Blood Spray from Decapitation

[lynn cates]

time

Hello Mitzi. Welcome to the boards.

Yes, I think that claim was made. Of course, the time intervening between seizing the scarf and hitting the ground may be insufficient for cardiac arrest and death?

Cheers.
LC

[Countess Mitzi]

Hi All! Enjoying the posts! Rank amateur jumping in here but. . . Wasn't there a thread on here a few months ago - and darned if I can remember where! it was when I was mired in lurkdoom- anyway, someone posited that perhaps, when grabbed from behind and her scarf was yanked, or pressure applied to her throat- Liz may have suffered reflex cardiac arrest and died before she hit the ground. In which case, there would be little blood spray, and Jack could control her body on the way down to the throat slitting on the ground, hence, no nasty mess. Just a thought. . .

Happy Christmas All!

The Countess

[Observer]

I of course meant her left side, facing the club wall.

[lynn cates]

left

Hello Errata. No, you're right--it was left side.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

I thought she was on her left side. Ish. Am I wrong?

[Observer]

Even with the throat cut on the ground, the collar of her dress should have been soaked. It is an astonishing coincidence that her wound is positioned perfectly over a runoff. Never mind that throat cutting is neither an instantaneous nor a paralytic death. People move afterwards. She should have had mud on her from that alone. Except for the fact that it would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do, I would think that her killer cut her throat while her head was on his lap, his pants and jacket absorbing the blood. But then you can cut the crap out of your leg and who wants that.

I think the reason for contradiction here is that we appear to have contradictory evidence. The blood evidence says she was killed on the ground. The mud and scene evidence says she wasn't killed on the ground. So I think what we are looking at is conditional language somewhere along the line. Either there was no blood on the dress whatsoever, or there was no blood on the dress that one would not expect to be there. There was no mud, or there was no mud that wasn't consistent with simply lying in mud. Because it seems impossible that there was neither, unless she had been hung by her heels somewhere.

On the other hand, in the "you never know" category, it is possible that due to some fluke of positioning the blood hit the wall well above where people would normally look. Like the blood is on the roof, or 15 feet up. Or across the yard. Because every so often the cartoonish stuff does happen.

Contradictory evidence we have in abundance! However, both Philips and Blackwell were both insistent that there was no blood found on Liz Stride's clothing. Blackwell stating at inquest

"I examined the clothes, but found no blood on any part of them."

As you imply, if the killer had cut Liz Stride as she fell there would have been a point when her shoulder would have been below the cut. I can not see this happening without the upper part of the clothing being soiled with blood. Again, I agree with you regarding slight movement after she was cut, thus soiling the garments with mud. Of course no such soiling with mud occurred. It appears as if she was placed (due to the mud that was on her garments) in the position in which she was found. I believe it's possible the killer rendered her unconscious with the aid of the choke method as used by certain criminal elements to mug their victims. This method of rendering a victim unconscious was rife in mid 19th Century London. Of course as with all crazes, if we can call it a craze, they were more prolonged than the history books tell us. A skilled practitioner of this choke method can render a victim unconscious in seconds. I think it's possible that Liz Strides killer, indeed all the victims, were subdued in this manner. So in this case, not only a serial killer, and mutilator, but a mugger and thief to boot.

Thus the killer of Liz Stride quickly subdues her, and she ends up lying on her right side. The killer then cuts her throat in that position, explaining (due to the awkward position of the body) the lack of deep wounds found on the other victims. I agree with your description of the wound to the throat, as a spigot opening in her neck, followed by a substantial heavy flow of blood. Therefore, due to the fact she was on a slight incline, the blood would not necessarily have soiled her clothes.

Regards

Observer

[lynn cates]

Forensics R Us

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Which also applies to the suggestion that Stride was on her back, however momentarily. Had that been the case there would be mud on the back of her jacket."

Absolutely. In my estimation, she never touched soil EXCEPT on her left side.

"The position in which she was found is quite consistent with her being attacked from behind as she faced the wall."

More or less. If she did, she was pulled away and turned 90 degrees. But I can live with that.

"If the initial attack was strangling then he pulled on the tail ends of her scarf until she slumped down to her left unconscious."

You mean incidental strangling from the scarf? Alright, but doubtful that strangling was intended.

"Given that we cannot know the style of scarf she wore, this can only be hypothetical, but the use of a garrott is a possible alternate."

OK. But its marks were invisible or incidentally concealed by the wound.

"In this scenario Stride must have laid on her left side briefly while the killer pulls the knife, so perhaps he raised her head up by pulling on the scarf?"

OK, Tom's thesis. But pulling from the right either:

1. leaves knot in original position

or

2. to the right

(depending on how he grabbed it).

"This method doesn't find any known similarities with the earlier murders of Nichols & Chapman. . ."

NOW you're talking!!!!

"Possibly the killer of Stride had no time to roll her on her back?"

Why not?

"Or, maybe he never intended to?"

Now THAT makes sense.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata.

"It is an astonishing coincidence that her wound is positioned perfectly over a runoff."

Agreed. I don't think any of that was planned--he grabbed and cut. End of story.

"The blood evidence says she was killed on the ground."

I don't see why. If her cut carotid is near the ground, why not when she is in process of being laid on the ground?

Cheers.
LC

It physically possible, but with positional contractions its pretty unlikely. Any time you bend the body you increase pressure. Making blood more likely to get out of hand. And in couldn't be too close to the ground or her lower body would have been on the pavement, and with the ten seconds of fighting and kicking and stuff, her skirts would have gotten filthy. So she would have to have been at an odd angle. But even with the severed carotid pointed at the ground, her sleeve and shoulder should still have blood on it. They would have been below the cut. Theres actually very few ways no blood at all on her dress makes sense. Plenty of ways no blood on the wall makes sense, it's her clothing thats the problem.

Which is why I think that there is some qualification in the description of either the blood or the mud that we aren't getting. Not say, "there was no blood" but "there was no blood that wasn't consistent with lying in a pool of your own blood". Or the same with mud. I mean unless we think he was catching it buckets to take away, I don't see zero blood on her dress. Little, sure. But not none. Not without ridiculous pains being taken, like, stripping her and redressing her or something. I don't think her particular wounds would have sprayed. But she definitely would have bled like someone turned on a bath spigot in her neck. So unless someone is bending her backwards like a contortionist, I don't see how NOTHING gets on her dress.

But I don't think he cut her as she was found because the deepest cut was on the left, and if I have my bearings correct that means the killer is putting his knife between her neck and the pavement. Which is awkward. But also she isn't seeing the knife and scrambling up. Flat on her back means he can essentially sit on her and she isn't going anywhere. It's a lot harder to restrain someone on their side. It's why if men in white coats ever come for you, curl into fetal position. They won't be able to crack you open. The secret to my legacy of being a nightmare patient when I was a kid.

Also I think I recall reading that the tear on her kerchief was at a right angle to the jaw. For whoever wondered that.

[Wickerman]

... But IF she were on the ground in ANY position save left side, her dress should have been wet and muddy that side. It wasn't.

Which also applies to the suggestion that Stride was on her back, however momentarily. Had that been the case there would be mud on the back of her jacket.

The position in which she was found is quite consistent with her being attacked from behind as she faced the wall. If the initial attack was strangling then he pulled on the tail ends of her scarf until she slumped down to her left unconscious.
Given that we cannot know the style of scarf she wore, this can only be hypothetical, but the use of a garrott is a possible alternate.

In this scenario Stride must have laid on her left side briefly while the killer pulls the knife, so perhaps he raised her head up by pulling on the scarf?

This method doesn't find any known similarities with the earlier murders of Nichols & Chapman, unless they too slumped down on their left side before he rolled them on their back.
Possibly the killer of Stride had no time to roll her on her back?
Or, maybe he never intended to?

[lynn cates]

coincidence

Hello Errata.

"It is an astonishing coincidence that her wound is positioned perfectly over a runoff."

Agreed. I don't think any of that was planned--he grabbed and cut. End of story.

"The blood evidence says she was killed on the ground."

I don't see why. If her cut carotid is near the ground, why not when she is in process of being laid on the ground?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

possible

Hello Mike. That is a possibility.

It would be interesting to see the scarf and which side was frayed by the knife.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

In my opinion, should this have been the case, the momentum of the body, and consequently the neck twisting to the left would have resulted in the blood from the wound being projected farther than if the body had merely fell backwards. Centrifugal force being the factor here. Much the same way in which water issuing from a hosepipe can be projected farther if the hosepipe is swung in a circular direction.

Of course no such staining of blood was found on the club house wall

Even with the throat cut on the ground, the collar of her dress should have been soaked. It is an astonishing coincidence that her wound is positioned perfectly over a runoff. Never mind that throat cutting is neither an instantaneous nor a paralytic death. People move afterwards. She should have had mud on her from that alone. Except for the fact that it would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do, I would think that her killer cut her throat while her head was on his lap, his pants and jacket absorbing the blood. But then you can cut the crap out of your leg and who wants that.

I think the reason for contradiction here is that we appear to have contradictory evidence. The blood evidence says she was killed on the ground. The mud and scene evidence says she wasn't killed on the ground. So I think what we are looking at is conditional language somewhere along the line. Either there was no blood on the dress whatsoever, or there was no blood on the dress that one would not expect to be there. There was no mud, or there was no mud that wasn't consistent with simply lying in mud. Because it seems impossible that there was neither, unless she had been hung by her heels somewhere.

On the other hand, in the "you never know" category, it is possible that due to some fluke of positioning the blood hit the wall well above where people would normally look. Like the blood is on the roof, or 15 feet up. Or across the yard. Because every so often the cartoonish stuff does happen.

[Michael W Richards]

If the cut to the throat was executed after the killer took hold of her scarf and pulled and twisted it to cause her to lose balance and fall backwards to her left...there may have been little spray. I say this because I believe the cut was above the scarf, just under her jaw line, and the scarf, being tight at this point, may have prevented a spurt or spray.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

taking sides

Hello Errata.

"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."

Completely agree--VERY awkward. But IF she were on the ground in ANY position save left side, her dress should have been wet and muddy that side. It wasn't.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Dr Philips was of the opinion that Liz Stride would not have had the energy to turn over onto her side after having her throat cut. In effect he's saying that Liz Stride's throat was cut whilst she was lying on her side, the position in which she was found. If I'm not mistaken, Tom Wescott believes that this is the reason why the cut to Liz Stride's throat was not as severe as the cuts which were administered to the other Whitechapel victims. I tend to agree with him. However, I concede, that it is entirely possible that Liz Stride was not lying on her side when cut, and that her killer turned her over onto her side. I also concede that it's possible that Liz Stride had a little life left in her, and rolled over onto her side, as you suggest.

Regarding Mr Cates scenario, and the possibility of blood stains being visible on the club wall should Liz Stride have been falling as she was cut.

Mr Cates has suggested that the killer, from behind, caught hold of Liz Strides scarf and pulled her backwards, and as she fell she twisted to her left, the killer at this point, as she was falling, took his knife and cut her throat. She was then lowered to the ground alighting on her left side.

In my opinion, should this have been the case, the momentum of the body, and consequently the neck twisting to the left would have resulted in the blood from the wound being projected farther than if the body had merely fell backwards. Centrifugal force being the factor here. Much the same way in which water issuing from a hosepipe can be projected farther if the hosepipe is swung in a circular direction.

Of course no such staining of blood was found on the club house wall