Blood oozing

[Sam Flynn]

Given the extent of Nichols injuries that timing of 3-5 minutes may be just a tad generous.

Pigs/cattle which have had their throats cut are left hanging upside down on a rail for 5 or more minutes to accelerate the exit of blood. Even then, some blood will remain in the vessels and tissues, only to - ahem! - ooze out over time. (Source: my father, who used to be a slaughterman.)

We know, of course, that Nichols was not hung upside down.

[David Orsam]

The Frame Up Exposed

It was only on 18 February of this year, under pressure from Steve, that Fisherman posted the exact questions he asked Payne James and the exact answers he received. Prior to that, he had spent the previous 15 months presenting a highly misleading impression of that exchange, all, of course, with the specific aim of framing Lechmere for the murder of Nichols.

If we look back over the way Fisherman represented the exchange it presents a very sorry story. I can only assume that Fisherman deluded himself into thinking that Payne-James had said something he had not because he was so keen to pin the murder on Lechmere that he could not imagine that Payne-James would be saying anything different.

Here are the key misrepresentations made by Fisherman on this forum.

1. Frequent claims that Payne-James had made specific reference to blood timings in the Nichols case. Thus, Fisherman has spoken of Payne-James saying that Nichols would only have bled for a few minutes. But the truth is that he never asked about Nichols specifically, just a person with a similar type of wound to Nichols, so it follows that Payne-James never said anything about the blood evidence in the Nichols case.

2. Claims that Payne-James was "fed all the information" about Nichols and "concluded based on that information…that she would have bled out in a matter [of] minutes only" when Payne-James was fed no accurate information about Nichols at all and reached no such conclusion about Nichols.

3. Frequent claims that Payne-James said that bleeding (or bleeding out) will last no longer than a few minutes. This is not true because Payne-James did not say this. At best, one could say that he agreed that this would be the case. One wonders how difficult it would have been for Fisherman to have written: "Dr Payne James said that blood flow could go on for up to seven minutes after death". That is what he actually said (even though he also said he was guessing). Yet Fisherman in his wisdom always without exception preferred his own confused and ambiguous word of "bleeding" and frequently claimed that Payne-James had used THIS word when he had not. A classic case of putting words into someone else's mouth.

4. Constantly changing the words used. Fisherman repeatedly claimed that Payne-James said that seven minutes bleeding after death was "a bit of a stretch" or "not credible" or "not plausible". He had not put it this way at all.

5. Changing the word "could" to "would". We find that Fisherman makes claims that Payne-James had said that Nichols "would bleed out totally in a few minutes". He never said that of course. What he agreed was that "total desanguination", whatever he thought Fisherman meant by that, could take place in a few minutes.

6. Failure to mention that Payne-James had been expressly asked about a situation where there was total and massive blood loss from a wound within a few minutes after death.

7. Adding in caveats that Payne–James never did. In one post, Fisherman said that according to Payne-James "three or five minutes were reasonable suggestions, while seven minutes was stretching things - although he took care to point out that each case is individual." But Payne James did not point this out. On another occasion he claimed that Payne James "said that the two first bids were more likely to be true than the seven minute bid. But he added that it was always going to be hard to pinpoint these matters " No such caveat was, in fact, added by Payne-James.

8. Claiming that Payne-James said that Lechmere is a "bulls eye suggestion for the killer's role" or something similar e.g. "he says that Lechmere is caught in the eye of the storm, timewise" of "fits the frame". The questions and answers provided did not make any mention of Lechmere.

9. Suggesting that Payne James claimed that oozing is not likely to have occurred for 20 minutes after death. When I once suggested to Fisherman that the murder could have occurred at 3.30am he told me that "Jason Payne-James puts a stop to too lofty speculations in that direction".

10. Claiming that Payne-James told him that there has never been a case of decapitation with twenty minutes of "bleeding". Not something that Payne-James said in those questions and answers.

Here are some Fisherman quotes that I have dug out, all of which were posted before we know what Payne-James had actually told him. Each quote needs to be compared to the exact words used by Payne-James and the context in which those words were used.

8 September 2015 #67 - The Lechmere trail - so far

"We know from Jason Payne-James that it would be much more expected for Nichols to bleed for three or perhaps five minutes than for seven. And it applies that any further bleeding than that is even more unexpected."

17 September 2015 #376 - The Lechmere trail - so far

"we have Jason Payne-James saying that a bleeding time of seven minutes seems not very credible. Maybe we are looking at five minutes only - which Payne-James said was more credible."

18 September 2015 #55 - I think I have found him

"Jason P-J has worked from the specific information we have in Nichols whereas B(r)iggs has always tended to speak in very general terms."

24 September 2015, #501 - The Lechmere trail - so far

"On hearing my question whether she would be likely to bleed three, five or seven minutes, Payne-James said that he could see the first two timings work, whereas seven minutes was a suggestion that was not very realistic."

4 October 2015, #644 - The Lechmere trail - so far

"Of course, it can always be reasoned that is she bled for six minutes, she could have bled for seven, and if shebled for seven, she may have bled for eight and so on.

We must, however, accept that the window closed at some stage, and Jason Payne-James says that seven minutes would be a stretch whereas three or five minutes would be more credible. So with every second we add to the time between Lechmere leaving the body and Mizen arriving at it, we detract from the possibility of another killer."

4 October 2015,#644 - The Lechmere trail - so far

"What he said was that three or five minutes were more likely estimations than seven.
I can only take this to mean that with every added minute, the chances that she would go on bleeding were reduced.
Seven minutes would be unexpected, but possible. Reasonably, 7,5 to 8 minutes would be even more unexpected and a little less possible.

I don´t think that we must be looking at 7,5 to 8 minutes, but I certainly do not exclude it. The gist of the matter is, though, that every added second would detract from the possibility of another killer."

6 October 2015, #650 - The Lechmere trail – so far

"I don´t see what he could say other than what I said myself. He said that three or five minutes were more credible than seven and that forms a logical line that is easy enough to understand: The more time we add, the more unexpected it would be."

7 October 2015, #176 - Lechmere-Cross bye bye

"The blood was still running from the neck of Nichols some six or seven minutes - at least! - after Lechmere left her. I am told by Jason Payne-James that seven minutes is a bit of a stretch. That means that the killer should have left the body as Lechmere arrived at it, if there WAS another killer and if Payne-James is correct."

2 December 2015, #37 - Lechmere Found "With" Nichols' Body

"Now, let´s agree that every case is unique - we cannot say that something MUST have applied in Nichols´ case. But we know that the bleeding was long since over when Thain looked at the dried-up clot of blood being taken from the street. And we know that Payne-James suggests a time of less than seven minutes. And practically, that means that he would not expect Nichols to have been cut a minute or two (or more) before Lechmere arrived at the scene."

20 January 2016, #52 - Lechmere Found "With" Nichols' Body

"In response to question "Isn't the likelier scenario by far that the killer did the deed quickly while PC Neil wasn't around and managed to slip away before he would have been seen or heard by Lechmere or Paul?"

No. Because that would stretch the bleeding time into what Jason Payne-James called UN-likely territory. That is how you weigh the likelihoods."

24 January 2016, #241 - What happened to Lechmere......

"Payne-James said that going by the kind of wounds she had, and taking into account that she may have been dead when the neck was opened up, she would bleed out totally in a few minutes. He also said that three or five minutes were reasonable suggestions, while seven minutes was stretching things - although he took care to point out that each case is individual."

26 January 2016, #314 - What happened to Lechmere......

"According to Jason Payne-James, who DID comment on the specific case with it´s specific wounds, that bleeding would likely be overwith within five minutes. He said that the time could be longer than that, but it was less likely. As far as I can tell, that is the qualitatively best and most detailed estimation we have."

2 February 2016, #568 - What happened to Lechmere......

"Can you see how and why Jason Payne-James said that the carman seems to fit the bill perfectly?"

11 March 2016, #649 - What happened to Lechmere......

"When I asked how long we should expect Nichols to have bled, I worded myself "Could she have bled for three minutes? For five? For seven?", whereupon Jason Payne-James answered that all three opportunitites could apply, but the two shorter times were more credible to be correct in his view.

I take that to strengthen the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer. It could have been somebody else, but that is quite simply less credible, going by the bloodflow."

11 May 2016, #106 - Lack of Threads

"There is also the blood to consider. Jason Payne-James said that bleeding time of three or five minutes was more plausible than seven minutes. Add up how long it would have taken for Mizen to reach the body if Lechmere did the cutting the second Paul entered Bucks Row. You will find that a period of six or seven minutes will have passed between the cutting and Mizens arrival. And that means that an earlier killer demands that we allow for a less viable bleeding time, according to Payne-James.
Ergo, it COULD have been another killer - but the bleeding speaks for Lechmere being the more credible one."

11 May 2016, #112, Lack of Threads

"This is an issue that cannot be completely resolved since we do not have the full information and the exact timings. We only have the coroner who said that it was nothing less than astonishing that the killer got away, and Swanson who said that the killer disappeared without the faintest shadow of a trace. It was a "mystery most complete" it was said - but I think there was no mystery at all. Lechmere fits the blood timetable, and he is surrounded by anomalies. It makes a world of sense to me to suggest that he was the killer, since there is really nobody else. All there is, is a rumour of a pohantom killer who could creep in and out of a murder site unnoticed, regardless of the surveillance. And who was able to make the blood flow from Nichols´ neck for a longer time than suggested by a forensic expert like Jason Payne-James."

20 June 2016 #167 - Lawende was silenced

"I have said that the blood evidence points to Lechmere being more likely a killer than anybody else. And that is a fact, going by Jason Payne James´ information."

26 June 2016, #26 - Documentary: Jack The Ripper: Has Christer Holmgren discovered the killer's identity?

"…what I am saying is that if the bleeding and coagulation followed a normal path, then Lechmere is a bulls´ eye suggestion for the killers role. Jason Payne-James agrees with this, he says that three to five minutes bleeding is more credible than seven and that the coagulation pattern is in correlation with Lechmere if it followed the normal schedule.
Conclusion: If it was not Lechmere, then we are loooking at Polly Nichols differering from the normal in these respects - and she could well have done that. But any sound reasoning must take in the fact that Lechmere fits the normal pattern, and if the normal pattern applied, there is no very realistic chance of another killer."

11 July 2016, #107 - Lechmere Continuation Thread

"..we are faced with the problem that Nichols would have bled from the neck wound for 18 minutes before Neil found her, if she was cut at 3.27. And Jason Payne-James tells us that 3-5 minutes are likelier than 7 minutes. What he would say about 18 minutes is anybody´s guess."

11 July 2016 #124 - Lechmere Continuation Thread

"There is less force in the point if it's up to 30 minutes prior to 4:00am because we have no evidence of Lechmere being in Bucks Row at 3:30.

I disagree. What happens is that it would open up for a larger window for an alternative killer. But Jason Payne-James puts a stop to too lofty speculations in that direction, and we are still having Lechmere in place, having been found alone with a freshly killed victim. And we still do not have Paul testifying that he had seen or heard his fellow carman although he really ought to. Combining this, Lechmere remains the chief candidate."

11 July 2016, #158 - Lechmere Continuation Thread

David Orsam: I'm not aware of any response from Payne James about what Biggs said.

Fisherman: Then again, you did not speak to him, did you?

David Orsam: Given the paucity of evidence about Nichols' death - and the fact that we are sitting here arguing about what the newspaper reports said - I fail to see how Payne James was in any kind of position to make informed comments about the Nichols case in particular.

Fisherman: He was informed about the temperature, the position in which Nichols was found and the approximate extent of the damages done to her. So there was a lot to comment on.

David Orsam: Either blood can run from a corpse for hours after death or it can't. Can it or can't it?

Fisherman: If the victim displayed the kind of damage Nichols did, and was positioned the way she was in the kind of temperature that prevailed, it is completely unlikely that the bleeding would go on for any prolonged time, and Jason Payne-James said that the bleeding would be over in a matter of minutes only. When I asked him if he was talking about three, five or seven minutes, he said that the two shorter times were more likely to be true than the longer one.
That´s as far as we can get - likelihoods. And they point a finger at the carman.

13 July 2016, #251 - Lechmere Continuation Thread

"Nichols had been lying down for about half an hour with a humongous hole in her neck. Just as Jason Payne-James says, with that kind of opening and with all vessels severed in the neck, it is a question of minutes only before the blood has emptied out."

13 July 2016, #254 - Lechmere Continuation Thread

"Was there ever a decapitation that resulted in twenty minutes of bleeding? Nope, there was not, and the reason is a simple one - when all the vessels in the neck are severed, the blood will leave the body in around a minute´s time or less. This, at least, is what I have been told by Jason Payne-James."

14 July 2016. #325 - Lechmere Continuation Thread

David Orsam: The whole issue at stake is how long blood can run or ooze from a dead body.

Fisherman: No, the whole issue is how long blood can run or ooze (Neil said both, by the way) from different bodies with different levels of damage.

David Orsam: But we haven't properly resolved this.

Fisherman: We? Jason Payne-James said that three or five minutes were better suggestions than seven. He also said that a decapitated person will bleed out completely in a minute or less.

15 July 2016, #361 - Lechmere Continuation Thread

David Orsam: But Fisherman that just takes us back to the point about whether blood can ooze or run out of a body after, say, 10 minutes (or whatever cut-off point Payne-James has pronounced as the maximum amount of time).

Fisherman: And that´s where it should take us. And the blood would not "ooze" the way you think oozing looks like - but Neil also said it was running, which is probably the better word. And there is nu maximum time, it is all about likelihoods. The blood would not be likely to run for ten minutes.

19 October 2016, #7 - Robert Paul

"Jason Payne-James (the medico in the docu) says that a few minutes would be the bleeding out time with the damage she had. He thought that three minutes or perhaps five would be a better suggestion than seven. So there you are."

23 October 2016, #122 -Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

"Jason Payne-James says that Nichols would reasonably have bled for minutes only after the neck was cut, and he favours a time of three to five minutes over a suggestion of seven minutes, which he finds a possibility, but thinks sounds too long a time to be likely."

24 October 2016, #171 - Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

"Jason Payne-James says that the bleeding would be over within a period of minutes only, three to five minutes being a better suggestion than seven, and it could well be a question of one or two minutes only."

25 October 2016, #328 - Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

"Jason Payne-James, well aquainted with all the information there is on Polly Nichols and her wounds, says that he would expect the bleeding to be over in a matter of minutes. WHen I asked him if we were speaking of three, five or seven minutes, he said that the two first bids were more likely to be true than the seven minute bid. But he added that it was always going to be hard to pinpoint these matters - what he cpuld offer was only his professional opinion and his experience, and that in combination made the call that seven minutes would be asking for a lot.

If Lechmere did not kill her, we have around eight and a half minutes. If Lechmere DID kill her, we have around seven. Therefore, Lechmere becomes the more likely killer."

25 October 2016, #335 - Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

"Payne-James had all the details and commented specifically on the Nichols case, whereas Biggs seems to have offered opinions on all cases between Svalbard and Kiribati. Payne-James has extensive experience, and was discerning enough not to offer any certainties. He simply said that going by the word as he knew it, the bleeding would have been over in a couple of minutes only.
It is not as if we fix things down to the second. But we can clearly see that Lechmere fits right in. and that´s what counts."

27 October 2016. #451 - Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

"Jason Payne-James estimation that the body of Nichols would have bled out in a few minutes only, more likely three to five than seven minutes."

27 October 2016, #459 - Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

"Jason Payne-James said that a decapitation would normally cause the blood to leave the body in a minute or so - or even less. So the difference you point to is seemingly reflected in how Payne-James then accepts that three or even five minutes could/should have been the case with Nichols. He also accepted that we could get some more bleeding time, but he thought it less likely (and obviously, every added second would be less likely than the second before it). This would take in how a certain slowing down of the bleeding will have been around in the parts of the neck closest to the spine (where the cut surfaces would have been closer to each other than in front), plus it also encompassed how there was little or no blood pressure in the vessels when the neck was cut, going by the looks of things."

27 October 2016, #477 - Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

"Payne-James is the only forensic expert to have commented specifically on the bleeding time with Nichols, and from a very well informed stance too."

28 October 2016 #508 - Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

"Jason Payne-James was fed all the information there is about Polly Nichols, and concluded that based on that information, his take on things was that she would have bled out on a matter of minutes only, and when I asked him how many minutes he was talking about, three, five, seven...? - he answered that all three suggestions could be true, but he regarded seven minutes as less likely than three or five."

28 October 2016, #509 - Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

To Harry:

"You speak of a seven minute "limit", but Payne-James never did - he said that seven minutes was less likely than three or five."

28 October 2016, #541 - Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

"If Payne-James knows what he is talking about, we should acpet a bleeding time of a couple of initital minutes only. Once we pass the five minute line, we should be wary of how she becomes less and less likely to bleed with every second and minute that passes.

Going by Payne-James, the only persons caught inside the likely window of time are Paul and Lechmere. After that, there is a less likely - but not impossible - window of time. We need to enter that window to find the phantom killer everybody seems to be on about."

11 March 2016, #751 - Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

"Jason Payne-James tells me that the body would not bleed for many minutes, and he says that Lechmere is caught in the eye of the storm, timewise. That is as close as anybody has ever come to nailing the Ripper. It´ll do for me."

8 November 2016, #23 - Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

"Jason Payne-James says that another killer would stretch the bleeding schedule beyond what he would have expected."

9 November 2016, #47 - Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

Replying to Steve

"I disagree it does not seem that he was present when Nichols was cut, it seems according to Payne-James that he was there very close to the time it of the cut.

Payne-James favours a shorter time than seven minutes. That puts Lechmere on the spot, pretty much."

13 November 2016, #133 - Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

"I then asked him if there were likelihoods to lean against, and I exemplified with suggestions; was it likely that Nichols would have bled for three minutes, for five, for seven...? He then replied that all three could apply, but he believed that the shorter times were the more credible suggestions."

6 December 2016, #44 - Minutiae in Buck´s Row

"Jason Payne-James said that anything over three or five minutes was not to be expected - whether he would accept much LESS I cannot say. But you must realize that ALL the large vessels in the neck were cut - and in that respect, it resembles a full decapitation, where all the blood can leave the body in less than a minute."

6 December 2016, #5 - Minutiae in Buck´s Row

"I can only repeat that Jason Payne-James - a top authority - is of the opinion that he would expect three to fove minutes being a likelier assessment than seven. Frankly, he should know."

9 December 2016, #38 - Lechmere in Mitre Square

"Jason Payne-James said that the bleeding time puts him in the eye of the storm."

23 December 2016, #152 - Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

"I don´t think Jason Payne-James nourished any particular "wish" to have Lechmere placed at the murder site at the relevant time for having been the killer - I think his experience told him that this was the likeliest scenario."

3 February 2016, #415 - The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

"We know that Nichols was still bleeding from the wound in her neck as Neil and Mizen saw her - which is consistent with her having been cut around the time when Lechmere was alone with her, according to Jason Payne-James."

5 February 2017, #517 - The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

"Or the blood evidence. I mean, if a renowned forensic specialist like Jason Payne James suggests that Nichols would be more likely to bleed for three or five minutes than seven, and if the evidence suggests that she did bleed for at least six or seven minutes, then that would not be something Lechmere would have been wrongly accused of lying about. It would be scot free of any Lechmere contamination and quite admissible as evidence."

15 February 2017, #899 - The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

"We are speaking of a man who was found alone in a dark street, standing quite close to the body of a freshly killed murder victim, who by the press accounts from the inquest beld for many minutes afterwards - something that made the forensic expert Jason Payne-James suggest that he fits the murderers frame very well."

17 February 2017, #1003 - The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

John G: Okay, but didn't Payne-James say that blood could have leaked or dribbled out of the neck for several minutes?

Fisherman: No, he did not say several - he said minutes. And in private correspondance with me, when I asked if it would have bled for three, five or seven minutes, he answered that the two shorter times were the more realistic suggestions.

18 February 2017, #1051 - The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

"Just a minor point - it was Jason Payne-James who could not see this, not me. It was he who said that at some time, suggestions about very prolonged bleeding times will become absurd. It was he who said that the type of wound Nichols had, would bleed out in a matter of minutes, more likely three or five than seven.

I am only reiterating his view, since I am no medical expert."

[Elamarna]

Pigs/cattle which have had their throats cut are left hanging upside down on a rail for 5 or more minutes to accelerate the exit of blood. Even then, some blood will remain in the vessels and tissues, only to - ahem! - ooze out over time. (Source: my father, who used to be a slaughterman.)

We know, of course, that Nichols was not hung upside down.

I have made the very same point myself several times but someone is not listening to us.

Nichols's heart would stop after approx 50% of blood volume was lost.

That would be in under 5 minutes, not just under but well under. Therefore it is not possible that Neil or Mizen saw blood being pumped by the heart, just blood leaving by gravity.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

I can only assume that Fisherman deluded himself into thinking that Payne-James had said something he had not because he was so keen to pin the murder on Lechmere that he could not imagine that Payne-James would be saying anything different.

If there's one thing we can be sure of, it's that Payne-James gets mentioned a heck of a lot, as this "Wordle" diagram amply illustrates:



Is this, perhaps, a manifestation of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy?

[John G]

If there's one thing we can be sure of, it's that Payne-James gets mentioned a heck of a lot, as this "Wordle" diagram amply illustrates:

[ATTACH]18053[/ATTACH]

Is this, perhaps, a manifestation of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy?

Hey, I'd never previously heard of a "wordle diagram". That's really clever Sam!

[Sam Flynn]

Hey, I'd never previously heard of a "wordle diagram". That's really clever Sam!

Thanks JG, but all due credit to the technology. There are a few sites online where you can generate your own Wordle pictures, and I availed myself of the service on wordle.net for this one.

The relative sizes of the words in the diagram reflect how frequently they occur in the text. As a visual analytical aid, they're quite handy, and I've used them quite often in a work context.

[kjab3112]

Hi Paul!

Yes, I agree that partial strangulation may have been what happened. I am, however, placing my bet on the abdomen being cut first, and large amounts of blood escaping into the abdominal cavity from the severed vessels in there. To me, it makes sense that this explains the scarcity of blood by the neck. If Nichols was only partially strangled, the heart would go on beating, and we should have had arterial spray at the scene, but there was no such thing recorded.

For two and a half litres to have escaped that via the neck, there would also need to be 2,2 litres in the clothing, since there was only about 0,3 litres in the pool under the neck. And the police reports tell us that the clothing was bloodsoaked only at the collar and the upper parts around the shoulders.

If the blood did not travel longer than that in the clothing, the capillary power offered by the cloth was not large, and consequently, to my mind, there would not be much blood in the clothing at all - let alone a stiff two litres!

Can you give me a hint if my perspective would work?

Thanks for your input, by the way - much appreciated!

Hi Fisherman

It would be possible to bleed to death from abdominal wounds, but I personally doubt it would be the case with Polly. My understanding of what's remained of the descriptions of the abdominal wounds suggest they were through the abdominal wall only (no organs having been removed) having not fully bared the abdomen. Given the presumed length of the knife and required angle, most of the cuts would be fairly superficial into the cavity.

Assuming the cuts did penetrate deep enough to reach the main abdominal vessels, unlike the carotids, with the exception of the aorta the abdominal vessels have significantly reduced blood flow as blood volume drops.

To give perspective, the ascending aorta has a flow of five litres per minute, so a complete transection would result in fatal haemorrhage in approximately thirty to forty seconds. Each common carotid has a mean minute flow in women of 370ml/min, but a minimal drop as blood volume drops until over forty percent blood loss. In comparison, the three main abdominal arterial branches are the superior mesenteric artery, the splenic artery and the common hepatic artery. Their per minute flow in a fasted normal status are 430ml, 300ml and 225ml respectively. Given the reduction in flow due to blood loss however my calculations for the minimum time for 2.5 litres of blood loss would be 13 minutes, 17 minutes and 25 minutes respectively (assuming complete transection with no vessel spasm). It would be near impossible to hit all three blindly with a knife in a head-foot perpendicular to the skin direction. Thus I can't see any abdominal wound causing sufficient blood loss to maintain unconsciousness after the recovery from a partial strangulation, which would not fit with the lack of any defence wounds given the number of knife cuts made.

Regards

Paul

[Elamarna]

Hi Fisherman

It would be possible to bleed to death from abdominal wounds, but I personally doubt it would be the case with Polly. My understanding of what's remained of the descriptions of the abdominal wounds suggest they were through the abdominal wall only (no organs having been removed) having not fully bared the abdomen. Given the presumed length of the knife and required angle, most of the cuts would be fairly superficial into the cavity.

Assuming the cuts did penetrate deep enough to reach the main abdominal vessels, unlike the carotids, with the exception of the aorta the abdominal vessels have significantly reduced blood flow as blood volume drops.

To give perspective, the ascending aorta has a flow of five litres per minute, so a complete transection would result in fatal haemorrhage in approximately thirty to forty seconds. Each common carotid has a mean minute flow in women of 370ml/min, but a minimal drop as blood volume drops until over forty percent blood loss. In comparison, the three main abdominal arterial branches are the superior mesenteric artery, the splenic artery and the common hepatic artery. Their per minute flow in a fasted normal status are 430ml, 300ml and 225ml respectively. Given the reduction in flow due to blood loss however my calculations for the minimum time for 2.5 litres of blood loss would be 13 minutes, 17 minutes and 25 minutes respectively (assuming complete transection with no vessel spasm). It would be near impossible to hit all three blindly with a knife in a head-foot perpendicular to the skin direction. Thus I can't see any abdominal wound causing sufficient blood loss to maintain unconsciousness after the recovery from a partial strangulation, which would not fit with the lack of any defence wounds given the number of knife cuts made.

Regards

Paul

Very impressive Paul.

I didn't have the figures for the abdomenial vessels; but they look very compelling data for several questions.

Can I thank you on behalf of many here for that data.


All the best


Steve

[Pierre]

Very impressive Paul.

I didn't have the figures for the abdomenial vessels; but they look very compelling data for several questions.

Can I thank you on behalf of many here for that data.


All the best


Steve

The figures were presented without references.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

The figures were presented without references.

Pierre

Yes I know, Paul does have them However.

Sure once he sees he forgot them he will give them.


Steve

[kjab3112]

The figures were presented without references.

Pierre

Here are the references

Cardiac flow through the aorta - any physiology book, personally I have Guyton
Ackroyd et al Journal vascular surgery vol3 pp846-853 1986 - common carotid blood flow (calculations based on a selection of journals I've not got immediately to hand)
Nakamura et al Journal Clinical Ultrasound vol 17 pp261-8 1989 - abdominal arterial flow numbers
Steiner Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica vol51 p143 2007 - change in abdominal arterial flow in hypovolaemia

The calculations are my own based on multiple parallelograms (I tried to properly create formulae but my calculus is a tad rusty)

The figure of fifty percent blood loss is based on the ATLS Shock categories with background extension reading

The ten seconds to unconsciousness with carotid pressure is based on multiple sources posted on forensicmed.ac.uk of recorded hangings

Hope that answers your queries

Paul

[Pierre]

Here are the references

Cardiac flow through the aorta - any physiology book, personally I have Guyton
Ackroyd et al Journal vascular surgery vol3 pp846-853 1986 - common carotid blood flow (calculations based on a selection of journals I've not got immediately to hand)
Nakamura et al Journal Clinical Ultrasound vol 17 pp261-8 1989 - abdominal arterial flow numbers
Steiner Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica vol51 p143 2007 - change in abdominal arterial flow in hypovolaemia

The calculations are my own based on multiple parallelograms (I tried to properly create formulae but my calculus is a tad rusty)

The figure of fifty percent blood loss is based on the ATLS Shock categories with background extension reading

The ten seconds to unconsciousness with carotid pressure is based on multiple sources posted on forensicmed.ac.uk of recorded hangings

Hope that answers your queries

Paul

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

"Given the reduction in flow due to blood loss however my calculations for the minimum time for 2.5 litres of blood loss would be 13 minutes, 17 minutes and 25 minutes respectively (assuming complete transection with no vessel spasm)."

Are your calculations based on data material or is this hypothetical?

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Classic Case Study

Murder of Alice McKenzie in Castle Alley:

Report of Supt Arnold dated 17 July 1889 states that "There can be no doubt that the crime was committed as near as possible about 12.40am".

Body discovered by PC Andrews "at 12.50am" (Report of Arnold and inquest evidence of PC Andrews, Times, 18 July 1889).

Death caused by "syncope arising for the division of the vessels of the neck" (Post Morten Report of Dr Phillips, 22 July 1889).

Inspector Reid was notified of the murder at 12.55am and ran to Castle Alley: "I saw she had a cut on the left side of the throat, and there was a quantity of blood under the head which was running into the gutter." (Inquest evidence, Times, 19 July 1889).

Dr Phillips report says he arrived at 1.10am: "Found the body of a woman lying on back. Face turned sharply to right...Blood poured out from wound in neck...the whole amount of blood lost would not amount to more than 2 pts".

Here we have a case of blood pouring from the neck wound some thirty minutes after the cutting of the throat.

I don't believe that this case is known to have rewritten all the text books on "post-mortem bleeding".

[kjab3112]

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

"Given the reduction in flow due to blood loss however my calculations for the minimum time for 2.5 litres of blood loss would be 13 minutes, 17 minutes and 25 minutes respectively (assuming complete transection with no vessel spasm)."

Are your calculations based on data material or is this hypothetical?

Pierre

Calculations based on data within the sources given then linear regression and use of simple mathematics to give the times. For example, the superior mesenteric artery would take over a minute to lose 450ml of blood

[John G]

Hi Fisherman

It would be possible to bleed to death from abdominal wounds, but I personally doubt it would be the case with Polly. My understanding of what's remained of the descriptions of the abdominal wounds suggest they were through the abdominal wall only (no organs having been removed) having not fully bared the abdomen. Given the presumed length of the knife and required angle, most of the cuts would be fairly superficial into the cavity.

Assuming the cuts did penetrate deep enough to reach the main abdominal vessels, unlike the carotids, with the exception of the aorta the abdominal vessels have significantly reduced blood flow as blood volume drops.

To give perspective, the ascending aorta has a flow of five litres per minute, so a complete transection would result in fatal haemorrhage in approximately thirty to forty seconds. Each common carotid has a mean minute flow in women of 370ml/min, but a minimal drop as blood volume drops until over forty percent blood loss. In comparison, the three main abdominal arterial branches are the superior mesenteric artery, the splenic artery and the common hepatic artery. Their per minute flow in a fasted normal status are 430ml, 300ml and 225ml respectively. Given the reduction in flow due to blood loss however my calculations for the minimum time for 2.5 litres of blood loss would be 13 minutes, 17 minutes and 25 minutes respectively (assuming complete transection with no vessel spasm). It would be near impossible to hit all three blindly with a knife in a head-foot perpendicular to the skin direction. Thus I can't see any abdominal wound causing sufficient blood loss to maintain unconsciousness after the recovery from a partial strangulation, which would not fit with the lack of any defence wounds given the number of knife cuts made.

Regards

Paul

Excellent analysis. Thanks for this Paul.