Author: Calogridis
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 02:34 pm |        |
Howdy Jane, Jon,
Jane- interesting idea about Dr. Llewellyn. I think he was a bit larger and full-bearded compared to some of the eye-witness sightings, if in fact he looked like his pictures back in 1888.
Jon- I wouldn't rule out doctors completely either, mate. Some stories, such as the down-at-heel surgeon, Dr. Morford suggest there may have been quite a few ex-doctors living in the East End, and Polly Nichols was found close by the London Hospital. Certainly, the Ripper could have been a butcher by trade, which would also account for the apparent dexterity, but a doctor fallen on hard times could also account for it. Well, that's why it's a three-pipe problem.
Keep up the good work all! Cheers.......Mike |
Author: margaret goulden
Tuesday, 17 August 1999 - 01:31 pm | |
| Hi all, I am new at this, but why does everyone assumes that the ripper was left handed? THe ripper could have been ambidexterious. I am. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 17 August 1999 - 05:04 pm | |
Margaret -
Welcome to the Casebook and the Ripper mystery. I hope you will enjoy your time here.
To very briefly answer your question, the delineation of Jack the Ripper's handedness stems from the autopsy performed on the first victim, Mary Ann Nichols, by Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn. He believed that a mark on Nichols' right jaw was from the pressure of a thumb, and that a left-handed man stood in front of her, slashing her throat from left to right with a knife in his left hand ("left" and "right" refer, of course, to the victims' point of view). This is - as you would see if you tried it - a silly, clumsy move, and it has often been wondered what Llewellyn was picturing when he suggested such a thing.
However, it has been thought by Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner - authors of the indispensible "Jack the Ripper A-Z" - that the Ripper likely strangled his victims first, lay them down while turning their heads to his left, and then cut their throats in a left-to-right fashion as above, drawing the knife towards himself. This, of course, would more readily lead one to the view that the Ripper was right-handed.
He may, as you note, certainly have been ambidextrous, and we will probably never know the truth. Good arguments can be made favouring either hand, and you will no doubt come across them as you peruse this site.
Welcome again.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Diana Comer
Wednesday, 18 August 1999 - 04:48 am | |
| Having just read the autopsies I wonder if we couldn't adduce a clue as to handedness. I quote Dr. Bond (Kelly) "On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken & torn away." Jack couldn't have gotten at the heart to extract it unless he came at it from the direction of the abdomen. I know this is gross, but I picture him astride Kelly's body, knife in hand, reaching up inside to get the heart. Since he is facing the corpse, his right would be her left and vice versa. In getting at the heart he damages the lower part of her right lung. Therefore I deduce that he was using his left hand. |
Author: D. Radka
Wednesday, 18 August 1999 - 04:21 pm | |
Diana,
I picture him standing at the bedside to get the best possible leverage, bending his knees and tilting the body, to reach up to grab the heart. This would imply his using his left hand, but not nesessarily his being left handed. The position would be dictated by the placing of the bed in the room.
David |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 18 August 1999 - 09:21 pm | |
| The mutilation of MK was all-encompassing; by this I mean the killer attacked virtually every part of the body, as opposed to the previous murders in the Whitechapel series. As to the question of whether the killer may have been left-, right-handed or amidextrous, look at the (primary) photo of Kelly's body taken from the window or doorway to her room. It shows that the killer probably worked from the left side of the bed (and the victim), thus implying a left-handed killer. The killer may have 1) been left-handed or ambidextrous: then he worked exclusivey(?) from the left side of the bed. 2) That he was right-handed or ambidextrous and worked from the right hand side of the victim (and the side of the bed closest to the wall). We have no surviving police reports that suggest that the killer may have pulled the bed away from the wall, moved around to the right side and worked on the victim on the side closest to the blood-stained wall. But if he did, he would have to have performed his work in a pool of blood (on the floor closest to the wall behind the bed). There are no police reports on the investigation of MK's room that suggest bloodied footprints or bloodied streak-marks (as would have been made on the floor by the rear bed legs if the killer pushed the bed away from the wall) were found. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Thursday, 19 August 1999 - 03:27 pm | |
| Correction to the above post: I was assuming the cuts to the victim's body (for some reason) would have been made with the knife in the left hand from the upper part of the torso towards the lower part if the killer worked exclusively from the left side of the bed. I can see no reason why the killer couldn't have also made incisions from the lower part of the body upwards towards the head with the knife in the right hand. It just seemed to me somewhat awkward to carry out the visible destruction from only one side of the bed. |
Author: John Dixon
Sunday, 22 August 1999 - 10:18 pm | |
Can I just change subjects for a moment -
I have just read the Star report of 31/8/88 which under the heading " a severe struggle " that there is the impression of a ring having been worn by Nichols. Is there any other evidence that Nichols had a ( wedding ? ) ring on when she was murdered & that it was missing afterwards? Such evidence would have a bearing on the Chapman case.
I had always assumed Jack to be right-handed but Scott is correct, short of climbing all over Kelly's body he would have had a difficult time of it. Did he move Kelly a number of times? This could also be the case with Chapman.
John |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 23 August 1999 - 11:25 am | |
John -
The "Daily Telegraph" reports of Mary Ann Nichols' murder and inquest make no mention of rings of any sort on her hands, and both Dr. Llewellyn's descriptions of her injuries and Inspector Spratling's descriptions of her personal posessions are quite thorough. I shan't say that the "Star" made it up, only that the "Telegraph" (which has proven to be very reliable) makes no mention of a wedding ring.
Not to be too gruesome about it, but if the Ripper (or whomever killed MJK) crawled over the body or moved it around for easy access, wouldn't evidence of such actions be left behind? Bare bloody footprints if he stripped nude, for example, or mud from his shoes were he still clothed?
Ignore that if you think it too silly; I'm suffering from a terrible summer cold today.
CMD |
Author: Ezrsebet Bathori
Tuesday, 14 September 1999 - 12:37 pm | |
| I would like to know why is the information about her age on certain dates are wrong,for example it state that on Jan 16,1864 she was 22,but she was born Aug 26,1845.So she would be 19 and there are a couple of other mistakes about dates and ages!! |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 14 September 1999 - 11:48 pm | |
| Because in the early days of record taking such as for the census, ages only had to be accurate to within five years. You will find a lot of discrepencies about ages in the records |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 15 September 1999 - 02:39 am | |
Hi Countess Ezrsebet. How's the weather in Hungaria these days?
Janice |
Author: noshit
Monday, 25 October 1999 - 05:30 pm | |
| i know who killed stride. |
Author: Dubious
Tuesday, 26 October 1999 - 10:20 am | |
| Well tell us then! |
Author: Jill
Thursday, 25 November 1999 - 07:45 am | |
Hello All, John Dixon
The reference about an impression of a ring having been worn is also reported in The Grimsby Observer and Humber News (date unknown). Although I don't trust this reporting very much, because everything is highly sensational written.
In any case, even if this report is true, it has not so great a signifaicance, there is nothing to suggest she lost, or pawned or took it off recently before the murder; I have worn a ring for 5,5 years as long as a previous relationship had lasted. The day we decided we were not ment to be together any further I took the ring of. That was almost 1,5 year back. There still is some discolourisation where it used to be and still a little worn imprint around my finger. With a post-mortem (heaven forbid) it still would be noticable.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: mark.coldwell
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 02:09 pm | |
| as a newcomer who has just studied the first murder, here is my attempt to try to revive this discussion. after reading some of the earlier comments and studying the murder i have come to the conclusion that there is not a great deal of information to be had about who the killer was; no-one saw or heard anything, this includes at least 3 policemen and a sgt. who at one time or another were in hearing/seeing distance of the murder scene. either the killer was very lucky or had he observed the area beforehand, then planned the killing,including planning an escape route avoiding the policemen on the beat or other witnesses.i think that earlier comments indicating the unknown person who spoke to the nightwatchman of being jtr were enlightening, but i think that by the time that he passed the watchman (at least half an hour after the murder) eliminates him as a suspect, surely the murderer would have been long gone.the murder must have been between 0325 and 0335 the watchman saw the unknown man at about 0420, also if he was jtr he would not have spoken and have drawn attention to himself. |
Author: Keith Lawer
Wednesday, 01 March 2000 - 05:14 pm | |
What evidence is there that Mary Ann Nichols was born in 1845 and not in 1851? In Donald Rumbelow's book, he states that Mary said she was born in 1851 and on the Latter Day Saints genealogy web site it has a Mary Ann Walker born Aug 1851 to Edward Walker in Shoe Lane, Off Fleet St, London, England. Has further evidence come to light to change this?
Keith. |
Author: John Dixon
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 10:40 am | |
Thanks Jill.
For Nichols missing rings to have signifance there must also be an inference that the murderer took them. It caught my eye because of the parallel with Chapman.
John. |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 08:34 pm | |
Keith:-
BRITISH 1881 CENSUS
Institution: "Mile End Old Town Workhse" Bancroft Rd
Census Place: Mile End Old Town, London, Middlesex, England
Source: FHL Film 1341107 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0487 Folio 143 Page 24
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
Margaret MOULDING U 51 F Sheerness, Kent, England
Rel: Casual
Occ: Charwoman
Eleanor BEAVIS M 35 F Newpassage, Devon, England
Rel: Casual
Occ: Ironer
Mary Ann SMITH U 45 F Buckingham, England
Rel: Casual
Occ: Charwoman
Mary Ann NICHOLS U 30 F London, Middlesex, England
Rel: Casual
Occ: Ironer
Margaret NOON W 53 F Mayo, Ireland
Rel: Casual
Occ: Laundress
Mary CROSSLEY U 32 F Torquay, Devon, England
Rel: Casual
Occ: Charwoman
Rosetta HALL U 41 F Lambeth, Surrey, England
Rel: Casual
Occ: Laundress
Mary Ann KETTLE U 47 F Yeovil, Somerset, England
Rel: Casual
Occ: Needlewoman
Emily PELHAM W 55 F Monmouth, England
Rel: Casual
Occ: Charwomen
Jane BROWN U 30 F Liverpool
Rel: Casual
Occ: Laundress
I have been searching the Census for Polly for quite some time using 1845 as her birthyear & have not found any especially convincing candidates. By using the year you have suggested 1851 I found this entry almost immediately. It does not prove that she was born in 1851 but indicates she believed it to be the case. There are 2 factors which lead me to believe this is probably Polly , she never left the local area during the rest of her life & this Polly is in a workhouse which again is consistent with her life before & after this period. Keith I would be very interested if you could post a copy of the birth certificate or send me a copy personally. Or the Website address I guess.
Where does the suggestion of her being older come from? Can someone give us a list of what Document has what birthdate.
Her father gave evidence at the inquest that she was about 42 & the Doctor that she was about 40-45.
But a reporter ( not in evidence) who saw her guessed she was 35.
Would her Father & Husband have committed a crime in marrying her off in 1864 at 13 ? Certainly it would appear more respectible.
We need expert help. As far as I can see Keith you have made an important discovery. Perhaps someone can suggest an alternative source for the 1845 birthyear.
Cheers John. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 16 March 2000 - 09:02 am | |
| John , the age of consent for females in Britain up until 1885 was 12 years of age. |
