Victim Strangulation - Manual or rope?

[YankeeSergeant]

Questions

There's a few things here that need clarification.

Asphyxiation relates directly to the deprivation of oxygen to the lungs, it does not directly stop blood flow to the brain.

Pressure applied to the jugglar veins directly reduces blood flow to the brain but the victim is still able to breath. When such action is applied the victim invariably falls asleep, unconscious.

None of the Cannonical Ripper victims showed signs of manual strangulation.
Chapman's neck did show marks (scratches?) which ran contrary to the alignment of the cuts across the throat.
Put plainly, without photographic evidence to the contrary, this observation suggests the scratches were vertical to the horizontal cut.
Interpretation:
Chapman scratched her own neck in an attempt to remove something tight & thin like a cord?
Medical evidence not recorded by the press at the Chapman inquest indicated her heart & lungs contained black fluid blood.
This is consistent with the victims heart continuing to beat after her ability to take in breath was halted. Direct evidence of asphyxiation.

With respect to the previous Whitechapel murders, Dr. Brownfield, after viewing the body of Rose Mylett was of the opinon that the Whitechapel Murderer had used his knife to cut along the line produced by a garotte/string/cord/ligature which had been first applied to induce unconsciousness. Thereby removing the evidence that a ligature had been used.

Example of the line produced by a garotte/ligature.

Courtesy, Crime Scene, Larry Ragle, 2002

O.K., that part I understand. I guess my question is and this will come into play in my novel. Could the killer have applied pressure to the carotid arteries or jugulars and rendered his victims unconcious and how would that have affected blood flow? For example could rendering someone unconcious in such a manner restrict blood flow enough to avoid arterial spray? And would it show up on an autopsy?

[Wickerman]

...Could the killer have applied pressure to the carotid arteries or jugulars and rendered his victims unconcious...

Sorry to be pedantic here but I assume you are talking about Jack the Ripper, not any other similar killing in general?

Unfortunately, the most medical evidence we have which provides any clue to how Jack initially attacked his victims is that provided at the Chapman inquest.
The evidence shows lack of oxygen in the blood, not lack of blood to the brain.

Quote:
"....the tongue protuded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The face was swollen, the finger nails & lips were turgid, and in the brain, on the head being opened, he found the membranes opaque and the veins and tissues loaded with black blood. All these appearances are the ordinary signs of suffocation.In Dr. Phillip's own words, "I am of the opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, but that death arose from syncope consequent on the loss of blood following the severance of the throat".
The Star, December 24, 1888.
(emphasis, Jon)

...
and how would that have affected blood flow?

When the blood flow to the brain is restricted the victim may suffer a mild stroke, or Ischemia, the sensory portions of the brain begin to shut down.

...
For example could rendering someone unconcious in such a manner restrict blood flow enough to avoid arterial spray? And would it show up on an autopsy?

No, blood pressure still exists in the body below the imposed restriction in the neck (ligature?). Once the victim falls 'asleep' the restriction (ligature) is removed and blood flow returns to the brain. So there is no loss of blood pressure within the cardiovascular system.
Depending how long the restriction is in place will depend on whether the victim will revive, so the killer has seconds to then lay her down and cut her jugglar, relieving pressure, then slicing the throat completely from side to side.

Regards, Jon S.

[YankeeSergeant]

Blood

Sorry to be pedantic here but I assume you are talking about Jack the Ripper, not any other similar killing in general?

Unfortunately, the most medical evidence we have which provides any clue to how Jack initially attacked his victims is that provided at the Chapman inquest.
The evidence shows lack of oxygen in the blood, not lack of blood to the brain.

Quote:
"....the tongue protuded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The face was swollen, the finger nails & lips were turgid, and in the brain, on the head being opened, he found the membranes opaque and the veins and tissues loaded with black blood. All these appearances are the ordinary signs of suffocation.In Dr. Phillip's own words, "I am of the opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, but that death arose from syncope consequent on the loss of blood following the severance of the throat".
The Star, December 24, 1888.
(emphasis, Jon)



When the blood flow to the brain is restricted the victim may suffer a mild stroke, or Ischemia, the sensory portions of the brain begin to shut down.




No, blood pressure still exists in the body below the imposed restriction in the neck (ligature?). Once the victim falls 'asleep' the restriction (ligature) is removed and blood flow returns to the brain. So there is no loss of blood pressure within the cardiovascular system.
Depending how long the restriction is in place will depend on whether the victim will revive, so the killer has seconds to then lay her down and cut her jugglar, relieving pressure, then slicing the throat completely from side to side.

Regards, Jon S.

thanks Jon, I was talking about Jack the Ripper and I didn't think your answer was pedantic. SO in short, if I understand you correctly, using a choke hold won't stop arterial spray but theoretically Jack (I used the killer to avoid the on going debate about who is a victim of JAck and who isn't) could have time to position the victims in such a way as to avoid getting covered in blood. Thank for all of your help with this. Hope you're enjoying the weekend.

[Wickerman]

thanks Jon, I was talking about Jack the Ripper and I didn't think your answer was pedantic. SO in short, if I understand you correctly, using a choke hold won't stop arterial spray but theoretically Jack (I used the killer to avoid the on going debate about who is a victim of JAck and who isn't) could have time to position the victims in such a way as to avoid getting covered in blood. Thank for all of your help with this. Hope you're enjoying the weekend.

Correct.
Any weekend is a good one when you're on the sunny-side of the grass!

[YankeeSergeant]

weekend

Correct.
Any weekend is a good one when you're on the sunny-side of the grass!

Amen!

[Errata]

SO in short, if I understand you correctly, using a choke hold won't stop arterial spray but theoretically Jack (I used the killer to avoid the on going debate about who is a victim of JAck and who isn't) could have time to position the victims in such a way as to avoid getting covered in blood.

Well, there is one caveat to this statement. A choke hold would not affect arterial spray. But death would. So if they were choked to death...

[Wickerman]

Well, there is one caveat to this statement. A choke hold would not affect arterial spray. But death would. So if they were choked to death...

I think you will find that cause of death is by syncope (loss of blood) due to the severance of the carotid artery (this with reference to Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes).

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

I think you will find that cause of death is by syncope (loss of blood) due to the severance of the carotid artery (this with reference to Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes).

Regards, Jon S.

Well yes I would imagine. I wasn't referring to the specifics of these victims really. I actually don't buy that they were strangled (asphyxiated, choked, deprived of oxygen to either lungs or brain through manual or mechanical means). But in general, it is inaccurate to say that a chokehold has no bearing on arterial spray. It does affect arterial spray if applied until death occurs. Is all.

[Edward]

Signs of Strangulation

Hello All!

While searching for signs that a victim has been strangled, I found a very interesting essay “Death by Strangulation” by Dr. Dean Hawley at the following website:

http://www.markwynn.com/dv/Death%20by%20Strangulation%20-%20Dr.%20Dean%20Hawley.pdf

Amongst the common signs of strangulation, the author made the following statements.

“… strangulation produces evidence of asphyxiation, recognized as pinpoint hemorrhages (petechiae) in the skin, conjunctiva of the eyes, and deep internal organs.”

With respect to the victim’s eyes, whites of the eyes often become blood red due to these hemorrhages. It seems to me that blood red eyes would be noticeable by the most casual observer, let alone a physician conducting an autopsy.

Also this, in regards to the fracture of the hyoid bone:

“A common cited injury is fracture of the hyoid bone, actually only found in a minority (no more than one third) of all fatal strangulations.”

What to you think? Were the victims rendered unconscious by strangulation? Most of the victims were in poor health, and may not have been able to put up much of a fight. In the video link provided by smezenen, unconsciousness occurred quite quickly, but not as quickly as a blow to the head. I’m up in the air about what to think.

By the way, the use of a “choke hold” to subdue prisoners has been abandoned by many police forces here in the USA due to fatalities.

Edward

[Wickerman]

...I actually don't buy that they were strangled (asphyxiated, choked, deprived of oxygen to either lungs or brain through manual or mechanical means).

Hi Errata.
Well, most authorities will agree that there are a variety of conditions which may indicate strangulation.
- Sometimes, but not always petechia in the skin.
- Sometimes, but not always, protrusion of the tongue.
- Sometimes, but not always, a broken hyoid bone.
So none of these conditions by themselves 'prove' strangulation, likewise the absense of any one of these conditions do not 'disprove' strangulation.

However, I have already posted one condition which does 'prove' strangulation, that is the presence of black blood in the heart, lungs & brain of the victim.
Black blood is blood which contains no oxygen, the only way blood can be black after it has been pumped from the heart is when the victim's heart has been pumping after the lungs have stopped issuing oxygen. In other words asphyxiation is present.
The caveat with this detail is that black blood does not always mean murder, it may also be present in a suicide. The fact these victims were cut to pieces afterwards tends to argue against suicide...

These victims were strangled, and it was murder.

...
But in general, it is inaccurate to say that a chokehold has no bearing on arterial spray. It does affect arterial spray if applied until death occurs. Is all.

In general, yes, you are correct.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Hi Errata.
However, I have already posted one condition which does 'prove' strangulation, that is the presence of black blood in the heart, lungs & brain of the victim.
Black blood is blood which contains no oxygen, the only way blood can be black after it has been pumped from the heart is when the victim's heart has been pumping after the lungs have stopped issuing oxygen. In other words asphyxiation is present.
Regards, Jon S.

Ok. First off, I'm just gonna say that I'm flying a little blind on this one. I haven't seen autopsy accounts with descriptions of black blood in the brain etc. So I'm not really sure I am picturing what you are talking about correctly. But be that as it may...

I bleed black blood. Have for 20 years. I have a condition that causes a permanent state of dehydration. So my blood is thick and dark and occasionally makes weird sounds when I have to have labs done and it really freaks out the rookies. Now, unless i need to have ANOTHER talk with my fiance about how my sleeping body is not a toy, I don't think I am being strangled.

Girls have a different experience with blood than guys do. My dad is an OB/GYN which was horrifying but informative. Women occasionally bleed black or dark brown during their periods, especially if they have an irregular cycle. An irregular cycle can cause an accumulation of uterine lining, so the black blood is in fact old blood. Were it not for it's placement in the uterus the old rusty hemoglobin would have been punted to the waste system.

And my uncle has black blood too, but he has malaria.

Black blood sounds very different to me than veinous blood, which is certainly darker but still red. Veinous blood is deoxygenated blood. I feel that if it were solely a function of oxygen, it would be dark red, sort of purple-y, rather than black.

Now I know several of these women clearly had lung issues. Chapman was dying from them. It wouldn't surprise me if those women had darker blood. But I still don't know if it would be that dark.

I certainly don't think that all of these women had leukemia or something. Nitrate poisoning is possible, and that makes black blood, but it would be so common in London as to not be worth noting. Dehydration would do it, high iron, lung disease, jaundice, heart murmur I would think, clotting disease.... I don't know. I don't know how I feel about this black blood business. I think clearly it can be caused by other things, although I cannot say what would cause it three different women. Dehydration seems likely, but I don't know. I'm going to mull it over.

[Wickerman]

Thankyou Errata.
Medical conditions can mimic a variety of ill's, but the fact dark blood is in all your veins & arteries(?), and not only in some organs, but not others, or in arteries but not veins, will be readily observable by anyone, especially a doctor.

Here are Dr. Phillips observations which were deleted from the inquest report on Chapman.

The evidence given by Dr. Phillips on 18 Sept. at the Hanbury-street inquest is incontrovertible proof that Annie Chapman was partially strangled before her throat was cut. When Dr. Phillips was called to see the body he found that the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The face was swollen, the finger-nails and lips were turgid, and in the brain, on the head being opened, he found the membranes opaque and the veins and tissues loaded with black blood. All these appearances are the ordinary signs of suffocation. In Dr. Phillip's own words, "I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, but that death arose from syncope consequent on the loss of blood following the severance of the throat."

Then, with respect to the death of Rose Mylett, Dr Brownfield observed:

ALL INDICATED DEATH BY SUFFOCATION.

The left side of the heart was full of fluid black blood - particularly filled and particularly black - and the lungs were gorged with the same fluid black blood, meaning that for the space of several respirations she had not breathed before the heart ceased to pulsate. Looking at the condition of all the organs in conjunction with the mark round the throat, my opinion is that death was caused by strangulation by means of a cord being pulled tightly round the neck."

Both quotes are published in The Star, Dec. 24, 1888.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881224.html

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Thankyou Errata.
Medical conditions can mimic a variety of ill's, but the fact dark blood is in all your veins & arteries(?), and not only in some organs, but not others, or in arteries but not veins, will be readily observable by anyone, especially a doctor.
Regards, Jon S.

Well, here is my thing. First of all I don't believe Rose Mylett was a Ripper victim. I just don't see a prevailing... not motive, not even signature, drive maybe? between her murder and say, Annie Chapman. I realize we are all somewhat varied on this topic.

The funny thing is, Chapman to me was always the sticking point in so far as strangulation. The location of her murder was the one that required absolute silence. On the surface that would point to her being strangled, but it takes at least 30 seconds for someone to black out. She was right up against a wooden fence, with a neighbor on the other side. If someone was choking her, the neighbor would have heard. He did hear a "no!" and then the sound of someone hitting the fence. That is too quick and too quiet for strangulation. That's more a pipe to the head kind of timing.

I'm not an expert on fluid dynamics by any means, but her lungs being full of blood is interesting, regardless of what color it is. Her throat was cut while she was lying on her back (or front, but that would take a bit more doing). If she had been upright, both her lungs and her stomach would have been full of blood, as blood emptying from the head or the arteries (but obviously not the veins) in the neck would go down the trachea and the esophagus. But with her on her back, the blood in her lungs could only come from inhaling it. Quite a bit. So she could not have been dead when her throat was cut. The bruises on her jaw suggest that her head was positioned for the cuts while alive, and she lived for several minutes after or the bruises would not have been as visible as they were. The body takes about 5 minutes to fully re-oxygenate.

The way the bruises on the jaw were made and any kind of choke hold or strangulation are mutually exclusive. Not that they can't both be done, but they can't both be done at the same time. The problem is, choking someone to unconsciousness but not to death is a pretty small window. And people tend to wake up pretty quickly after strangulation. So if he choked her out somehow, he has maybe a minute before she comes to again. Which is fine, except for the bruises on her jaw. By the time the bruises start to form she would likely be conscious again. Which if not mobile certainly means screaming, which the jaw hold does nothing to prevent. She may even have been up to some feeble attempt at getting away. But we know this didn't happen because the neighbor didn't hear anything like that. And certainly she was breathing well enough once her throat was cut to fill her lungs with blood. It's a very awkward jumble of events to fit in the strangulation and the bruising and the lungs filled with blood, the neighbor's testimony. Not impossible, just not terribly likely. Of course I suppose it only has to be not impossible once...

On the other hand, I have some dread fascination with the description of her brain.
"The head being opened showed that the membranes of the brain were opaque and the veins loaded with blood of a dark character. There was a large quantity of fluid between the membranes and the substance of the brain. The brain substance was unusually firm, and its cavities also contained a large amount of fluid"
That is NOT normal. Nor does it have anything to do with asphyxiation. Well, maybe the blood does but certainly not the rest of it. I wonder what on earth it could be?

[Wickerman]

Well, here is my thing. First of all I don't believe Rose Mylett was a Ripper victim.

I would prefer to keep that argument separate, there is not enough evidence to argue for that possibility, neither enough to argue against it.

The funny thing is, Chapman to me was always the sticking point in so far as strangulation. The location of her murder was the one that required absolute silence. On the surface that would point to her being strangled, but it takes at least 30 seconds for someone to black out.

Yes, possibly, but none of these victims were in the best of health, exposure to drink, lack of nutritious food, short of sleep, all play a role in the body's ability to resist stress, especially that brought on by a swift choke hold.
I don't think we can hold that "30 seconds" up as some yardstick.

She was right up against a wooden fence, with a neighbor on the other side. If someone was choking her, the neighbor would have heard. He did hear a "no!" and then the sound of someone hitting the fence. That is too quick and too quiet for strangulation.

Well, thats conjecture, there have been all kinds of theories regarding the timing of Cadosch's visit to he yard.
If you notice his statement, he opened the back door to the yard about 5:15am (did he go to an outside toilet?), on his return to the house he heard the "No" and the bump against the fence. The attack (struggle?) could have taken place while he was in the outside toilet (if such was the case). He only heard the final stages of the attack when he walked back to the house.

...So she could not have been dead when her throat was cut. The bruises on her jaw suggest that her head was positioned for the cuts while alive, and she lived for several minutes after or the bruises would not have been as visible as they were.

Agreed, she was likely subdued by the choking, she was not dead when her throat was cut. The severance of the carotid artery is what killed her.

The problem is, choking someone to unconsciousness but not to death is a pretty small window. And people tend to wake up pretty quickly after strangulation. So if he choked her out somehow, he has maybe a minute before she comes to again. Which is fine, except for the bruises on her jaw. By the time the bruises start to form she would likely be conscious again.

No-one can claim that he planned the timing, why would he care?
While under the choke hold (ligature/garotte), as soon as she falls limp he lowers her to the ground and lays her out, immediately slicing her carotid artery, away from him so as not to get sprayed.
If I understand you correctly, I think you are taking a timing issue to an extreme. He wouldn't have cared whether she died while being choked.
Surely, the choking measure is simply the best means of getting her to lay down in a manageable posture. Hitting her over the head is noisy, and she could possibly scream.
According to some sources using a ligature also restricts the voicebox when applied professionally.
Foreigners, especially the Spanish criminal were pretty adept with a garotte. And, only 20 yrs earlier in London there had been a garotting craze, so much so that wicker baskets were invented to use as a neckguard. They were even pictured as a fashion accessory in newspapers of the time.
One past forum member, Michael DiGrazier, obtained a copy of a period paper (1860's) showing this feature.

(her brain)
That is NOT normal. Nor does it have anything to do with asphyxiation. Well, maybe the blood does but certainly not the rest of it. I wonder what on earth it could be?

I'm sure that is beyond my knowledge, but this condition may have inhibited her ability to stay conscious for your suggested "30 seconds"?

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

No-one can claim that he planned the timing, why would he care?
While under the choke hold (ligature/garotte), as soon as she falls limp he lowers her to the ground and lays her out, immediately slicing her carotid artery, away from him so as not to get sprayed.
If I understand you correctly, I think you are taking a timing issue to an extreme.

It's not that he would care if she died from choking. It's bruises on her jaw. Those take a little time to form, and don't form after exsanguination. Not a lot of time, but about a minute at least. Which means he removes the choking mechanism and grabs the jaw to position the neck for the cut. And he has to grip tightly or it wouldn't bruise at all. Which is where things kinda get weird no matter what the theory. The simplest method available would have been to cut her throat as soon as she turned her back on him. But the blood evidence doesn't support that. Arterial spurt clearly would not be a factor in his choice of method, and if she was killed on the ground there wouldn't be evidence of it even if there had been arterial spurt.

All we are left with it seems is a series of sort of odd choices. Choking someone unconscious before cutting their throat is odd. The bruises are odd. The bruises are absolutely consistent from someone grabbing the jaw from behind and jerking it up in order to cut the throat. But even that only makes sense standing upright. A victim flat on her back doesn't need to be controlled through a jaw grip. In fact it's kind of awkward. The only way I can see it working would be if her head was in his lap, but I can't see anyone trying to essentially saw off a head while it's in their lap. If someone was unconscious there is also no need for a tight grip. The bruises are described as recent, more recent than the bruises described as recent in terms of days. And what are the odds of her getting her jaw grabbed in the exact manner ideal for a throat cut the same day she had her throat cut without the jaw grip? The whole thing is weird. But the bruises say that there was about a minute between getting her jaw grabbed and her throat cut, a time during which she would not be being choked. Even if she had been choked and was unconscious, she would be breathing freely long enough to re-oxygenate her blood. Thats what I mean by timing. It's awkward.

I'm sure that is beyond my knowledge, but this condition may have inhibited her ability to stay conscious for your suggested "30 seconds"?
Regards, Jon S.

Well, I've been researching this because I have sort of a vested interest in brain disorders. Essentially, three problems are described. Large amounts of fluid in the brain, clouded membranes, and an extra firm brain. As far as I know the veinous blood in the brain is always dark, and given the autopsy conditions may not have been terribly unusual. Or it may. I haven't found anything regarding the veinous system in the brain yet. Clouded membranes are a function of age. It can indicate toxins or meningitis, but age seems the most reasonable. The extra firm brain part is tough to nail down. It happens in Alzheimer's, but the other indicators weren't there. Swelling or bruising could result in that, which would be related to trauma, but I would have thought there would have been signs of damage even if the skull wasn't cracked. Tearing of the meninges or something. The fluid in the brain is clearly edema, but even that's a puzzle. Edema comes from a growth or from trauma. So tumors, lesions, and a bad whack in the head. And there were no tumors or lesions. But again, I would have thought there would be more signs of damage if it was trauma.

Brain stuff makes me nervous. It makes me want to know more so it will stop wigging me out. As it stands I am trying to determine if my brain is the right firmness. Which mostly consists of wiggling my head. Really freaks me out.