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]

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.
...

Incidently, wasn't Llewellyn a GYN by profession?

I thought about that, but why would you do the potentially loud part inside where people can hear you? I mean, if she was going to scream, fight, flail, that would be like ringing a church bell in the living room. And if he was going to carry her outside, why not the open part, where he would have room?

It figures. Llewellyn seems like a guy blinded to his own wrongness. My father is the same way. In my 32 years of life, he has never once diagnosed me correctly.

[Wickerman]

..... 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.

I'm sure the study concerned 'deaths' due to the use of the ligature, this might seem too finer point to make but Chapman did not die due to strangulation, she essentially fainted due to loss of blood.

When Dr Phillips was asked for his opinion on cause of death, he said:

"From these appearances I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart's action, in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat."

I am assuming Luke's study did not consider someone only rendered unconscious by the ligature, but not killed by the ligature.
I suspect there is a difference involving both 'time' and 'pressure' from the cord in making such evaluations.

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.

The suggestion was pretty much contemporary, it is not my idea, I only repeat the suggestion made at the time.

Dr Matthew Brownfield, Divisional Police Surgeon for Poplar, is reputed to have voiced this opinion in December 1888.

"If this murder (Rose Mylett) was the work of the same man the question is whether strangulation is not the beginning of all his operations. Does he strangle or partially strangle them first, and then cut their throats afterwards?"

"If his object is mutilation, he could cut their throats so much more cleanly and deliberately. And this would explain, too, how the murderer would be able to do his work without getting covered with blood."

"If he cut the throat along the line of the cord he would obliterate the traces of partial strangulation."

The suggestion is "partial strangulation", sufficient to render the victim unconscious but not leave telltale petechiae or other obvious signs of suffocation. The victim is still alive.
Therefore death comes from the severence of the carotid artery, syncope.

If the killer did indeed slice through the mark of the ligature then that raises a further question, "why?"

Garotting had reached craze proportions in the early 1860's, mainly as a means to incapacitate a victim so as to rob him, the intention was not to kill the victim. The garotter was one member of a gang of muggers in the streets of London.
Garotters once caught were sentenced to anything from 15-20 years, however, some of these criminals were released early due to overcrowded prisons. Anyone given early release was known as a "ticket-of-leave man".

So now you have a situation where the identity of a known garroter is on file with the police. Whether released after serving a full sentence, or as a "ticket-of-leave man", the authorities have his name and description.
Reason enough for any ex-garotter who chooses to take up the cord again to hide the fact that it was used in a future crime.

These are only possible considerations, it is by no means certain the Whitechapel Murderer used a ligature, but I argue that he might have. And, the use of such a tool would answer several questions specifically as to the swift nature of the attack and why these women apparently made no audible scream, cry or gasp.

Regards, Jon S.

[Henry Flower]

Errata, though I understand you are not wedded to the gag theory, and without wishing to labor the point - the example of death by throat-gagging that springs to mind immediately is that of Georgette Bauerdorf, and it illustrates perfectly the difficulties of the scenario.

When she was found dead - strangled by a towel stuffed down her throat - the police said her apartment showed no signs of any struggle. But examination of her fists revealed she had fought like hell to survive. And moreover her screams were overheard by a neighbour.

So, like you, I'm not totally convinced by that scenario re JtR.

I always assumed he used some kind of choke-hold from behind - with an arm, not hands - for about 30 seconds maximum. One needn't suppose that this implies a victim preparing for sexual activity from behind, as I agree that these girls would likely have been more wary than that. However, it takes only a second for a killer to get himself behind a victim. He lets Annie lead the way down the passage to the yard and his arm is probably around her throat even before she's off the bottom step. Only a second.

And from behind, in the panic, with only seconds of clarity before the constriction starts to make her lose it, what damage can she realistically do? The instinctive reaction at first is probably to grip the assailant's arm to try to force it off. He's strong so that doesn't work, and thereafter her head is spinning and consciousness closing down. Add the effects of alcohol, illness, malnourishment - I'd say these girls never stood a chance and he knew it.

[Errata]

Errata, though I understand you are not wedded to the gag theory, and without wishing to labor the point - the example of death by throat-gagging that springs to mind immediately is that of Georgette Bauerdorf, and it illustrates perfectly the difficulties of the scenario.

When she was found dead - strangled by a towel stuffed down her throat - the police said her apartment showed no signs of any struggle. But examination of her fists revealed she had fought like hell to survive. And moreover her screams were overheard by a neighbour.

So, like you, I'm not totally convinced by that scenario re JtR.

I always assumed he used some kind of choke-hold from behind - with an arm, not hands - for about 30 seconds maximum. One needn't suppose that this implies a victim preparing for sexual activity from behind, as I agree that these girls would likely have been more wary than that. However, it takes only a second for a killer to get himself behind a victim. He lets Annie lead the way down the passage to the yard and his arm is probably around her throat even before she's off the bottom step. Only a second.

And from behind, in the panic, with only seconds of clarity before the constriction starts to make her lose it, what damage can she realistically do? The instinctive reaction at first is probably to grip the assailant's arm to try to force it off. He's strong so that doesn't work, and thereafter her head is spinning and consciousness closing down. Add the effects of alcohol, illness, malnourishment - I'd say these girls never stood a chance and he knew it.

It's the obvious answer, there's only one problem with it. These women did not suffer or die from ischemia, which is the condition a choke hold creates. They were asphyxiated. The air was cut off, but the blood flow was not to any significant extent. And that's actually not easy to do. Most strangulation methods cause ischemia. The only one that really doesn't is throttling with thumbs pressed on the windpipe. You're right, a gag is not a good option. But if you think about it (or try it) 10 seconds is a long time in terms of what a person can do to a crime scene. Could she escape or injure her attacker? Probably not. But the ground should be torn up, noise should be made. It's as if the Ripper walked up behind them and did the Vulcan Neck Pinch and they just collapsed. And I'm still not totally convinced they WEREN'T hit on the head. It's really sort of baffling.

[Henry Flower]

Errata, interesting stuff. I'll leave the forensics to those of you who evidently know far more about it than I do.

But one thing that occurs to me is that with the possible exception of Hanbury St, the crime scenes were not locations that would leave much in the way of evidence of a struggle, even had there been one. Hanbury St aside, we have open streets, a square (paved? cobbled?), and a bed. Beds are good at absorbing the evidence of violent struggles - the following morning there is often no visible evidence of the violent nocturnal assaults that Mrs Flower launches on the dignity of my person.

[Bridewell]

Oh Murder!

Beds are good at absorbing the evidence of violent struggles - the following morning there is often no visible evidence of the violent nocturnal assaults that Mrs Flower launches on the dignity of my person.

Oh what a delightful image that conjures up, Henry. No photographic illustration though, please!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Henry Flower]

Bridewell - no worries. The sight of Mr Flower struggling gamely to read a book while such wifely savagery rages about (and indeed, above) him is not one that I would inflict on anyone. Those photos are purely for the amusement of Mrs Flower. And her family. And friends.

And thank you, incidentally, for your understanding of my intemperate outburst on another thread - for which the only excuse is my evidently low IQ. Your kind words are appreciated.

[Errata]

Errata, interesting stuff. I'll leave the forensics to those of you who evidently know far more about it than I do.

But one thing that occurs to me is that with the possible exception of Hanbury St, the crime scenes were not locations that would leave much in the way of evidence of a struggle, even had there been one. Hanbury St aside, we have open streets, a square (paved? cobbled?), and a bed.

But those are the crime scenes that should leave an evidence of struggle on the person. Broken fingers, broken toes, broken fingernails, bruises, busted knuckles and lots and lot of scrapes.

But yeah, Hanbury St. is key.

[Wickerman]

But those are the crime scenes that should leave an evidence of struggle on the person. Broken fingers, broken toes, broken fingernails, bruises, busted knuckles and lots and lot of scrapes.

But yeah, Hanbury St. is key.

Turgid fingernails comes to mind in the case of Chapman. I'm taking this to mean turgid fingertips (turgid=swollen).
Suggestive that she fought for her life, coupled with verticle scratch marks down her neck as if she tried to remove something thin(?) and tight.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Turgid fingernails comes to mind in the case of Chapman. I'm taking this to mean turgid fingertips (turgid=swollen).
Suggestive that she fought for her life, coupled with verticle scratch marks down her neck as if she tried to remove something thin(?) and tight.

Regards, Jon S.

Turgid fingers could easily be a defensive wound, especially if there were dislocations or cracked bones. They didn't mention that though. I'm still not sold on the neck scratch marks as defensive. I scratch myself all the time especially on the neck and shoulders. I bite my fingernails so they are really rough, and the neck and shoulders are itchy places.

I did a little experiment since I just had surgery, and came out of it with scratches all over the place from the pain killers making me itch. And there really is no evolution of a scratch mark, unless it gets infected. A scratch looks the same three days after getting it as it does 5 minutes after getting it. The only changes are when the redness fades, which takes a couple of days, and for the broken skin to slough off, which also takes a couple of days. Except for this one on my side that STILL hasn't healed, and I had surgery a month ago.

Wait.. wasn't Chapman wearing a neckerchief? Cause those make your neck itch like all get out, but I might be thinking of someone else.

The really puzzling part is that Chapman is the one who should have affected her environment, and the others have their environment affect them. I mean, if Chapman fought enough to bust up her fingers, there should have been noise, marks on the ground (scrapes, gouges and the like). Busted fingers I would expect from Eddowes.

I mean, I'm sure theres a perfectly good explanation, but the obvious ones either don't fit the evidence, don't fit the right victim, or don't in the end actually explain anything at all. I mean, it could be a choke hold, except there was no evidence of ischemia, and theres still time to fight. It could be a ligature, but that also causes ischemia and leaves some time to fight, not to mention leaving distinctive marks on the vertebrae. It wasn't a gag. It wasn't manual strangulation. A broken windpipe would account for a lot of things, but there were no broken windpipes. There are no head injuries, and to the best of our knowledge there was not more than one guy in on the murders. Dry drowning could account for the asphyxia, but not the lack of self defense. Ether or the like would explain the lack of self defense, but not the asphyxia, and besides all of the inhalants available at the time had pernicious and distinct odors that weren't on the victims. I've even considered a blow to the solar plexus, which renders a person unable to fight, but to the best of my knowledge does not cause asphyxia. And then you gotta wonder if the point was to immobilize the victims and asphyxia was just an unintended consequence, or if asphyxia was the point and immobilization was just a bonus. And then we don't know how complete either the medical records or the autopsies were, since the information they contain now does not provide an answer. So either the answer has been lost to time, or the autopsies weren't thorough and that's why we don't have the information. I mean, it's a really simple question, and when I asked it, I assumed that I was just missing something. But now it's just gotten complicated, when I thought someone was just going to give me the answer that was in a book I don't have or something.

[Henry Flower]

I mean, I'm sure theres a perfectly good explanation, but the obvious ones either don't fit the evidence, don't fit the right victim, or don't in the end actually explain anything at all.

Exactly. Yet another aspect/fact/incident in this saga that has no definitive answer and probably no longer could. To be frank I'm sick of it! It drives me nuts.

So... ligature, chokehold, manual strangulation, punching.... all flawed.

Hypnotism?

Anyone?

[curious]

Exactly. Yet another aspect/fact/incident in this saga that has no definitive answer and probably no longer could. To be frank I'm sick of it! It drives me nuts.

So... ligature, chokehold, manual strangulation, punching.... all flawed.

Hypnotism?

Anyone?

Hypnotism gets us to Dr. H.H. Holmes, doesn't it?

[Errata]

Don't think I hadn't thought about it. Of course hypnosis doesn't even remotely work that way, but I thought about it.

[Abby Normal]

I thought the quickest way to kill someone silently with a knife would be to cover the mouth with one hand from behind and slit the throat with the other.