Bruises on Victims, Is This JtR's Identifying Mark?

[Carol]

Hello Errata!
Many thanks for your very detailed answer!
Carol

[Carol]

You just wanted a simple answer, didn't you....


Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon!

Well, if I'd known you were going to reply to my question I probably would have thought twice about pressing the 'Submit' button!

Carol
P.S. Only joking! Thanks a lot for your very interesting answer which I really appreciate.

[Errata]

Does anyone know if a bruise can slowly appear if a recently dead person was trodden on by a horse?

Carol

This is kind of as much a horse question as it is an anatomy question. Horses HATE the smell of blood (as do most prey animals). And their sense of smell is exceptional. Horses stop dead in their tracks several feet before they get to a dead body. A horse that does not have something hanging off the end of it like a cart will wheel around and run. So there's that to consider.

Usually when a horse steps on a person, which happens a lot, it's because he didn't see them, or it's a sort of warning. Their eyesight is terrible and they have a blind spot in front. If the horse doesn't see someone lying the street, they will put their full weight down until they realize that the footing is a bit squishier than they would like. This is why you cannot wear steel toe shoes around horses. Their weight snaps the steel and severs toes. If there was a bruise, it would be accompanied by a crushing injury. I know a couple of people who had a horse step on their chest or kick them in the chest. It's usually fatal, in a ribs poke out the back kind of way.

The warning is more of a stamp. A horse will stamp quickly down on someone to warn them to move away. That certainly breaks toes, and usually breaks ribs, though it isn't really a crushing injury. I was "poked" by a horse after he bucked me off, and that cracked my sternum and broke two ribs. And he was pretty much just telling me to get out of his path.

If a horse stepped on a corpse, it may bruise, but it will definitely break bones.

[Wickerman]

Does anyone know if a bruise can slowly appear if a recently dead person was trodden on by a horse?
Carol

Blood needs to be flowing for a bruise to appear, technically.

There will always be a window of time after death where we must allow for injuries to appears as bruises. I don't think you can place a reasonable time on this.

There are two opposing considerations;
1 - if blood in the body is still liquid even with no pressure in the cardiovascular system, a bruise may form soon after death. However...
2 - simply because there is no pressure to push the blood into the damaged capiliaries we might also expect blanching to occur at the point of injury.

Suppose a horse stepped on the chest of a recently deceased (in seconds) corpse, would a white horseshoe shape appear where it stepped due to the blood being pushed out of the location and no blood-pressure available to bring it back?
Or, if the blood is still liquid, will the damaged capiliaries fill up with liquid blood regardless of the lack of blood-pressure?
This is where gravity comes into play.

So, if the horse stepped on the chest you cannot say for sure if a bruise will appear, unless you flip the body over. Then gravity takes over and lividity appears (blood settles towards the lowest extremeties), and hey presto your 'bruise' will appear because blood is now filling up the damaged capiliaries which are no longer on top of the body, but underneath.

You just wanted a simple answer, didn't you....


Regards, Jon S.

[Carol]

Does anyone know if a bruise can slowly appear if a recently dead person was trodden on by a horse?

Carol

[caz]

Depends very much on which other bodies he meant, curious. If Chapman was one, then yes, he may have entertained such thoughts. But if one or both had been male, for example, and the other circumstances entirely different, then probably not!

Because no identities were mentioned, it seems more along the lines of: "Oh yes, this is something I have observed before, so it's nothing I'd call particularly unusual".

Love,

Caz
X

[curious]

Hi All,

The problem is that in Victorian doctor-speak, having watched and seen some physical effect on two occasions since would in all probability translate today as an observation made on two previous occasions, ie on two other bodies. In fact it hardly seems worth saying if he merely went back to the same body twice more and saw the same thing, without specifying at what intervals.

But a reference to two previous cases (not necessarily connected with 'the' Whitechapel murders since no names were named) would indicate the doctor's growing familiarity with this particular effect - always useful in general, although not particularly for us!

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks Caz,

It seemed to me he was discussing two other cases, which meant two other bodies, therefore . . . were the others by the same hand? Surely the doctor would have wondered that himself?

[caz]

Hi All,

The problem is that in Victorian doctor-speak, having watched and seen some physical effect on two occasions since would in all probability translate today as an observation made on two previous occasions, ie on two other bodies. In fact it hardly seems worth saying if he merely went back to the same body twice more and saw the same thing, without specifying at what intervals.

But a reference to two previous cases (not necessarily connected with 'the' Whitechapel murders since no names were named) would indicate the doctor's growing familiarity with this particular effect - always useful in general, although not particularly for us!

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

Blackwell did have time to monitor the marks, or at least, what he stated at the inquest on 5 October implies so. And he was clear on it not being bruises or abrasions:
“There were what we call pressure marks on the shoulders, which became better defined some time after death. There were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasure of the skin.” (Morning Advertiser of 6 October)

“They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure, but subsequently they became very evident. They were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion.” (Daily News, 6 October)

All the best,
Frank

Blackwell did have time to monitor the marks. But he didn't mention the discoloration. Just the marks. Which is where you would expect them to be from clothing. But the discoloration was not only on the shoulders. It was on the chest, where there is no mention of marks. It does not appear that they were talking about discolored pressure marks. There was a discoloration, and pressure marks, and the two coincided in the shoulders only.

It seems that Baxter Phillips thought the discoloration possibly significant, and Blackwell did not. Certainly neither doctor clarified the discoloration in subsequent testimony. Were they bruises, they would have started to break down by the time Baxter Phillips was recalled, at which point he would have been able to identify them. I can only assume that by the time he was recalled to the stand, either the discoloration had been discarded as insignificant, or remained a mystery. As she was buried the day after Baxter Phillip's final appearance on the stand, it seems logical that it had been determined to be insignificant.

[Errata]

Hi, Errata,
Thanks for your input on this.

You mention cyanotic -- the blueness from lack of oxygen.

Some time ago, like 2-3 years, someone brought up the suggestion that Stride had died from what was basically a heart attack, but the suddenness of it had a separate name I don't recall, which accounted for her still clutching a packet of Cachous in her hand.

People are particularly pale when they die like this, and 2-3 people mentioned how pale Stride was.

Could the marks be any indication of that?

Vagal inhibition perhaps?

Cyanosis requires a minute or two of a lack of oxygen in order to persist. And it's never on the skin. Well, almost never. If someone had a boil or something, where the skin was stretched the tightest can be blue. But it also would have been dark when she was alive.

Cyanosis is usually in the lips, the fingernails, sometimes the eyelids. And it is in all of those places before it would crop up somewhere else. Her paleness may be genetic, being Nordic and all. I would think most likely it would be from being out in the freezing rain most of the night. Her blood vessels would shrink from the surface of her skin to preserve body heat, and would not return upon her death. The paleness associated with sudden heart attacks is because the blood drains from the extremities to try and protect the heart. So while the victim may be very pale in the face, hands, etc. the torso remains relatively unchanged, because that's where all the blood went.

Personally, I think her paleness was a result of the miserable weather.

[curious]

Hi Errata,

Blackwell did have time to monitor the marks, or at least, what he stated at the inquest on 5 October implies so. And he was clear on it not being bruises or abrasions:
“There were what we call pressure marks on the shoulders, which became better defined some time after death. There were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasure of the skin.” (Morning Advertiser of 6 October)

“They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure, but subsequently they became very evident. They were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion.” (Daily News, 6 October)

All the best,
Frank

Hi, Frank,
Thanks for finding this and posting it.

Any ideas yourself on what could have made the marks?

[curious]

And nothing on a corpse should be blue, unless they were either profoundly cyanotic or poisoned. .

Hi, Errata,
Thanks for your input on this.

You mention cyanotic -- the blueness from lack of oxygen.

Some time ago, like 2-3 years, someone brought up the suggestion that Stride had died from what was basically a heart attack, but the suddenness of it had a separate name I don't recall, which accounted for her still clutching a packet of Cachous in her hand.

People are particularly pale when they die like this, and 2-3 people mentioned how pale Stride was.

Could the marks be any indication of that?

[lynn cates]

wish

Hello Velma.

"Actually, in some ways I am glad. I find that it re-enforces my original conclusion that Stride's murder was by a different hand."

Can't disagree with that.

"I would actually like it to go back to one murderer for all, but that is not what my brain tells me that the facts say . . . "

Agree here too. I wish it were a toff in a topper. But you know the saying--"If wishes were horses then beggars would ride."

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hello Jon, Velma. So we have reached a consensus?

Hope it's contagious.

Cheers.
LC

on this, perhaps, but let's not get too "cheers"ful.

Actually, in some ways I am glad. I find that it re-enforces my original conclusion that Stride's murder was by a different hand.

I would actually like it to go back to one murderer for all, but that is not what my brain tells me that the facts say . . . that's why I keep turning everything inside-out.

[FrankO]

I think it likely he didn't immediately recognize the discoloration. And the Inquest was the day after the murder. He wouldn't have had time to monitor the marks and see if they broke down the way a bruise does. I think he mentioned them because he wasn't sure if they were going to end up being significant, and I would imagine by the time she was released for burial he realized that they in fact were not significant.

Hi Errata,

Blackwell did have time to monitor the marks, or at least, what he stated at the inquest on 5 October implies so. And he was clear on it not being bruises or abrasions:
“There were what we call pressure marks on the shoulders, which became better defined some time after death. There were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasure of the skin.” (Morning Advertiser of 6 October)

“They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure, but subsequently they became very evident. They were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion.” (Daily News, 6 October)

All the best,
Frank