Best evidence for left/right/mixed-handedness

[Pierre]

All of this is assuming that knife killing someone is not necessarily a multi handed affair. Handedness doesn't matter with tasks that routinely require both hands to be used either alternately or as needs must. And using a knife for any extended period of time is not particular a fine task, does not particularly require the use of the dominant hand, and is frankly tiring and awkward enough to require switching hands at regular intervals. This is notcalligraphy. He used both hands, sometimes both at once. Does that make him ambidextrous? No. It would if he could write calligraphy with both hands. Murder is not so fine a task.

And perhaps we should be more worried about the different statements of doctors on the subject. Why are there different opinions? And is there any type(s) of pattern(s) as to the differences?

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

The physical setup within room 13 and the initial attack evidence would seem to indicate a left handed killer. None of the other murders have such evidence available. Ambidexterous people are 1% of any population, so 1 killer of Five, an ambi-killer, is highly unlikely.

Erm...my I respectfully suggest you read posts 3 and 10 of this thread?

[Pierre]

Erm...my I respectfully suggest you read posts 3 and 19 of this thread?

19?

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

19?

Regards, Pierre

Well spotted Pierre! Of course, I meant Post 10-not sure where 19 came from! I have now corrected my inaccurate post.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello all.

I,m certain that we could determine his ,handedness, based on how he tied the knot on the ligature for each of these women. I,m trying to recall other aspects that could offer insight beyond the victim particulars - what hand he carried the parcel in, what hand he carried his bag with, is there anything about how he wears/uses a pocketwatch, do the words in the suspected letters suggest right or left based on handwriting.

[Errata]

Hello all.

I,m certain that we could determine his ,handedness, based on how he tied the knot on the ligature for each of these women. I,m trying to recall other aspects that could offer insight beyond the victim particulars - what hand he carried the parcel in, what hand he carried his bag with, is there anything about how he wears/uses a pocketwatch, do the words in the suspected letters suggest right or left based on handwriting.

Truthfully, handedness is typically only remotely useful in finding killers who beat their victims to death. It's the one skill outside writing or fine tasks like threading a needle, where a person really does have a dominant hand. And the pattern of bruising will show that pattern. So if a lefty beat someone to death, that he was a lefty is important. If he shot a guy, it's clearly not useful information, even if you get it.

Cutting a throat seems like a fine task, but it's really not. It is most assuredly a strength task, and the strength of hands is too varied between people to be useful. My strength hand is my left. My husband's is his right. We are both right handed. The finest task the Ripper performed was cutting through the pericardium to reach the heart. And that probably required his dominant hand. But nothing else did. Which might be why the doctors couldn't agree. Likely he was switching hands to get a particular angle, or make the strongest cut, or even to avoid barking his knuckles against the ground. When you cut stuff you move around, you switch hands. Clean a leg of lamb sometime and see how often you contort, shift, and change hands. It's no different on a human. Doc sees right handed cuts because they were probably right handed cuts. Another sees left handed orientation because it was left handed orientation. It's not ambidexterity because it's not a matter of dexterity. It's just run of the mill mixed handedness.

So what does it matter if the killer was left handed? It's not rare enough to really narrow down the suspect pool. It might clear someone. Maybe. Also, he may write with his left hand but cut with his right. I do. Different skills being used. So someone looking for a left handed cutter is going to blow past me if he is looking at the hand I write with. And he shouldn't. A big thing is made about the handedness of a killer, like it's significant. It almost never is. Anyone know whether Dahmer was left or right handed? Did it matter in the slightest?

[CertainSum1]

Has handedness as forensic evidence been backed up by data? Meaning have forensics smarty pants determined that the killers suspected to be lefties or righties were proven to be so? (Kind of the way blood spatter evidence is confirmed to be forensically sound?)

[Robert St Devil]

Hello CertainSum1.

Errata,s use of the word ,,fine,, is accurate in these terms since which hand was used seems to fiane a detail to be relevant to the overall case. My primary interest is the following: an alternative to an ambidextrous solution is the involvement of more than one person.

[Jon Guy]

[B]Hi,

There have been various discussions about whether Jack the Ripper was left-handed or right-handed or even ambidextrous or mixed-handed.

What is the best evidence for any of these types, do you think?

And what do you think is the strongest evidence against any or some of them?

Hi Pierre

The best evidence for a left-handed or right-handed (or even ambidextrous or mixed-handed) killer is in the case of Alice McKenzie. Determining which of the Whitechapel Murders was committed by Jack the Ripper is another thing, but Dr Phillips noted that five small bruises on the side of McKenzie`s abdomen could have been made by the killers right hand (the size of the bruises indicating which was the little finger and which was the thumb, and therefore the right hand). Concluding that this left the killer`s left hand free to wield the knife.
Dr Bond did disagree, but he saw only saw the body the day after the post mortem, when the body had begun to decompose.

But from a layman`s point of view (me), a throat that has been cut left to right whilst the victim was on her back has to be by a right handed person.

.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre

The best evidence for a left-handed or right-handed (or even ambidextrous or mixed-handed) killer is in the case of Alice McKenzie. Determining which of the Whitechapel Murders was committed by Jack the Ripper is another thing, but Dr Phillips noted that five small bruises on the side of McKenzie`s abdomen could have been made by the killers right hand (the size of the bruises indicating which was the little finger and which was the thumb, and therefore the right hand). Concluding that this left the killer`s left hand free to wield the knife.
Dr Bond did disagree, but he saw only saw the body the day after the post mortem, when the body had begun to decompose.

But from a layman`s point of view (me), a throat that has been cut left to right whilst the victim was on her back has to be by a right handed person.

.

OK, well I can not interpret these data at all right now. But it would be interesting, at least for me, to do some sort of analysis of the statements about left/right-handedness of the killer.

I think the difference in the statements are not due to post mortem examinators having differing points of views, but they can be explained by something else.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Double posted.

[Elamarna]

In post #3 Mr Trevor Marriott posted comments from Dr Biggs which made it clear that a definitive answer cannot be obtained on this issue.

When Pierre asked if Biggs had done any research on the subject Mr Marriott replied with the statement:

"Dr Biggs is a forensic pathologist. He speaks from knowledge and experience in assisting in the investigation of murders etc."


It appeared that this was accepted, as no further comments were made at that stage.

Now of course everyone is free to comment on this thread, such debate is always healthy, but from some of the recent posts it seems not all are bothering to read the first 12 posts on the thread, a point already raised by John G.
By all means disagree with Dr Biggs, after all it is only the opinion of one man, an expert in forensic pathology; but please at least give some indication that you have read the comments he made; otherwise this may as well be a different thread.

regards

Steve

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Pierre.

Best evidence may come from the Polly Nicholls murder, and how you interpret her injuries. It's possible that 2... maybe 3... of her injuries happened in conjunction.

I don't remember Polly being strangled with a neckerchief. Instead, I'm thinking the bruises on either side of her face indicate that Jack the Ripper's right hand was silencing her. Bruising would have occurred prior to her death. He was brutally covering her mouth and nose. Last year, it was pointed out to me that there may be evidence of her nose being "broken" based on its appearance in her morgue photo.
Next, she has a stab wound on the right side of her abdomen that is described as running in a downwards position.

Putting this together, it could be that he covered her mouth with his right hand while stabbing her with his left.

[Kattrup]

In post #3 Mr Trevor Marriott posted comments from Dr Biggs which made it clear that a definitive answer cannot be obtained on this issue....
[...] please at least give some indication that you have read the comments he made; otherwise this may as well be a different thread.

regards

Steve

Well, I've of course read the thread and Trevor Marriot's overly curt insistence that further debate is pointless.

You seem to accept his stance.

A fair question might be has he, or have you, read Dr. Biggs' statement?

The expert pathologist states that it is not considered possible from the appearance of the wounds to determine whether it was caused by a left- or righthanded man.

This is, I believe, uncontroversial in today's forensics. It only means, however, that once the body is taken away, wounds washed, studying the wound itself will not reveal from which direction it was inflicted.

It does not mean that no other evidence should be taken into consideration, nor that it is impossible to infer whether the culprit was most likely right- or lefthanded.
A right-handed man attacking another from the front will inflict the majority of the wounds on the left side of the victim. Of course, a left-handed man attacking from the left side of the victim will too. So there are other types of evidence than merely analysing the appearance of the wounds (also blood splatter patterns could be analysed).

As stated, I believe that the sources describing the victims, the locations of their wounds and the crime scenes give indications as to the killer's handedness. This does not conflict with the learned Dr. Biggs' statement.

Furthermore, this thread is about which evidence is best - thus, even if we don't accept the judgement of the medical examiners of the time, their statements are still our evidence, and can therefore be considered (even if ultimately discarded).

Furtherfurthermore, even though I do not believe one can trust their judgement (because we now know that it is not possible to be certain), the fact that they believed that they could, in fact, determine probable handedness, is in itself of some interest, for instance to historians of forensics. That might belong in another thread, of course, but it's possible that Pierre has this aspect in mind.

[Elamarna]

Well, I've of course read the thread and Trevor Marriot's overly curt insistence that further debate is pointless.

You seem to accept his stance.

A fair question might be has he, or have you, read Dr. Biggs' statement?

The expert pathologist states that it is not considered possible from the appearance of the wounds to determine whether it was caused by a left- or righthanded man.

This is, I believe, uncontroversial in today's forensics. It only means, however, that once the body is taken away, wounds washed, studying the wound itself will not reveal from which direction it was inflicted.

It does not mean that no other evidence should be taken into consideration, nor that it is impossible to infer whether the culprit was most likely right- or lefthanded.
A right-handed man attacking another from the front will inflict the majority of the wounds on the left side of the victim. Of course, a left-handed man attacking from the left side of the victim will too. So there are other types of evidence than merely analysing the appearance of the wounds (also blood splatter patterns could be analysed).

As stated, I believe that the sources describing the victims, the locations of their wounds and the crime scenes give indications as to the killer's handedness. This does not conflict with the learned Dr. Biggs' statement.

Furthermore, this thread is about which evidence is best - thus, even if we don't accept the judgement of the medical examiners of the time, their statements are still our evidence, and can therefore be considered (even if ultimately discarded).

Furtherfurthermore, even though I do not believe one can trust their judgement (because we now know that it is not possible to be certain), the fact that they believed that they could, in fact, determine probable handedness, is in itself of some interest, for instance to historians of forensics. That might belong in another thread, of course, but it's possible that Pierre has this aspect in mind.

Dear Kattrup

There is of course plenty of evidence which one could work from, my point was that some, appeared from their comments, not to have read Biggs comments.

Your comment that both Mr Marriott and myself may not have read the comments by Briggs is utterly ridiculous, do you know the history of those comments from Dr Biggs?
Kattrup your reply in places comes across as unnecessary confrontational, there is no need for that.

If you felt a need to respond to my post then all you needed to say, was something like "yes I have read them, but ................."
That would have been the end, quick and sweet.
yours


Steve