Blood Spray from Decapitation

[Ginger]

I've been waffling whether I ought to post this link or not, but in the end, it bears quite strongly on the eternal argument as to whether Jack could have avoided being covered in blood after his murders. What you're going to see, if you decide to look, is video of someone from a Mexican drug cartel (los Zetas) cutting off a woman's head with a knife. She's conscious through most of it. I'd always expected that a cut throat would spray blood everywhere, but there's surprisingly little of that on display here, possibly because he's forcing her head downward while he cuts her throat. Most of the blood seems to end up on the victim. Having watched this, I do think it's possible that the Ripper could have gotten only a small amount of blood on himself.

Think hard before you watch this, because it can't be unseen. This really happened.

http://www.bestgore.com/beheading/decapitated-woman-mexico-fastest-mexican-beheading-tape/

[Observer]

Hi Ginger

Recently when discussing decapitation with Fisherman, I was going to provide a link to a similar clip to the one you describe, and provide. I thought better of it and decided to give it a miss. The one difference was that the individual was kneeling, and there was blood everywhere, a real spray. That image haunted me for a long time, and I really regret watching the clip. I see you have quite rightly warned poster's in advance, and I would heartily endorse your warning. Please think twice, or more, before watching the clip, these images can greatly affect you. They are the last violent seconds in the life of innocent individuals. Why not just take Ginger's, and my own description into consideration, and skip watching the video clip.

Ginger describes the head being forced downwards, thus directing the spray of blood away from the killer. Coroner Baxter alludes to this method of despatch being employed during the Liz Stride murder. I tend to agree with him.

As Baxter implied regarding the way in which Liz Stride was despatched

"There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection"

As I said, the video clip I saw, the victim was kneeling and the killer cut his throat as he was forcing him down, the spray was plain to see. If Liz Stride had been cut as she fell, there's no way that the walls of the club, or the ground surrounding her would have been free of blood spray.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

PS I did not watch Ginger's video clip

[Errata]

I've been waffling whether I ought to post this link or not, but in the end, it bears quite strongly on the eternal argument as to whether Jack could have avoided being covered in blood after his murders. What you're going to see, if you decide to look, is video of someone from a Mexican drug cartel (los Zetas) cutting off a woman's head with a knife. She's conscious through most of it. I'd always expected that a cut throat would spray blood everywhere, but there's surprisingly little of that on display here, possibly because he's forcing her head downward while he cuts her throat. Most of the blood seems to end up on the victim. Having watched this, I do think it's possible that the Ripper could have gotten only a small amount of blood on himself.

Think hard before you watch this, because it can't be unseen. This really happened.

http://www.bestgore.com/beheading/de...eheading-tape/

Yeah, I'm not going to watch that.

BUT it is true that arterial spray is almost never as impressive as it is on tv. Usually only a couple of inches for maybe three seconds. Unless you get a pinhole puncture of an artery, which can get cartoonish. But thats a fine spray, and on a black jacket it would go unnoticed.

But people rarely get covered in their victims blood from slitting a throat, since they are usually behind the victim. Certainly there are way to position someone so that it is relatively assured, but those involve forcing the victim to bend over, and that would mean the blood would drip/pour down the victim's front, which didn't happen.

It's not the spurts that get murderers covered in blood generally. And most murders are accomplished with surprisingly little blood transfer (surprising if you are going off Rob Zombie movies as a guide). Most blood transfer happen when the murderer pick up the victim, say to dispose of them elsewhere. So rule number one, "don't pick up your victim". And a not insignificant amount of blood can be transferred through cast offs. Psycho like multiple stabbings, sawing away at anything, puncturing blood filled organs, these things will flip cast offs onto your clothes. Rule number two, "don't get fancy". Anyone who stabs will get blood on their hands. Possibly up to their elbows. That can be dealt with. What is harder to deal with is your pants soaking up blood as you kneel in a puddle next to your victim. Again, on black it's not going to be seen, unless you are running and have blood being flung off the back of your pants, leaving a crimson trail in the puddles on the street. Rule 3, "bring a towel", rule 4, "crouch, don't kneel". The really bloody part is extracting the organs. Now with some preparation even that should be fine. If he rolled up his sleeves or whatever. Or hell, if he went the Lizzie Borden route and stripped naked. Then you just refer back to rule 3. Otherwise rule 5, "no souvenirs".

But black, especially black wool which is pretty absorbent can cover a multitude of sins. I know this because I have many times bled profusely in black wool. Can't see a thing. I have stood two feet away from people and not have them realize I was covered in blood. If they touched me on the other hand, they would have been in for a rude shock. So if the Ripper was wearing a black wool coat and nobody touched him, nobody would know. Outside from the rainy evening even if the cops did stop him, he would not have been given away by bloodstains.

[Observer]

Hi Errata

Wise choice

[Beowulf]

I've always thought the Ripper caught them from behind, held them still with one hand, maybe over the mouth and cut across with the other, making if any spray at all go forward, then he could let them down backwards and get on with it.

[Errata]

I've always thought the Ripper caught them from behind, held them still with one hand, maybe over the mouth and cut across with the other, making if any spray at all go forward, then he could let them down backwards and get on with it.

Actually we know he didn't do that, because his victims didn't have blood on their chests, which they would had they been standing at any point in the process. They were already lying down.

So the next logical question is how the hell did he get them to lie on their backs for their throats to be cut, and I have no idea. This is the biggest mystery to me. Not who did it, but how did he do it. He could have choked them out, but that means fighting, and even 10 seconds of fighting disturbs a lot of the scene, and that didn't happen. The easiest way would be a blow to the head, but none of their skulls were cracked, nor did they have lumps on their head, and there would be enough time before death for that to occur. Now I don't think there is anything a guy could say to me to convince me to lie down in a street or a yard when they still used chamberpots, but a ridiculous amount of money would have to be on offer. But no amount of money would have kept me lying down when I saw the knife coming. So they were not in a position to yell or to fight. And no chloroform was used. The smell is instantly recognizable, and lingers for hours.

So despite the fact that clearly the easiest thing to do would be to grab them from behind and cut their throats in one quick jerk and let them fall... he didn't do that. I suspect because his particular fantasy was pretty dependent on looking down at them as he did it. Otherwise why go the hard way? But I don't know how he did it. I've looked into dozens of options. I have no idea.

[K-453]

Most of the blood seems to end up on the victim.

Some of it sprays away from her. After that, some more drips down besides her and forms a small puddle.

Please think twice, or more, before watching the clip, these images can greatly affect you.

Seconded.
I watched the video, plus a few others, to understand better what sights the witnesses were confronted with when they found the victims.
Be warned. This website is gruesome and sick. Some stuff there can give you nightmares; or it can make you steam with rage!

[Cogidubnus]

I've watched it.

It's pretty horrible, but it makes a total nonsense of the entire argument about Stride, the lack of blood on the wall, the gripping or otherwise of the cachous, or anything else.

This poor girl could easily have had her throat cut on the way down...could easily have grasped the cachous throughout and might well have cried out but quietly.

So I ought to feel better but instead feel sobered

God bless

Dave

[Observer]

I've watched it.

It's pretty horrible, but it makes a total nonsense of the entire argument about Stride, the lack of blood on the wall, the gripping or otherwise of the cachous, or anything else.

This poor girl could easily have had her throat cut on the way down...could easily have grasped the cachous throughout and might well have cried out but quietly.

So I ought to feel better but instead feel sobered

God bless

Dave

I have not watched the video which Ginger provided, but believe me, the one that I have watched made it quite abundantly clear that if Liz Stride had been cut on the way down there is no way in the world that the blood pattern as viewed at the scene, could have been duplicated.

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Observer

I'm really very sorry...but to be able to contribute further in any sort of meaningful manner you really have to watch it...the "stray spots" could easily have been missed or more likely misinterpreted in those days...it's vile and you won't feel quite the same again, but...

Dave

[Observer]

Sorry Observer

I'm really very sorry...but to be able to contribute further in any sort of meaningful manner you really have to watch it...the "stray spots" could easily have been missed or more likely misinterpreted in those days...it's vile and you won't feel quite the same again, but...

Dave

Hi Dave

You obviously havn't read my posts. I have seen a similar video clip, and as I said the individual was kneeling and was pushed forward as his throat was cut.As a result of watching video in question, It's obvious to me that if Liz Stride was Cut whilst falling then there would have been considerable splashes of blood both on the wall of the club, and on the ground surrounding her. However lets see what one expert, who viewed the body, had to say.

Dr Philips

"the commencement of the wound and the injury to the vessels would be away from him, and the stream of blood - for stream it was - would be directed away from him, and towards the gutter in the yard."

Towards the gutter, meaning she was in the prone position.

Dr Philips again


"I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut."

Dr Philips again.

" My reason for believing that deceased was injured when on the ground was partly on account of the absence of blood anywhere on the left side of the body and between it and the wall."

But perhaps Dr Phillips testimony is not ample for you Dave.

Regards Observer

[Observer]

Further. The spots of blood could easily have been missed? Why is that? Also, missed "in those days"? Were the late Victorian Doctors and police blood blind? Were they incapable of detecting the presence of blood for some strange reason?

[Errata]

Something to bear in mind is that when a victim is not bound, the first action after having their throat cut is to put a hand to the wound. They also tend to tuck their chin into their chest, as the body tries to protect the injured part. Given the rate of exsanguination they don't do it for a long time, but they do it quickly enough and for long enough to alter the flow of blood from the wound. Not stop it. But it is usually enough to prevent arterial spray after the first 10 seconds or so after the cut. The blood sort of bubbles through the fingers and it loses it's force.

The notable exception being that when the vasovagal nerve is cut it causes a kind of paralysis, similar to smacking your funnybone. It can also be enough to cause a heart attack. In such a case a person would not get their hand up. But aside from an initial blow of enough force to resemble attempted decapitation, most throat cuts do not bring that kind of force to bear on that nerve.

[Observer]

Liz Stride's hands were not covered with blood, the right hand was smeared, the left held the cachous and was free of blood, which would suggest she did not hold up her hands in order to stem the flow.