Theories Discussion > General Discussion

How Much is 100 mLs of blood? (WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES ATTACHED)

(1/5) > >>

CalzagheChick:

100 mLs = 20 teaspoons
100 mLs = 6 Tablespoons + 2 teaspoons OR 7 Tablespoons - 1 teaspoon OR 6.66 Tablespoons (eek)
100 mLs = 0.42 cups (just shy of 1/2 cup)
100 mLs = 1/10 liter

Any particular conversion that can help you visualize the amount of blood in Lyuda's stomach at the time of the autopsy? I'm not really able to visualize given measurements of any kind, and this really bothered me. Why? Because I think the blood present in Lyuda's stomach is possibly related to her missing tongue. I could be wrong on this. The blood could very well be from a punctured stomach as her rib fractures could certainly have punctured any of her organs in theory. But what exactly does 100 mLs look like? Is it only enough to slightly streak the stomach mucosa red? Or is this an amount of blood that can be collected in a container all its own? I needed to SEE 100 mLs.

My first thought was to hit my nursing books. During my obstetrics rotation, we had a lecture on estimating blood loss in the event of a PPH (Post Partum Hemorrhage which is just fancy talk for "You better know what you're doing quick because the mother is bleeding to death and modern medicine isn't known for it's high mortality rate during child birth.") Of course there are tons of infographics available on the internet to support my rationale here. I find these extremely helpful! I actually have a very good idea/visual of the degree of Lyudmila's injury.

Of course, all of her injuries resulted in significant blood loss. Any broken bones come with blood loss. There's an infographic for that too--very interesting if I do say so myself. My thing is, I'm unsure this really answers the most pressing questions about her missing glossal and hypoglossal muscles, and the autopsy report just doesn't allow for reasonable speculation:
a) Was the tongue ripped/torn out, leaving behind jagged surrounding tissues as we'd expect to see with predation. I don't understand how predation could occur with the rav4 bodies covered significantly in snow, but also Lyuda's body having been face down in a running stream seems awfully tricky for any animal to access. What animal could dig her up, turn her over, take away the soft bits, etc? This raises another question: in this harsh environment, I'm hard pressed to believe any animal feasting off of the dead would resolve to be so picky about the choice cuts. Here they have a buffet but only go for the opportunistic parts? I highly doubt it.

b) Was the surrounding tissue clean cut, as we'd expect to see had the muscle been severed with a sharp instrument that relies mostly on having opposable thumbs?

c) Was there evidence of putrefaction/natural bacterial activity as compared with water samples from the running stream that Lyuda was found in? Sure there is natural fauna and growth in a wild stream, even at that temperature and altitude, right? My problem with this theory: the temperature. We are talking about well below freezing. Naturally occurring bacterial activity from the water source I would think to be severely reduced/hindered by the temperatures of the Siberian winter season. Again, I could very well be wrong.

In any case, the amount of blood present in the deceased's stomach was quite a significant amount when we see exactly what it looks like. What do you think it points to?

Marchesk:

--- Quote from: CalzagheChick on May 08, 2018, 08:06:53 PM ---a) Was the tongue ripped/torn out, leaving behind jagged surrounding tissues as we'd expect to see with predation. I don't understand how predation could occur with the rav4 bodies covered significantly in snow,
--- End quote ---

I never understood why so many people thought it was predation when the bodies were covered in several meters of snow. Unless that happened sometime after their deaths, but one would think the snow would have something to do with their deaths.


--- Quote from: CalzagheChick on May 08, 2018, 08:06:53 PM ---but also Lyuda's body having been face down in a running stream seems awfully tricky for any animal to access.
--- End quote ---

Her upper body and face were learning against a rock. Is it said she was face down in the running stream because it was washing over her from above? In the photo it looks like her face is tilted away from the water.



Anway, to OP's point, that is a lot of blood.

Per Inge Oestmoen:

--- Quote from: CalzagheChick on May 08, 2018, 08:06:53 PM ---
Of course, all of her injuries resulted in significant blood loss. Any broken bones come with blood loss. There's an infographic for that too--very interesting if I do say so myself. My thing is, I'm unsure this really answers the most pressing questions about her missing glossal and hypoglossal muscles, and the autopsy report just doesn't allow for reasonable speculation:
a) Was the tongue ripped/torn out, leaving behind jagged surrounding tissues as we'd expect to see with predation. I don't understand how predation could occur with the rav4 bodies covered significantly in snow, but also Lyuda's body having been face down in a running stream seems awfully tricky for any animal to access. What animal could dig her up, turn her over, take away the soft bits, etc? This raises another question: in this harsh environment, I'm hard pressed to believe any animal feasting off of the dead would resolve to be so picky about the choice cuts. Here they have a buffet but only go for the opportunistic parts? I highly doubt it.

b) Was the surrounding tissue clean cut, as we'd expect to see had the muscle been severed with a sharp instrument that relies mostly on having opposable thumbs?

c) Was there evidence of putrefaction/natural bacterial activity as compared with water samples from the running stream that Lyuda was found in? Sure there is natural fauna and growth in a wild stream, even at that temperature and altitude, right? My problem with this theory: the temperature. We are talking about well below freezing. Naturally occurring bacterial activity from the water source I would think to be severely reduced/hindered by the temperatures of the Siberian winter season. Again, I could very well be wrong.

In any case, the amount of blood present in the deceased's stomach was quite a significant amount when we see exactly what it looks like. What do you think it points to?

--- End quote ---

To take the last first, the presence of that amount of blood in Dubinina's stomach is one more piece of evidence that this tragedy was murder and not an accident - among other pieces of evidence that both separately and considered together point in that direction.

At any rate, it demonstrates that she was alive when she was injured. The blood could stem from her coughing up blood from her damaged lungs, or it might in addition indicate that her tongue was cut/ripped out while Dubinina was still alive. Here, the difficulty is to know how much blood she swallowed, how much blood she might have vomited and how much she bled. Blood could have been washed away by the water.

However, environmental factors could not possibly cause the tongue and the glossal and hypoglossal muscles to rot selectively while all the other anatomical structures around were intact. Therefore, if the tongue was absent someone or something must have removed it. It is also improbable that predators could have consumed the tongue without also having eaten of her other body parts and without leaving tooth marks anywhere. Tooth marks were not found as far as I can see. There is no indication that any predators had eaten from Dubinina's body.

So we are left with the sensible conclusion that Dubinina's tongue and surrounding anatomical structures were removed by a human being. The reason why the autopsy reports and the investigators were so vague about Dubinina's missing tongue, is understandable. The investigators evidently received instructions that the case should be closed with the official conclusion that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was an accident and not murder. That is why Dubinina's missing tongue and all the other injuries were wrongly interpreted from the promise that this was not murder. Regrettably, that misinterpretation has continued to this day.

One might wonder why Dubinina's tongue was removed. Here, any thoughts on "why" must be speculative since we cannot really know. It is conceivable that the attackers wanted to know whether the hikers knew something they were not supposed to know, have seen or observed. In this (of course hypothetical!) scenario, one of the group was then selected to be severely tortured in the front of the others to make them confess or confirm something. "This will happen to you too if you do not tell us!" Various forms of gruesome torture is a well known method to extract confessions or information from a group of people. Also, the cutting out the tongue of a woman may have been a symbolic act. But that is and must be speculative, because we do not know exactly how this happened and why. What we know, is that it did happen. Unless there were clear signs that the tongue was ripped out by a predator, Dubinina's missing tongue tells its tale.

CalzagheChick:
So all of that being said, do you believe that of the Rav4, their eyes were removed or were the missing eyes of several of them the result of putrefaction/predation/decomp?

Armide:
Had all of them been missing their eyes, I would have lead to believe that putrefaction was the reason, but Thibeaux-Brignolles still had both his eyes, and they were closed, as a matter of fact. That doesn't completely rule out putrefaction though, is there any evidence that proves that Thibeaux-Brignolles body may have decayed slower? And for those who were missing their eyes, could blood pool at some point in the body after they had been gouged out?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page