A blood-stained Ripper, or not?

I think there can be an argument made for only a single kill being potentially bloodless as far as the killer was concerned. At the very least hands or gloves or cuffs would have been bloody at 3 of the other 4, and at one he would have been heavily bloodied likely from the waist up.

Its not as if he stood around and waited for them to bleed out, and at least 3 of them he stuck his hands into the wounds, one perhaps seconds after the throat cut based on his time. Sprays one thing, but none of them were proven bled dry before he cut either.

Best regards.

[NOV9]

Forgive my ignorance of general anatomy, but wouldn't the fact that most of the victims had their throats cut almost ALL THE WAY AROUND the neck (down to the vertebrae) cause the blood to spurt in almost ALL directions? After all you have TWO carotid arteries and two jugular veins, along with other veins and arteries. My point being if you were to cut the throat deeply, almost all the way around, wouldn't it be near impossible to avoid getting sprayed?

From this animation it appears that the veins and arteries are "clustered" on the left and right side of the neck. Therefore if you cut the throat almost all the way around how could you possibly hope to direct the victim's head (and body) to avoid getting sprayed?

http://www.doereport.com/generateexh...=4294967295&A=

I have read about a killer using a scarf to wrap around the neck before he cut the throat to prevent the blood from spraying all over him.

NOV9

[Sam Flynn]

When the sheep refuse to wear wellington boots,that`s when they are slaughtered...

...the motto of Queen Elizabeth Grammar, if I'm not mistaken. Translated, of course. "Yr ŵyn na wisgant welis gānt eu lladd" - but then, you knew that already, Jon

[Jon Guy]

Englishmen, make note that the Welsh are being taught in their schools how to avoid blood spray when cutting a throat. Me wonders what they're up to!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

When the sheep refuse to wear wellington boots,that`s when they are slaughtered...

[Tom_Wescott]

Indeed, Sam, that will be the South Wales Education system !!!

Englishmen, make note that the Welsh are being taught in their schools how to avoid blood spray when cutting a throat. Me wonders what they're up to!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

Our posts on the question of blood flow crossed, and you'll note that we are in broad agreement - which is nice

Indeed, Sam, that will be the South Wales Education system !!!

Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Carmarthen (home of Mary Kelly)

[Sam Flynn]

Sam`s the man to answer this with authority.

I'd say "reasonably informed", rather than "authoritative", Jon, but thank you for your kind words.

Our posts on the question of blood flow crossed, and you'll note that we are in broad agreement - which is nice

[Observer]

Hi Pinkerton

Forgive my ignorance of general anatomy, but wouldn't the fact that most of the victims had their throats cut almost ALL THE WAY AROUND the neck (down to the vertebrae) cause the blood to spurt in almost ALL directions? After all you have TWO carotid arteries and two jugular veins, along with other veins and arteries. My point being if you were to cut the throat deeply, almost all the way around, wouldn't it be near impossible to avoid getting sprayed?

From this animation it appears that the veins and arteries are "clustered" on the left and right side of the neck. Therefore if you cut the throat almost all the way around how could you possibly hope to direct the victim's head (and body) to avoid getting sprayed?

http://www.doereport.com/generateexh...=4294967295&A=

This was certainly the case with Chapman, incidently if Chapman's throat was cut as she lay on the ground, and her head was between the steps and the fence of No 29, where was the position of the killer when he cut her throat? It would be a bit awkward trying to remain to one side of the victim in this case.

All the best

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Pinkerton,

After all you have TWO carotid arteries and two jugular veins, along with other veins and arteries. My point being if you were to cut the throat deeply, almost all the way around, wouldn't it be near impossible to avoid getting sprayed?

The initial, more energetic jets of blood would issue from the first carotid artery to be cut, the blood pressure dropping significantly thereafter with each pulse. I would expect that, by the time the blade reached the "near-side" of the victim's neck, much of the pressure would have been diffused sufficently to allow only a weak pulsation from the carotid artery nearest the killer's body. If the victim's head were angled away from the first cut - in Nichols' and Chapman's case, inclined towards the right shoulder - then the compression of the tissues may have limited carotid flow to a mere "ooze" on that side. (Note that Catherine Eddowes only had her left carotid severed to any appreciable depth, its homologue on the right pierced only to the extent of a "fine pinhole".)

[Jon Guy]

Hi Pinkerton

Sam`s the man to answer this with authority,but, I would hazard a guess it is all about blood pressure. The initial gush is very strong due to the blood pressure, but once the pressure has subsided the blood would pump out slowly.

[Pinkerton]

I'm confused

Forgive my ignorance of general anatomy, but wouldn't the fact that most of the victims had their throats cut almost ALL THE WAY AROUND the neck (down to the vertebrae) cause the blood to spurt in almost ALL directions? After all you have TWO carotid arteries and two jugular veins, along with other veins and arteries. My point being if you were to cut the throat deeply, almost all the way around, wouldn't it be near impossible to avoid getting sprayed?

From this animation it appears that the veins and arteries are "clustered" on the left and right side of the neck. Therefore if you cut the throat almost all the way around how could you possibly hope to direct the victim's head (and body) to avoid getting sprayed?

http://www.doereport.com/generateexhibit.php?ID=14552&ExhibitKeywordsRaw=&TL=4294967295&A=

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jon,

Dr Phillips must have thought the perpetrator had enough blood on him to warrant his conference at the Houses Of P. later that evening, where certain factors relating to the Kelly murder resulted in the pardon for someone who hadn`t actually commited the crime ?

Dr Bond's view was that the killer needn't have been "deluged" (his word), but that his hands, arms and parts of his clothing may have been smeared with blood. It's possible that similar thinking factored in Dr Phillips' (apparent) suggestion of an "accomplice", although this is purely conjecture on my part.

Personally, I don't see it necessary that Kelly's killer need have had anything but his hands and part of his forearm(s) in contact with the blood. Any contamination thus caused could be disguised by a rolled-down sleeve, a quick scrub of the hands in a horse-trough... or swooshing them in a sink, such as might be found up a Court off Dorset Street, for example

[Jon Guy]

Sam and Observer

Dr Phillips must have thought the perpetrator had enough blood on him to warrant his conference at the Houses Of P. later that evening, where certain factors relating to the Kelly murder resulted in the pardon for someone who hadn`t actually commited the crime ?

[Observer]

Hi Sam

Hi Observer,The fact that blood spurts from a cut blood vessel would in all likelihood have been generally known to most people at the time. In fact, it's probable that knowledge of this phenomenon had been widespread since the dawn of mankind, either through personal observation of human wounds, executions or the slaughter of animals. Where blood-jetting had not been directly observed, the fact that it did would have been transmitted by word of mouth, or in popular literature.

In terms of knowing "how" to avoid the gush, it can't be ruled out that he would have avoided most of it anyway, simply by being on the opposite side of the cut when he inflicted the wound - which he almost certainly would have been.

Point taken, pardon the pun. There can be no doubt that the vast majority of people from all ages are aware of the effect of spurting blood, and most would also be aware that the severence of the arteries in the neck are particulary excessive. But are severe wounds to the neck predictable? Can they spray back towards the perpertrator?


It looks as if the victims were lying down when their throat were cut, witht the killer kneeling or crouching to one side of the victim, but I can imagine at some point in time the killers head must have leant over his victim,surely he had to put one hand on the head as he made the cut. Could the sudden and violent stream have caught him unawares? Having said all this does it make any difference whether the killer was covered in blood or not? It could point to the fact that he had somewhere to rid himself of the blood without arousing suspicion.

All the best

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Marys killer might have needed a car wash or a bed sheet to clean off

With Kelly, a large volume of blood had been discharged from the cut throat, splashing against the partition wall and pooling on the floor beneath the bed. A significant quantity of blood had voided from the neck and saturated the top right-hand corner of the mattress where the head had first lain. At no point during the subsequent mutilation would the killer have needed to come into contact with these areas.

In fact, most of the mutilation could have been effected by the killer standing by the left-hand side of the bed - perhaps briefly stationing himself on the mattress between Kelly's calves, in order to strip the right thigh. It's apparent from the photographs that, apart from a modicum of dark stains on the sheet near the pelvic region, these areas were practically devoid of blood.

That being the case, the killer would need to have contended with only the residual blood present in the flesh of the thigh (a few spoonfuls, if that), and a similar amount of residual abdominal blood as would have been encountered in the evisceration of Chapman and Eddowes.

So - bloodstained? Yes. More blood on him than in the previous murders? Yes, but probably not much more. Enough to justify his taking off his clothes? Not really - rolled up sleeves ought to have sufficed. Enough blood to need a (figurative) carwash or a rub-down with a bed-sheet? Probably not.