Left or right handed.

[Wickerman]

The part in bold explains your reticence in accepting a left handed killer.....not when you can just modify who Jack is and what he does at the drop of a hat. So you suggest Freedom, but only in limited application? If he was free to take his time and was alone with his victim, what prevented him from making his anticipated work easier to accomplish for a right handed killer? He had the Freedom to move the victim, or the bed, or just push the bed from the wall. He did none of that.

So...in the Ripper world that often means then he must have been ambidextrous, a guess which has a 99% chance of being incorrect.

It was Dr. Phillips who assumed Kelly had been killed as she lay, on her back.
The bed is wide enough that her body could have been rolled over onto her back. I suspect she was face down when alive, with her client on her back, behind her. Anal sex was the norm. for prostitutes in the 19th century, that was their version of safe-sex. It was important to avoid being pregnant.

Her client must have been on the bed with her, if she lay face down and he grabbed her hair from behind, pulling her head up off the pillow, then he could have been right-handed, as believed was the case in the previous murders.

[Wickerman]

Unless the killer is kneeling over Nichols and cuts her throat from the front to avoid blood splatter...then it could be a right handed cut.

Whether the killer was left or right handed is irrelevant until it can be determined the position the killer was in when he cut the victims throat.



RD

The bruises on Nichols face tend to suggest a right-handed killer.
Her head being held still by a left hand.


The morgue photo of Nichols shows a distorted nose, perhaps broken by the pressure of the palm of the left hand.

[Mark J D]

The morgue photo of Nichols shows a distorted nose, perhaps broken by the pressure of the palm of the left hand.

The documentary featuring one of Nichols' descendants seems in some shots to show the latter to have a deviated septum. To what extent that feature is heritable, I don't know.

M.

[Wickerman]

The documentary featuring one of Nichols' descendants seems in some shots to show the latter to have a deviated septum. To what extent that feature is heritable, I don't know.

M.

Are you able to post the image for comparison's sake?

[Michael W Richards]

Fair enough... so following your line of thinking... if he HAD turned her to cut her throat, why would he not have simply... moved her back to get to the chest and abdomen?

How would you know whether he had moved her or not prior to the evisceration?

We have some evidence that suggests he did change her position after the throat cut. The cut was made while Mary was on her side, facing the partition wall, oriented towards the upper right hand side. The cut was made while she was in that position because we have arterial spray on that wall and the blood leakage for that cut is primarily on that upper right side. He leaned across her. Why she didnt react when she felt his weight on the bed effectively behind her is I believe because she expected it. She knew he was there, and she allowed it. This wasnt a tip toe in situation. I think she expected the company in her room to curl in behind her on the bed.

But she is flat on her back in the middle of the bed when found. At the very least, he flipped her back into that spot. He also places her left arm back across the cavity he just emptied, so there is your precedent for movement of her by the killer.

[Michael W Richards]

It was Dr. Phillips who assumed Kelly had been killed as she lay, on her back.
The bed is wide enough that her body could have been rolled over onto her back. I suspect she was face down when alive, with her client on her back, behind her. Anal sex was the norm. for prostitutes in the 19th century, that was their version of safe-sex. It was important to avoid being pregnant.

Her client must have been on the bed with her, if she lay face down and he grabbed her hair from behind, pulling her head up off the pillow, then he could have been right-handed, as believed was the case in the previous murders.

The blood evidence suggests different positions, as said by Dr Bond... "The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes".

If anyone in that room was there without her knowledge or consent she would have reacted when touched, so the suggestion that she is grabbed by the hair and having her position re-postitioned and she wouldnt have made a cry out is tenuous at best, and would suggest the killer is in the room with her knowledge and permission. There was no appreciable noise heard after "oh-murder", but that sound didnt seem to emanate from the room the poor drunk lass lay in, according to both ear witnesses. So it would seem the attack didnt happen until sometime after that cry out.

Marys attack happened when enough time had elapsed from the "oh-murder" incident to allow the witnesses to doze off again. But it was quiet.

Your suggestion of her being involved in a sexual tryst as she gets cut is dramatic, but not supported by the time noted the room had been quiet and dark. Since just before 1:30am. Suddenly waking while sleeping off way too much booze doesnt usually inspire amorous intentions.The "oh-murder" likely signifies some kind of surprise if exclaimed by Mary, and if she was answering the door after a light tapping on the door or window. Which would also explain why the sound seemed "as if from the court", or "as if at my front door" by the courtyard ear witness. Which would mean her killer was someone known to her, well enough to be let in at that hour after she has been surely trying to sleep off her inebriation.

If she was on her side facing the wall, which is what I believe the evidence suggests, then unless he lifts her head he couldnt access her neck with his right hand. If he lifts her head...then noise, but it still doesnt allow for a quick quiet and easy task for a right handed man. If left handed, he could, as I suggested, just lean over her while on the bed...which would suggest Mary knew he was there and was ok with that. She awakes and flails...hence defensive arm wounds, blood spurts onto the wall, and he likely pins her down while she bleeds out and loses consciousness. Then flip her onto her back, and she is in the middle of the bed.

I think what irks people about some of my posts is that I attempt to visually reconstruct actions in order to assess what is reasonable based on known evidence, whats feasible or what is an inevitable conclusion. I believe my reconstruction meets a reasonable standard.

[Wickerman]

The blood evidence suggests different positions, as said by Dr Bond... "The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes".

If anyone in that room was there without her knowledge or consent she would have reacted when touched, so the suggestion that she is grabbed by the hair and having her position re-postitioned and she wouldnt have made a cry out is tenuous at best, and would suggest the killer is in the room with her knowledge and permission.

She was on the bed with a client, people went to bed fully clothed, it was November, not the middle of Summer. The fact she was dressed in her chemise demonstrates that she was entertaining someone. Otherwise she would have been clothed, as others were. Though I've pointed this out before.

Kelly didn't cry out because she was unconscious, she had been strangled, or choked, as was the case with other victims.

.......There was no appreciable noise heard after "oh-murder", but that sound didnt seem to emanate from the room the poor drunk lass lay in, according to both ear witnesses. So it would seem the attack didnt happen until sometime after that cry out.

Marys attack happened when enough time had elapsed from the "oh-murder" incident to allow the witnesses to doze off again. But it was quiet.

Noise echo's in an enclosed court, its hard to guess the origin of a sound in a narrow court.
One press report said that there had been a row in the court just prior to the scream, so we shouldn't assume all was quiet. Kelly likely tried to fight off the attempt at strangulation, but she ended up face down on the bed.

....The "oh-murder" likely signifies some kind of surprise if exclaimed by Mary, and if she was answering the door after a light tapping on the door or window. Which would also explain why the sound seemed "as if from the court", or "as if at my front door" by the courtyard ear witness. Which would mean her killer was someone known to her, well enough to be let in at that hour after she has been surely trying to sleep off her inebriation.

The broken window will send any scream from within the room out into the court in one direction giving a false direction to the source.
However, whether her killer was a late night visitor, or a client she brought home, is immaterial - she was on the bed dressed to entertain. That is the point.

I think what irks people about some of my posts is that I attempt to visually reconstruct actions in order to assess what is reasonable based on known evidence, whats feasible or what is an inevitable conclusion. I believe my reconstruction meets a reasonable standard.

The factual evidence (as opposed to theory), is open to interpretation. As it stands many had assumed Kelly was killed on her back as she was found. Yet the killer would risk being covered in blood from the spatter, so it is only obvious, from a practical point of view, and the spatter evidence on the wall, that she was in a different position when attacked, as to how she was found.

It is just more practical to strangle, or suffocate her from behind. He may have even pushed her face into the pillow to suffocate her, it would also stifle any scream, then pull her head up by the hair while unconscious to slit her throat.
Exactly what his procedure was is not the point, what matters is to accept the evidence can be interpreted to fit with a right handed killer, as well as left handed.

[Michael W Richards]

She was on the bed with a client, people went to bed fully clothed, it was November, not the middle of Summer. The fact she was dressed in her chemise demonstrates that she was entertaining someone. Otherwise she would have been clothed, as others were. Though I've pointed this out before.

"The fact that she undressed for bed means she was entertaining someone?" she had a fireplace still warm when the police enter the room, and she was in the words of a court witness...very drunk. Which negates any feeling of cold...just check the records of the few Titanic survivors..one man survived 45 minutes in the water because he drank a half a bottle of scotch beforehand. That youve pointed out your opinion on this before is noted, but that has nothing to do with whether it is a valid idea or not.

Kelly didn't cry out because she was unconscious, she had been strangled, or choked, as was the case with other victims.

Kelly has defensive wounds. She reacted to the attack on her.....she wasnt unconscious at all. If he choked her first, then no defensive wounds.


Noise echo's in an enclosed court, its hard to guess the origin of a sound in a narrow court.
One press report said that there had been a row in the court just prior to the scream, so we shouldn't assume all was quiet. Kelly likely tried to fight off the attempt at strangulation, but she ended up face down on the bed.

I dont believe there is one single shred of evidence that Kelly was ever face down on that bed that night. There is evidence that she was cut while on her side facing the wall though.


The broken window will send any scream from within the room out into the court in one direction giving a false direction to the source.

Pure Speculation...without taking into account the pilot coat was blocking the broken pane.

However, whether her killer was a late night visitor, or a client she brought home, is immaterial - she was on the bed dressed to entertain. That is the point.

Again, your opinion is noted. However the only known companion she took into that room that night was just before midnight, and her room went dark and quiet before 1:30. Whether she let then let the killer in after sleeping for a while IS material..very much so.

The factual evidence (as opposed to theory), is open to interpretation. As it stands many had assumed Kelly was killed on her back as she was found. Yet the killer would risk being covered in blood from the spatter, so it is only obvious, from a practical point of view, and the spatter evidence on the wall, that she was in a different position when attacked, as to how she was found.

I love it when people suggest that facts are open to interpretation.Like something is only a fact if its interpreted that way. Facts are facts pal. Thats the real reality. And the facts are that the position she is found in...flat on her back, is not the position she was in when her throat is cut.

It is just more practical to strangle, or suffocate her from behind.

The man that killed the women who were standing, and out on the street, would Im sure agree with you. This need not be that man. Nor is that a practical idea when the victim is sleeping on her side, ....indoors.

He may have even pushed her face into the pillow to suffocate her, it would also stifle any scream, then pull her head up by the hair while unconscious to slit her throat. Exactly what his procedure was is not the point, what matters is to accept the evidence can be interpreted to fit with a right handed killer, as well as left handed.

I think you are using your imagination rather than your logic. NO NOISES from the room....rickety bed that can be heard when moved by upstairs tenant, witnesses awake and active in that courtyard after the room is dark...if you use the evidence rather than your Graphic Novel imagination, you will see the practical boundaries here.

Many do just what you did there Wick, just fill in the blanks with imagination. But there are real defined issues with this murder and how quietly it was done.

[The Rookie Detective]

Excellent points from everyone on this thread.

I think the truth lays somewhere in between.


I would say that based on the physical evidence; it is almost certain that when Kelly had her throat cut she was either facing the partition wall, the wall behind the head of the bed, or facing downward.
This is important because the arterial blood splatters on the wall prove that Kelly was still alive when her throat was cut; and crucailly...that she was NOT facing her killer.

What does this tell us?

Perhaps it tells us that despite the Ripper having the option to just suffocate her and then mutilate her corpse; he chose to cut her throat while she still had significant blood pressure; ergo, while she was alive.

And so this begs the question... if the Ripper had time, why did he feel the need to cut her throat and not just stick to suffocating/strangling her?

Once his victim was dead, he could then carry out his primary motivation; post mortem abdominal mutilation of the sexual and reproductive organs.

The choices the Ripper made in slaying MJK tells us a lot about his mindset, because at this point he had several opportunities to shape and master his kill sequence.

It is often argued that everything the Ripper did before carrying out postmortem mutilations, was just used as a means to an end; but I disagree with that assessment.
IMO, the throat cutting formed an integral part of the sequence of his kills and he cut his victim's throats through want and desire rather than need.

The Ripper didn't need to cut MJK's throat, but he did iMO because he wanted to make the murder scene look as grotesque as possible in a bid to shock and torment the person or persons who would later find her.

That was part of his fantasy; to shock and display in a bid to completely humiliate his victims and to carry that through to torment the poor individual who would later discover the crime scene.
All part of the performance and presentation of the body to give as much "shock value" to whomever was to find the body.

So, if Kelly was looking away from her killer, does that mean he was known to her or felt safe in his presence?

other factors to consider...


She was wearing a chemise in November with a broken window.
The room had been heated and lit by the fireplace, possibly to entertain but also to help the killer.

Did the Ripper work in the dark?

Did the Ripper light the fire once he had finished?

Some pressing questions that also add to the context of the crime scene.

The slaying of Kelly feels different in that the throat cutting is part of the deliberate sequence; whereas with other victims it could be seen as a means to quickly ensure that the victim was dead, ergo, being outdoors the killer needs to inflict mortal wounds quickly because he has less time.

But with MJK he has more time and therefore didn't need to cut her throat to kill her.


The idea that the Ripper was only motivated by postmoterm mutilation does not fit into the sequence at the MJK crime scene.

He was just as interested in cutting her throat and letting her bleed out, as he was cutting into her after she was dead.
He enjoyed the kill.


At the point when MJK cried out "Oh Murder!"... was there a moment when the Ripper thought of just cutting her throat and quickly leaving for fear of someone coming to her aid?

WHY did the Ripper stay put?

Did he cut her throat and just wait in the dark for a few moments to see if someone was alerted, or was he confident and assured enough to just stay and mutilate her?


Some will say that it wasn't Kelly who shouted, but percentages would suggest it was Kelly who cried out.


Lots to ponder



RD

[JeffHamm]

It was Dr. Phillips who assumed Kelly had been killed as she lay, on her back.
The bed is wide enough that her body could have been rolled over onto her back. I suspect she was face down when alive, with her client on her back, behind her. Anal sex was the norm. for prostitutes in the 19th century, that was their version of safe-sex. It was important to avoid being pregnant.

Her client must have been on the bed with her, if she lay face down and he grabbed her hair from behind, pulling her head up off the pillow, then he could have been right-handed, as believed was the case in the previous murders.

Hi Wickerman,

Dr. Phillip's inquest statement, though, was "The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner.", while in the illustration you've provided the injury should be to the left side (so severance of the left carotid artery). If she was on her back, as Dr. Phillips suggests, the same position of the killer that you've illustrated would result in severance of the right carotid artery by a right handed killer. While it would be a bit awkward, given the murder occurred on a bed, and given in all the cases JtR seems to have made the cut to direct the initial blood away from him, that would make some sense. Also, the cuts to her right hand (found in his post-mortem report "The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition.") appear to be defensive wounds, which I think would be harder to explain if she was face down?

Either way, it appears she was killed while more or less next to the wall, which would indicate someone else was in the bed with her, consistent with her entertaining a client. I would think if she were killed while on her front than when she was then rolled over for him to mutilate that she would have ended up closer to the left side of the bed (it was only a single, and rolling a body over would place it in the location where "the customer" would have lain). However, she was found still to the right side, although angled and apparently "shifted" from the position she was when killed. If she was on her back, then he would only have had to shift her to get her closer to him to mutilate rather than completely roll her over, so her position on the bed seems to me to be more indicative of her being on her back than her front.

Still, her being face down when murdered is an interesting idea, but my own view is that it seems more likely she was on her back when her throat was cut, and that the defensive wounds point to her being conscious at the time. If so, the attack must have been very sudden and her throat cut quickly, which would limit the time for her to scream out. Perhaps something like, JtR feigning getting ready to leave, sits on the bedside (keeping her to the right), bends over as if getting his clothes, gets his knife, stands then turns around and suddenly attacks her in surprise as she lays there, giving her little time to cry out. There is, after all, the testimony of the cry of "murder" which was heard only the once, but of course that may not be related to the crime. But if it is, something like the above would not be inconsistent with her getting out a single scream.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Oh, I should have clarified a bit, there would be some differences from the illustration if she is on her back, as the killer wouldn't be holding her head up as that would result in cutting along the back of her neck! So I should have said that a similar position as illustrated rather than the same position as illustrated. For example, I think it would require holding the knife differently such that the blade would be coming out at the little finger side of the hand rather than out of the thumb side, for example.

- Jeff