the grim subject of cause of death.

[joelhall]

asphyxiation...

a state where there is extreme lack of oxygen for the body.

its been debated somewhat on the stride thread, though i felt it was in depth enough for its own.

as i see it, there are a couple of instances where there was less blood than expected, or lack of arterial spray noted. this gives rise to the suggestion that the victims were asphyxiated first. the most obvious three ways being:

strangulation (preventing blood flow to the brain)
choking (prevent the passage of air)
a blow to the throat (damaging the hyoid bone/larynx causing choking)

of course there is the commando stab technique, though i think this is just wild speculation on my part

i personally favour the blow to the throat, as a likely way for a killer in a hurry (of course i have no evidence to back this up as yet). choking seems likely as this would prevent the victim shouting out.

why though, would the killer cut the throat afterwards? was this simply for confirmation or to mask the cause of death?

also its been suggested not all were killed this way. if not, then why not?

perhaps the neck is the wrong place to be looking for the cause of death?

just some thoughts anyway, let me know what you think.

joel

[DVV]

its been debated somewhat on the stride thread, though i felt it was in depth enough for its own.

Definitely!

as i see it, there are a couple of instances where there was less blood than expected, or lack of arterial spray noted. this gives rise to the suggestion that the victims were asphyxiated first.

Seems so, though there was a great deal of blood in Hanbury Street's rear yard...and asphyxia was well marked on Chapman's face...


i personally favour the blow to the throat, as a likely way for a killer in a hurry (of course i have no evidence to back this up as yet). choking seems likely as this would prevent the victim shouting out.

Here I tend to disagree. Remember the bruises (from the killer's fingers).

why though, would the killer cut the throat afterwards? was this simply for confirmation or to mask the cause of death?

Why Jack should have masked the cause of death?

also its been suggested not all were killed this way. if not, then why not?

Nobody said the victims were killed like that. But suffocation has been suggested for Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and for Mary Kelly, there was of course nothing to say about...

perhaps the neck is the wrong place to be looking for the cause of death?

That were the conclusions of Llewellyn in Nichol's case. Certainly a mistake, as established by Baxter.

just some thoughts anyway, let me know what you think.

joel

It's also noteworthy, Joel, that Tabram also seems to have been "suffocated" or "half strangled". And if you see her as a ripper victim (like I definitely do), then the "attack on the neck" appears of first relevance in Jack's MO.

Amitiés,
David

[CLK]

Hello
Is it possible he pinned them down and held their nose and covered their mouths until they suffocated?

[Magpie]

Hello
Is it possible he pinned them down and held their nose and covered their mouths until they suffocated?

Unlikely, since suffocation can take anywhere up to 9 minutes to kill someone, with them struggling feverishly for at least the first 3-5 before unconsciousness occurs.

[CLK]

How long does a slashed throat take to kill?Severing the windpipe and arteries?

[corey123]

Hello CLK,

A matter of seconds depending on the depth of wound. Strides death was a great deal slower than the rest due to only partial severence of the carotid artery, however she still died in seconds.

[Errata]

I've actually been doing a lot of research on this. And it hasn't been a great deal of help. There in fact aren't a lot of lethal asphyxiation methods that are a combination of quick, silent, and mostly invisible. I've been looking for some, but the best I'm getting is two out of three. So it's looking like if he did asphyxiate them, he was a great deal luckier than he had any right to be.

[Hunter]

While it takes some time to kill by strangulation, it doesn't take quite that long to render someone unconscious. Various militaries have trained in these procedures for many years. The arterial spray on the fence in the Chapman case suggest that this may have been the case. Some of the others are not so clear. Strangely, Stride and Eddowes seemed to have met their ends in similar fashion, though the exact procedure for that effect was, and still is unknown.

The Mylett case brought about the theory of garroting by the use of a strong cord with knots strategically placed as a means of strangulation. They were still searching for answers as to how these victims could be so quickly subdued without evidence of a struggle.

[Errata]

While it takes some time to kill by strangulation, it doesn't take quite that long to render someone unconscious. Various militaries have trained in these procedures for many years. The arterial spray on the fence in the Chapman case suggest that this may have been the case. Some of the others are not so clear. Strangely, Stride and Eddowes seemed to have met their ends in similar fashion, though the exact procedure for that effect was, and still is unknown.

One of the problems with the Chapman blood evidence is that it is described as a "smear" as opposed to splatter. If the description is accurate it is more likely to be a transfer of some kind rather than arterial spurt.

So, I did this bit of research, and it seems a shame to waste it, so I'll give you guys some of what I have. There are 8ish (it varies) forms of asphyxiation, 4 of which can be immediately ruled out. Hanging, choking (like on a peanut), suffocation (running out of air in an enclosed space), and drowning.

Smothering is technically possible, but given the lack of plastic back then, unlikely. Smothering tends to break the nose, and leave marks on the face. Unless one uses plastic, which was obviously unavailable in 1888. Smothering also causes people to fight like hell, so it's not terribly useful as a restraining technique.

What's left is strangulation, traumatic asphyxia, positional asphyxia, and dry drowning.

Strangulation is the most likely. It comes in two flavors, manual and ligature. The two most popular and well known methods of manual strangulation are the two hands around the throat from the from the front, and the one arm from behind. The two hands around the throat has a couple of problems. Unless your hands completely encircle the neck, the area of greatest force is going to be on the trachea with the thumbs. It is not easy to kill someone by restricting the trachea. Its difficult, it take a long time, it makes people fight, and you are right in front of them to be kicked and clawed at. An arm around the neck from behind is much quicker, and targets the blood vessels. The problem is that it doesn't block the trachea, just sort of shifts it. So it may only take 30 second until unconsciousness, but the person can make quite a bit of noise in that time.

Ligature strangulation is using a flexible object to strangle. A belt, a power cord, a piece of cloth, piano wire. It can be quite quick, but there are certain problems here as well. If you hook someone on the adams apple, it takes quite a bit longer. Ligatures also tend to leave marks. Like really bad pillow face. Using a wide band has less of a chance of leaving marks, but makes it much more difficult to kill. Wires cut into the skin, sometimes so deeply that it causes decapitation.

Traumatic asphyxia is when an accident or a blow crushes the trachea, or rarely the blood vessels in the neck. A crushed trachea is pretty distinctive. It often visually deforms the neck, but ironically, doesn't always interfere with breathing.

Positional asphyxia is odd. It when a person either adopts or is forced into a posture that restricts breathing. It can also include burking, which is when a person digs their knee into another persons chest, limiting the expansion of the lungs. It is not quick, it is not silent, and it is not always deadly.

Dry drowning is an extended laryngospasm. If liquid starts to enter the airway, the larynx snaps shut to prevent aspiration. If the liquid is not removed, or is repeatedly reintroduced, or even if through sheer freak accident the airway stays shut, a person asphyxiates to death. However, if liquid cannot be expelled from the throat, dry drowning is probably the least of a persons problems. Similarly with repeated reintroduction, which is not at all quick. And one simply cant count on a laryngospasm for reason not otherwise specified to kill someone.

So pick your poison. Nothing seems really right to me, but I also can't come up with anything better.

[Iain Wilson]

why though, would the killer cut the throat afterwards? was this simply for confirmation or to mask the cause of death?

Hi Joel,

I was always under the impression that the killer used some form of strangulation to render the victims unconscious, and the slitting of the throat was the act that killed them.

As Hunter has already stated, it doesn't take long to knock someone out using strangulation, but it DOES take a long time to choke somebody to death. When you consider how little time the killer had to work with (I may be misremembering here, but didn't he only have 15 minutes to kill and mutilate Catherine Eddowes?) a quick knock-out and kill were vital.

Just my tuppence worth - I stand ready to be corrected as always

Regards,

Iain