An idea about the signs of asphyxia

[Rya]

How do you strangle a victim and not leave petechiae?
You do this by simultaneously constricting both the veins and the arteries (jugular & carotid) cutting off blood flow to & from the head.

Let me try to be a little clearer about the forming of petechiae, since my previous post was admittedly fuzzy. Petechiae in the face and eyes can appear in a variety of instances due to dramatic increases in vascular pressure (as Wickerman correctly mentions above). In the cases where they appear in strangulation deaths (about half of all strangulation deaths, according to most studies), these hemorrhages are due to intercranial venous pressure, which increases due to the impossibility of an egress of venous blood from the head. However, the possible occusion of the carotid artery does not alleviate this process. In fact, in J.L. Luke's classic study of this phenomenon, he argued that ligature strangulations produced petechiae much more often than strangulation by other means. Luke argues that the carotid and vertebral arteries are not much compromised by strangulation in any form; later researchers seem to think that obstruction of these arteries if anything adds to the cephalic venous pressure.

What this all amounts to is that, if you see petechiae on the face or eyes of a suspected murder victim, you might have a death by strangulation (you might also have a massive cardiac arrest or cerebral hemorrhage, though, if there is no other evidence of asphyxia present). In the case of Nichols or Chapman, evidence of petechiae could help a diagnosis of cause of death. If you think that Llewellyn and/or Phillips would have identified and mentioned the presence of petechiae had they existed, well then the fact that the two doctors didn't makes the possibility of some other cause of death somewhat more likely. But only somewhat.

With respect to the damage to the laryngeal cartilage, fractures and such caused by strangulation by any means could not be disguised by a subsequent knife wound--a simple autopsy of the neck area would reveal each as a separate issue (it would also reveal a broken neck). Did the police surgeons do a neck autopsy? Based on the comments about the knife wounds given at the inquests, I assume they did. But who knows?

Although I'm sure Wickerman has explained this before, I'm wondering why he thinks that the killer would care to disguise the use of a ligature if he did resort to it as a means of incapacitating or killing any of the women.

Errata's comments on Chapman are interesting--to which I would add: (d) that whatever was done to her--strangulation, smothering, burking, sucker-punching--commenced in the passageway or landing area, after which she was carried outside the back door and set down for the mutilation. Why the killer or killers would put her down just outside the door is a good question--perhaps there was a sense of security there, where someone in the passageway could be heard, and so forth. All of the outside murders seem foolhardy to me, but the Chapman killing seems like, well, utter madness.

Personally though, I'm even more puzzled by Eddowes, who died with her bonnet still on her head. And in this case asphyxiation is less likely. It's as though she just fainted away, and the killer--gently--laid her on the ground before cutting her to pieces.

Incidently, wasn't Llewellyn a GYN by profession?

[Errata]

If there had been obvious signs of asphyxiation then I think this would have been brought up at the inquest.

Regards, Jon S.

This is why I'm not even married to the idea that they had to be rendered unconscious via asphyxiation. If they were still alive when their throats were cut, that could account what little signs of asphyxia there are. First of all, I'm not 100 % sold that Annie Chapman wasn't cyanotic due to her illness, and the tongue swelling from some injury during the attack. But even so, these women could have died of asphyxia by drowning in their own blood, or choking on it, or dry drowning. Because all we have are description of the neck wounds, we can guess where they likely started based on usual methods, but we don't know. We don't know that Jack didn't stab Poly Nichols under the Adam's apple, and the work on the rest of the neck when she didn't die quickly enough. Or something equally irregular. While poor Llewellyn was probably slightly moronic is his assertion that there was only a wine glass full of blood on the ground, it is possible that a good deal of blood that should have gone out went in instead.

My dad told me a really dreadful story about a guy who got stabbed in the throat sort of downward and they left the knife in, so when he came into the ER dead, he not only had drowned, but most of his blood was free floating in his thoracic cavity. And they could hear him slosh, which was making all of the nurse faint, so they tapped him like a maple tree. And they say GYNs never get interesting cases.

[Wickerman]

A couple of further points about strangulation:

First, if the victims were strangled, either by manual means or by ligature, there would be probable damage to the laryngeal structures, beyond what would be otherwise caused by the knife wounds.

This is an actual ligature wound, how difficult do you think it would be for the killer to run his knife through that line to obliterate all signs of its use?

Secondly, we might expect to see the presence of petechiae, or hemorrhages, in the face and eyes. This is caused not by asphixia itself, but by the obstruction of venous blood in the head of the person due to pressure on the blood vessels of the neck.

Not quite.

........ It is important to repeat that petechiae are not always present in asphyxia, ...

Correct, but you failed to explain why.

You are apparently aware that petechiae is the result of pressure, but not pressure from the hands or from the ligature. The pressure comes from the heart.
Petechiae is the result of the veins being constricted while the heart is still pumping thereby creating excessive pressure throughout the vascular system ahead of the constriction, in this case the head.
The main veins can take the pressure but the small capilliaries burst hence petechiae.

How do you strangle a victim and not leave petechiae?
You do this by simultaneously constricting both the veins and the arteries (jugular & carotid) cutting off blood flow to & from the head.

Around the neck where both veins and arteries are accessible you cannot easily do this with human hands, but you can easily do this with a ligature applied swiftly around the neck and cross your hands pulling tight.
Sufficient pressure is therefore applied equally on both veins and arteries (and trachea/windpipe for what its worth). No blood flow, unable to breathe, unable to scream, causing insensibility in seconds.

If these symptoms were verifiably not present--no laryngeal bruising or fractures, no petechiae--it would then tend to support some other theory of respiratory obstruction, such as Errata has suggested.

Sadly, we do not have a copy of a complete autopsy report (read that of MacKenzie for an example), so it is difficult for us to judge.
If there had been obvious signs of asphyxiation then I think this would have been brought up at the inquest.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Personally, I'm not particularly sold on gags, but there are other means akin to gagging or smothering that might be possible. For example, the killer might have pulled the victim to the ground and placed his weight against their stomach or chest (usually via his knee) while covering their mouth and nose with his hand or some other object. The combination of compression against the lungs and obstruction of the airway would produce unconsciousness and even death nearly as quickly as strangulation, while also giving the killer some measure of control over the victim's physical flailing. There would be much less bruising present, and the then comatose or dead women could be mutilated where they were smothered. Oddly, this approach has a history in British crime, since Burke and Hare used it to kill victims whose bodies they then sold as cadavers to the surgeons. They employed this means of asphyxiation primarily so as to produce a relatively contusion-free body for sale. Note, however, that two men can do this sort of thing more easily than one.

I thought about Burking. Basically I discarded it because of Annie Chapman. She was killed in the dirt. Not on pavement or cobblestones, but dirt. Probably clay. The one thing I would absolutely expect to see is furrows in the ground from where she dug her heels in to try and either dislodge her attacker or get away. Really, no matter what happened. Whether she was strangled, burked, clawing something out of her eyes, whatever. And that didn't happen. And the only ways I can explain that is if a: she was unconscious before she ever knew she was in danger b: she was restrained to the point that such an action was impossible or c: she had no interaction with the ground when she realized she was being attacked.

A: can only be accomplished with either a bullet or a blow to the head. Neither occurred. Drugs are possible, but theres no evidence of that either. There is no evidence of a broken neck either, but given the damage to the neck, it may have been obscured or implied. B: is possible if there was some way to render her unconscious that did not involve using his hands, so he could keep them free to restrain her. Again, drugs are possible, but there is no evidence of that. The only other thing I can come up with is a gag. And then you dont even require a lot of restraint because retching is sort of a full body activity. C: would be possible if she were rendered unconscious while being held up off the ground. A gag can work here. Or more than one killer. Burking would have to have at least two guys, or she would still have her arms and legs to lash out with.

The most interesting thing is that she was not in the handiest position ever to cut her throat or perform the mutilations. But she had to have died there, because she wasn't dragged to that position. Nor did her killer make it easier on himself by dragging her out of that cramped corner. It's an odd choice. There is about three feet of clearance between the stairs and the fence. In modern terms, thats carving up someone in a doorway. Odd choice.

I'm not wedded to a gag, or to neck breaking or anything else. I'll buy anything that accounts for that lack of physical interaction with her environment.

[Rya]

If you subscribe to the view that MJK was killed during the night, then it is likely that just this scenario occurred. A cry of "Murder!" which was ignored by those who heard it.

Actually, I have grave doubts about both the cry of "murder" heard around Miller's Court that morning as well as the usual proposed time of death in Kelly's case. I honestly don't think we know a thing about the circumstances of Mary Kelly's murder, and I doubt we ever will. What we know is that she was alive as late as 1 am on the morning of November 9th--after that we have two highly disputed witnesses. Otherwise, nothing. But that's a subject for another thread.

A couple of further points about strangulation:

First, if the victims were strangled, either by manual means or by ligature, there would be probable damage to the laryngeal structures, beyond what would be otherwise caused by the knife wounds. There would not necessarily be linear ecchymosis (as for example, from a ligature); instead there might be broader pattern of bruising and discoloration (since the ligature might slip across the surface of the neck in the victim's struggle) or even evidence of burns, depending on the material of the ligature. But it is also possible that no bruising at all would occur. But damage to the laryngeal cartilage would be usually noted. Fractures to the tyhoid bone occur less than half the time, so this isn't always an indictor.

Secondly, we might expect to see the presence of petechiae, or hemorrhages, in the face and eyes. This is caused not by asphixia itself, but by the obstruction of venous blood in the head of the person due to pressure on the blood vessels of the neck. It takes about thirty seconds for petechiae to appear--just about the same time it takes for someone to lose consciousness from lack of oxygen. It is important to repeat that petechiae are not always present in asphyxia, since it isn't asphyxiation itself that causes the hemorrhages. It can occur in smothering, drowning, etc. as well as in strangulation, but is usually connected specifically to strangulation deaths.

The question is, did any of the attending doctors look for these things in their autopsy examinations? There is no mention of either, and the conclusion usually reached is that the pathologists didn't check for symptoms they weren't already looking for. But I'm not so sure about that, especially since Phillips at least observed some kind of asphyxiation, full or partial, in Chapman's case. If these symptoms were verifiably not present--no laryngeal bruising or fractures, no petechiae--it would then tend to support some other theory of respiratory obstruction, such as Errata has suggested.

Personally, I'm not particularly sold on gags, but there are other means akin to gagging or smothering that might be possible. For example, the killer might have pulled the victim to the ground and placed his weight against their stomach or chest (usually via his knee) while covering their mouth and nose with his hand or some other object. The combination of compression against the lungs and obstruction of the airway would produce unconsciousness and even death nearly as quickly as strangulation, while also giving the killer some measure of control over the victim's physical flailing. There would be much less bruising present, and the then comatose or dead women could be mutilated where they were smothered. Oddly, this approach has a history in British crime, since Burke and Hare used it to kill victims whose bodies they then sold as cadavers to the surgeons. They employed this means of asphyxiation primarily so as to produce a relatively contusion-free body for sale. Note, however, that two men can do this sort of thing more easily than one.

Which raises another issue, regarding the amount of struggling that went on in the murders. If we assume the killer's feign was to solicit for sex, then I suspect his assault took place while the victim was sorting herself out for some requested act, something which would make the initial attack easier to perform. But we need to remember that men who kill women do so most often by strangling them, and prostitutes then and now are particularly fearful of asphyxiation. They would not willingly put themselves in a compromising position where they could not observe the client, for example--so while the simplest way to perform intercourse while standing might be to bend over and allow the client to enter you from behind, it is a dangerous procedure for reasons already explained. Most girls would prefer facing the client. The same precautions would apply to other sex acts that would not allow a full view of the customer while engaged in, such as fellatio, anal sex, and so on.

Still, these women were highly compromised already on the nights of their deaths: Nichols was still probably stupefied from drink, Chapman was dying and actually appeared intoxicated due to physical torpor when she was seen that night, and Eddowes was hungover and, in any event--based on the mortuary photos--was a sad, emaciated slip of a creature. And all three of them were relatively small in stature to begin with. Serial killers often have an intuition for seeking out the most vulnerable, defenseless victims--and JtR may have chosen these women for his potential ease in overpowering them.

Lastly--sorry for such a long post--I don't think an alternative modus operandi for the Ripper, where he threatened his victims initially and got their cooperation, at least until he could render them insensible or dead, is all that unlikely, although he probably varied his approach based on contingencies. I have been in the precise situation where my life was threatened in this way--although with a gun under my jaw, rather than a knife--and I can say that you don't contemplate much in that moment; you decide intuitively whether or not cooperation means you live or not. You choose to cooperate when you judge the assailant doesn't really want your life--just your belongings, or your submission. And even if you fear he might kill you anyway, wishful thinking springs eternal. It would take a lot for someone to risk everything in a struggle when submission seems a more likely path to survival. In my case, I guessed right, while one or two of the earlier victims of the Ripper (for what reason would anyone want to kill them anyway?) may have guessed wrong.

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

With you on some of your aguments, but would having your neck broken leave you with a "placid" face? Seems to me that having your neck broken would really hurt.

Best wishes,
C4

I would imagine it does. But a neck can break higher than the facial nerves originate, so the connection to the face would be severed, causing facial paralysis. Leaving a slack face. It happens in judicial hangings quite often. Assuming of course the hanging is done correctly and the neck snaps like it's supposed to.

[curious4]

Hello Errata,

With you on some of your aguments, but would having your neck broken leave you with a "placid" face? Seems to me that having your neck broken would really hurt.

Best wishes,
C4

[RedBundy13]

Hello all.

One thing I think we are forgetting in this discussion is how much stronger a man is (on the whole) pound for pound than a woman. I barely scrape the five foot mark and remember a tussle from my younger days with a man of almost exactly the same height - if we hadnīt been in a public place, with plenty of people around, things could have turned very nasty.

Best wishes,
C4

Hi curious,
I was just wondering, who would have it turned nasty for, you or the man? Kidding...
Imo, if someone has a gun or knife pointed at you it doesnt matter your size or theirs, the person with the weapon is in control. And most people will comply with the attackers demands as long as there is no risk of themselves getting hurt. I think the only way a victim would not comply with a muggers demands is if they knew that they would be hurt anyways or if they knew there was some other way out of the situation.

[Errata]

If you subscribe to the view that MJK was killed during the night, then it is likely that just this scenario occurred. A cry of "Murder!" which was ignored by those who heard it.

I have always wondered about this. Is it possible that this cry of "Murder!" was taken a little too literally? Like did someone say "I heard her cry murder" meaning she screamed bloody murder, as opposed to actually saying the word, which is a little weird?

[Errata]

Huh? No way, Even pound for pound a man can lift more weight with his legs than a woman. No doubt about that.

Mike

Ah. No I meant that a woman's legs are stronger than the average man's arms. In a frontal assault, most women can break free of the hands of their attacker by pushing against him with her legs.

[Bridewell]

Mjk

Perhaps we are simply too hung up on the issue of noise. I would wager that at least one if not more of these women did manage to cry out, perhaps repeatedly. Perhaps, in the deadening and gruesome cacophony of the poor neighborhoods where these crimes took place, nobody was listening.

If you subscribe to the view that MJK was killed during the night, then it is likely that just this scenario occurred. A cry of "Murder!" which was ignored by those who heard it.

[GregBaron]

Just an aside...

And what has that to do with the argument that women have stronger legs?

Mike

Nothing. But there is no argument.

I was merely pointing out the difference in leg strength is not as dramatic as upper body strength (for no particular reason).


Greg

[The Good Michael]

Yes men have stronger legs but the ratio to women is not as marked as in the upper body...............

And what has that to do with the argument that women have stronger legs?

Mike

[GregBaron]

Strength...

Huh? No way, Even pound for pound a man can lift more weight with his legs than a woman. No doubt about that.

Mike

Yes men have stronger legs but the ratio to women is not as marked as in the upper body...............


Greg

[The Good Michael]

Of course, women have much stronger legs so it tips into a woman's favor in case of a frontal attack.

Huh? No way, Even pound for pound a man can lift more weight with his legs than a woman. No doubt about that.

Mike