed reaching over and slightly above him to cut her throat, that's a very odd angle. I would use my left hand. For the initial cut, strength matters more because I have to sever the carotid and cut through the windpipe on the first pass. Otherwise she could scream, or not die quickly... I don't need a straight line. I need a powerful cut. I do. He might have prioritized things differently.

We change out natural tendencies to fit the situation. While I might naturally want to cut with my right hand, if it feels weird I will switch hands. Everybody will. And you don't have to even try it to know it will feel weird. I don't need to try and draw on my right shoulder with my right hand to know it will feel weird. I can, there's no physiological issue keeping me from doing it, it's just doesn't feel right. I'll put the pen in my left hand. Which is why the handedness issue is so difficult. Just because it would be easier for him to use his right hand doesn't mean he will. It may be his dominant hand, but circumstances may make that an uncomfortable position. But equally just because it make more sense for him to use his left hand doesn't mean he will. He may choose control and a weird feeling over less control and a more natural position. It all depends on what felt best to him at the time. And it could have changed for each cut he made.

[Errata]

Actually, there's a gene for right-hand dominance, but no gene for left-hand dominance. You only need one gene to be right-handed, but biology is not destiny, and people born with right hand deformities become perfectly normal left-handers, even with the right-handedness gene. Among people without the gene, about 50% are right-handed, and 50% are left-handed, but it appears to be fixed fairly early, so the current theory is that in utero factors influence handedness in people without the gene.

Right, which is why it's more sociological than biological. There are almost no left handed Saudis, obviously. But switching handedness early for Israelis is really a more compelling argument. Same genes as the rest of us, it's the language that gives them a high percentage of left handedness. In that case the majority does not rule. The minority does because the language supports the minority.

[Michael W Richards]

If Kelly was lying on her side, on the right hand side of the bed, with her head up near the bed post...which the evidence seems to indicate was the initial position that she was attacked in....it allows for her to have been asleep or dozing, or awake, but not for a right hand to get at her throat to begin his cutting. He would have to slide his arm under her neck, or use the knife with the point facing away from him and the blade facing her throat....Im sure you can visualize the position, its a fairly common position for knife fighting...hand like fist on handle, knife facing the rear.

But try and get leverage with that knife in that position, assuming thats how it was placed across Marys throat. He has to pull inwards before he pulls straight back on the knife,.... unless it was incredibly sharp.

A left hand makes all the difference there, and explains the viscera position on the night table much more satisfactorily.

And that would make "Jack" either ambidextrous, based on the hand used in the earlier Canonical killings, or 2 men or more.

The ambi stats are compelling when sorting out this argument. Almost certainly, not.

Cheers

[RivkahChaya]

Also dominance is sociological. British children were typically forced to use their right hands even when they were left handed. Russian and German children were not. Western sports that involve catching usually have people catch with their left hand, Other world sports do not. The people from the Middle East tend to have extreme right dominance due to their views on the left side of the body, where non Muslim Africans tend to have almost no dominance. And of course Israelis are left handed for the same reason we are right handed. The language is written from right to left.

Actually, there's a gene for right-hand dominance, but no gene for left-hand dominance. You only need one gene to be right-handed, but biology is not destiny, and people born with right hand deformities become perfectly normal left-handers, even with the right-handedness gene. Among people without the gene, about 50% are right-handed, and 50% are left-handed, but it appears to be fixed fairly early, so the current theory is that in utero factors influence handedness in people without the gene.

Jews seem to have a higher-than-average number of left-handers, even in countries where the dominant language is written left to right. The number of left-handers among American Jews and Israeli Jews is about the same, and is about 50-75% greater than the gentile population. Among gentiles, about 10% of the population is left-handed, and it is rising. At first, the rise was credited to children no longer being forced to switch, something that fell out of favor in the 1970s, but I saw one study that suggested that premature babies have a higher-than-chance tendency to be left-handed (most are still right handed, however), and premature babies are surviving in larger numbers than ever before.

It's true that writing does not dictate what else one will do with which hand. In my Basic Training platoon, about 1/2 the left-handers fired their rifles right-handed, and about 10% of the right-handers fired left-handed. I was a switch-shooter, and I know it is because my left eye has better vision than my right eye. There was one switch-shooter who could not close her left eye independently, only her right eye.

[Errata]

back to the question... If I look at Kelly's murder, I have little doubt that the murderer was right-handed. The initial throat-cutting was done from left to right as Kelly was facing the wall. She wasn't killed (in my opinion) while she was lying down, but rather had her upper body (at least) raised up while on the left side (as you look at it) of the bed, facing outward.

As far as him cutting with the left and placing meat on the table with his right..no need to go there. He easily could have held her with his left while cutting with his right, and while still holding the knife, placed the chunks/hunks on the table. Or he could have put the knife down before doing that. No hurry here.

The idea that he used his right hand to place, so he must have been left-handed is kind of silly. He used the available table. There wasn't anything on the left of the bed, was there? He used what was there and made do. I suppose he could have dragged the bed out from the wall to place a table there, but that would have been ludicrous.

He was a righty and used what was available and didn't hesitate nor worry about such things.

Mike

But all of that would be the same for a lefty. Including cutting her throat, because this was not precision work, so we don't need a dominant hand to do it.

There really are too many things we don't know to be able to determine this. And handedness only refers to writing. Otherwise the term is dominant (and that's important because while we may know the handedness of a suspect, we don't know the dominance). And most people split hand dominance depending on the task because most people have cross dominance. Right hand dominant, left eye and foot dominant for example. Which is why most people tend to catch with their left hand. Catching something depends more on spacial sense than dominance, and most right handed people have left eye dominance, ergo the left eye is the one they judge space with and the left hand is the one they catch with.

Also dominance is sociological. British children were typically forced to use their right hands even when they were left handed. Russian and German children were not. Western sports that involve catching usually have people catch with their left hand, Other world sports do not. The people from the Middle East tend to have extreme right dominance due to their views on the left side of the body, where non Muslim Africans tend to have almost no dominance. And of course Israelis are left handed for the same reason we are right handed. The language is written from right to left.

But what it really all boils down to is that we don't know where he was when he killed her. We don't really know where she was either. His writing hand may not have been his dominant hand (and that happens to lefties as well), and he may have used his weaker hand anyway if he felt the need to reverse the grip on the knife. But really it all depends on where he was. For example, he could be right hand dominant, but standing and leaning over at a somewhat precarious angle. Because his left foot would be dominant, it would be forward, making him use his right hand to balance on while he cut with his left. If he was kneeling facing her or straddling her, he could whichever hand he pleased. If he was facing either the headboard or the footboard, he might not be able to use his dominant hand because it just gets awkward. If she was lying flat on the bed facing the wall, that limits him. If she was just mostly facing the wall that limits him less, and flat on her back gives him even more room to work. If she was propped up it makes it much easier to use his non dominant hand.

If we knew where they were, we could guess. If we also knew the angle of the cuts, we would know. The best we can say at this point is that she was closer to the wall than the table, and he was within arms reach of her. And likely he was not dangling from the ceiling. But she could have been lying in his arms when he did this. He would have gotten soaked with blood, but we don't know that he was trying to avoid that. Or had a way around it, like bringing a change of clothes. We really don't know. I mean, I could give you the likely handedness for any given scenario, but there are hundreds of scenarios. And this is all assuming that he isn't specifically using his non dominant hand because he knows that they can figure out handedness and doesn't want to get caught. In which case it's not the throat cut you need to look at, but the organ cuts.

[The Good Michael]

back to the question... If I look at Kelly's murder, I have little doubt that the murderer was right-handed. The initial throat-cutting was done from left to right as Kelly was facing the wall. She wasn't killed (in my opinion) while she was lying down, but rather had her upper body (at least) raised up while on the left side (as you look at it) of the bed, facing outward.

As far as him cutting with the left and placing meat on the table with his right..no need to go there. He easily could have held her with his left while cutting with his right, and while still holding the knife, placed the chunks/hunks on the table. Or he could have put the knife down before doing that. No hurry here.

The idea that he used his right hand to place, so he must have been left-handed is kind of silly. He used the available table. There wasn't anything on the left of the bed, was there? He used what was there and made do. I suppose he could have dragged the bed out from the wall to place a table there, but that would have been ludicrous.

He was a righty and used what was available and didn't hesitate nor worry about such things.

Mike

[Scott Nelson]

Very good Riffy. I was just testing everybody to see if they would read it as "pinnacle", or something similar. It's the moment before the calamity.

[RivkahChaya]

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

The second to last moments?

[GUT]

G'day Jon

The one I remember " lived" under mum and dads bed.

[Wickerman]

Most laundry tubs were high sided, maybe too high to fit under a bed.
Here are examples of the more shallow type.

[GUT]

G'day Michael

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.

When I was a kid with bathed in one that looks just like the one under Mary's bed, and yes mum washed clothes n it at times too.

[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.