Blood Spray from Decapitation

[Errata]

And why are people so insistent that Liz Stride held her hands to her throat, after she was cut, or that she was cut out on the street, the blood being washed away by the rain, or the ridiculous notion that she was cut as she was falling, the blood being directed towards the ground which then failed to soil her clothes.

And where have I intimated that the blood flow mimicked some comical lawn sprinkler action?

You are really trying to tell me, that the blood, should she have been cut whilst falling would miraculously have pooled right next to her neck, and then drained away to club doorway? No splatter as it hit the ground? Completely missing her left shoulder? Indeed missing all her garments? This is most definitely my last post on this matter. If you want to believe that Liz Stride was cut as she was falling ,then dream on.

First of all, the question about spray wasn't directed at you. If it had been directed at you, I would have quoted your comment, or addressed you by name. So take a breath. There is in a fact a general notion that throat cuts cause arterial spray, and often they don't. Gushing, sheeting, pulsing, sure. But not spray. And I don't know where the idea of spray comes from. Not that it can't happen, but it just as often doesn't. Having seen several arterial injuries in my day, and having had a few myself, I honestly have a hard time picturing even an arterial spurt hitting the wall even a foot away. And I have high blood pressure. So I don't know why the assumption is for spray as opposed to against if both are equally possible.

Second, I don't think her throat was cut while falling. I think her throat was cut while she was on the ground. I just don't think it was cut while she was turned on her side. If for no other reason than that the mechanics of that are awkward. Personally, I think she had just enough life left in her after he ran that she started to curl into fetal position. But that's a guess and I'd never represent it otherwise.

Thirdly, while I think her throat was cut on the ground, I don't KNOW. I can see other scenarios. I may not find them as likely, but I can see it. I can see her throat being cut on the way down because I know that can happen. I have seen the results. So it's possible. Many things are possible. Just because I can see the argument well enough to try and explain what the coroner meant doesn't mean I believe it. But just because I think I know what happened doesn't mean I'm right. It doesn't mean that I cannot entertain other ideas.

[Observer]

And why are people so insistent that Liz Stride held her hands to her throat, after she was cut, or that she was cut out on the street, the blood being washed away by the rain, or the ridiculous notion that she was cut as she was falling, the blood being directed towards the ground which then failed to soil her clothes.

And where have I intimated that the blood flow mimicked some comical lawn sprinkler action?

You are really trying to tell me, that the blood, should she have been cut whilst falling would miraculously have pooled right next to her neck, and then drained away to club doorway? No splatter as it hit the ground? Completely missing her left shoulder? Indeed missing all her garments? This is most definitely my last post on this matter. If you want to believe that Liz Stride was cut as she was falling ,then dream on.

[Errata]

Why are people so insistent there had to be spray? Just because someone bleeds with force doesn't mean some comical lawn sprinkler action.

[Observer]

Forget about Liz Stride lying in her own blood. If Liz Stride had been cut before hitting the ground, considering the trajectory of the falling body, blood would have soiled her clothing, no doubt about it.

[Observer]

Precisely. Just like that.

So the carotid artery opens up and the stream is directed downwards. Let me guess, presumably the body then covers the blood, and the remaining blood flows down the yard into the drain.

One thing, no blood was found on the clothing. And another thing, no blood was observed by Dr Philips other than that which was immediately left of the neck, and that which flowed into the drain

Dr Philips yet again, his ears must be burning.

[Coroner] Did you examine the blood at Berner-street carefully, as to its direction and so forth? - Yes.
[Coroner] The blood near to the neck and a few inches to the left side was well clotted, and it had run down the waterway to within a few inches of the side entrance to the club-house.
[Coroner] Were there any spots of blood anywhere else? - I could trace none except that which I considered had been transplanted - if I may use the term - from the original flow from the neck. Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body."

Examined for blood in the yard "carefully".

And there can be no doubt that Dr Philips searched very carefully, carefull enough in fact to spot those tiny cachous that Blackwell had spilled onto the ground

Dr Philips again

[Coroner] Does the presence of the cachous in the left hand indicate that the murder was committed very suddenly and without any struggle? - Some of the cachous were scattered about the yard.

[lynn cates]

got it

Hello Errata.

"which would turn her body so that the left carotid was facing downward. Not at the wall."

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

The only blood that Dr Philips detected was next to her throat, and a trail of blood stretching from her neck to the club door. He deduced that the throat had been cut while she was in the position as found, lying prone on the ground. It's not rocket science, it's pretty obvious in fact, if I can pick up on it, then it must be pretty obvious. I reckon he did not consider any other theory, other than the one he stated at inquest, and neither can I. That's all I have to say on the matter, I can not picture any other scenario.

[Errata]

Fell into his chest, then he cut her throat? So her neck at that point was what, 4 feet from the ground? If this is the case where did the blood issuing from the wound (Dr Philips called it a spray) end up?

Presumably on the killer.

But it's also possible she simply wasn't close enough to the wall to spray it with blood. Positionally if not actually. Firstly, the pose in which she was found was the pose in which she died, not the one in which she was killed (or attacked, if that makes more sense). Whether it be because she lived long enough to curl up or because the killer was going to drag her somewhere we don't know. But her left carotid was severed, so if she in fact is jerked back against someone for the throat cut the he has to turn his body out of the way of the path of the knife, which would turn her body so that the left carotid was facing downward. Not at the wall.

Similarly the killer may have tossed her more towards the wall than he pulled her. Her feet likely were not far from where they started, but he could have jerked her towards him when he was in the street, and then essentially heaved her at the wall to fall. With a light enough rain and a functioning runoff, without the actual topography of the street, we don't know that bloodstains in the street wouldn't be washed off. Similarly we can't be sure that this whole thing happened from behind. It could have happened from the front, putting the wound in question facing away from the wall. And it could have happened on the ground. But he didn't cut her throat when she was curled on her side. But since we don't know what position she was in when her throat was cut, we can't say that there should or should not blood anywhere.

Just because I can picture the scenario doesn't means I'm in favor of it.

But when considering blood spray, think of this. People who slit their wrists generate maybe one single jet of a fine spray for the duration of a single pulse. Very fine. And it's not strong. Generally the wound gushes blood. A slit wrist is deadly because of the radial artery. Smaller than the carotid, more prone to spray. But it doesn't. Why?

[Observer]

Hello Jon.

"I was making allowances for Blackwell's comment:
"...The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground.""

Score yet another point. We sometimes forget that the theory I espouse was originally his.

Cheers.
LC

So Dr Philips theory regarding the position of the body when cut is of no consequence? And lets not forget that Dr Blackwell also stated "or when she was on the ground".

[Observer]

I always pictured "cutting as she fell" to be simply one fluid motion. He came up behind her as she was walking, jerked her backward off her feet so she essentially fell into his chest, cut her throat, and stepped back so so that she would complete the fall. Which might have resulted in the killer blocking the initial spray spray from the cut getting onto the wall.

Fell into his chest, then he cut her throat? So her neck at that point was what, 4 feet from the ground? If this is the case where did the blood issuing from the wound (Dr Philips called it a spray) end up?

[lynn cates]

right-o

Hello Errata.

"I always pictured "cutting as she fell" to be simply one fluid motion. He came up behind her as she was walking, jerked her backward off her feet so she essentially fell into his chest, cut her throat, and stepped back so so that she would complete the fall."

Well, that makes two of us.

Well done!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Blackwell

Hello Jon.

"I was making allowances for Blackwell's comment:
"...The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground.""

Score yet another point. We sometimes forget that the theory I espouse was originally his.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that the thread is supposed to be concerned with the question of blood spray while decapitating, not whether or not some posters agree with some contemporary medical experts as to when Liz Strides throat was cut.....once.

In the cases of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, there is a case to be made for a killer who may have sought to decapitate, this deep double cut seems to be an element of some other so-called "Ripper kills"....obviously Liz Strides murder isnt on that list.

Phillips would have been an excellent source for an opinion as to whether Strides killer used a similar knife to those first 2 murders, or exhibited some skills that matched those kills, but neither Blackwell or Phillips offer a scenario that addresses all the concerns of an investigator.

As to decapitation.....I will say that some posters make statements here that seem to be made without using their heads.

You know who you are.

Cheers

[Errata]

Arterial spray would have hit the wall if she had been on her feet ergo she was not on her feet when cut.

"on or near the ground" you can't have both Jon, she was either near the ground or on it. The two positions would not have displayed the same blood pattern, in my opinion. Dr Philips observed that there was no blood, on the ground, between the body and the wall, this is why he formulated that Liz Stride had been on the ground as she was cut.

You know, what's with this cutting as she fell? What's the point in cutting a victim as she falls? How long would it take to bring someone from the standing position, to the prone? Half a second? Think about it, half a second to locate the throat and cut, and the body is falling all the while, and this in a dark passage. It doesn't make sense to me. Better to wait while the victim is on the ground then cut. This is what I believe happened, as did Doctor Philips. The blood pattern supports the prone position.

I see Mr Cates is now of the opinion that us that the victim was near the ground when cut. Is this possible? "near the ground". What did the killer do ? Prevent her from falling the last couple of inches in order to cut her throat? I can't see, considering the momentum of the body falling, and the rapidity of the fall, that anyone would have the ability to cut the throat just as it was inches from the ground. Even if this was the case by some freak of nature, and the victim was cut, "near to the ground", the blood splatter would not have been as observed by Doctor Philips. As he noted there was no blood between the body and the wall, hence he formed a professional opinion that Liz Stride was lying on the ground as she was cut.

Regards

Observer

I always pictured "cutting as she fell" to be simply one fluid motion. He came up behind her as she was walking, jerked her backward off her feet so she essentially fell into his chest, cut her throat, and stepped back so so that she would complete the fall. Which might have resulted in the killer blocking the initial spray spray from the cut getting onto the wall.

But of all the throat cuts, her was by and large the most expert. The vessels were cleanly cut through, not just opened. A completely severed artery only has the pressure from the heart behind it. So the spray in such cases is pretty much not a spray as much as just a wave of blood. It's akin to a water balloon. Prick it with a pin, and the spray is impressive. Make a small cut and the water pulses out. Make a big enough cut and the water just falls to the floor.

The only thing that would create a spray would be if the murder weapon was so sharp that the wound was able to seal itself between drops in pressure, causing the blood to have to force itself through the seal. (Not like a healing seal, but like a surface tension/vacuum sort of thing.) I'm not entirely sure anything was sharp enough to do that back then. Well, not metal anyway. Glass occasionally breaks with an edge sharp enough.

[Observer]

I can't see Phillips & Blackwell making diametrically opposite suggestions, there must be a medium ground that can accomodate both views.

They most certainly did. Read the inquest report. So you pays your money, and takes your chance. I believe Philips was correct. I can't really say any more on the matter.

Regards

Observer