Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 11 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by MysterySinger 11 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 11 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 11 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 12 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (18 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (6 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (5 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (1 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Tabbard Street East? - (1 posts)
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Ann Nichols

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #71  
Old 08-31-2015, 03:32 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

[quote=caz;350293]

Why would Gareth be taken aback by that, whether he believed most of the blood from the veins had ended up inside or outside the body?

Because he thought that a large part of the blood never left the veins, Caz.

But does Llewellyn explain anywhere that his reference to blood in 'the loose tissues' was actually, and exclusively, a reference to blood in the 'abdominal cavity'? I think it's you who needs to convince me and Gareth that this was the case.

Im fine with you supplying a list over which other areas of loose tissues it could have been Llewellyn spoke of.

All I am saying is that since the veins and arteries were virtually empty of blood when Llewellyn did his post mortem exam, and most of the blood left in the body by that time had collected in the loose tissues, there must remain a question mark over the proportion of blood that had left the body at the scene and was therefore not accounted for in Llewellyn's observations.

Llewellyns own question mark seems to have been put behind the sentence "Why so little blood around the neck". And that was a good question. As youn know - from the other site - Jason Payne-James asserts us that the kind of damage done to Nichols would mean that if the neck was cut first and while she was alive, then the blood would have exited through the neck vessels in a minute ony.
So it was a very fair question Llewellyn would have asked!


You keep assuming that the reference to 'a large extent' meant 'most' of the blood she would have had to begin with was now in the abdominal cavity, but it ain't necessarily so, and it seems to me he was merely saying that most of the remaining blood was now in the loose tissues, as would be expected.

He did explicitely NOT say that nearly all the blood had left the arteries and veins and most of the remaining blood eventually ended up in the loose tissues.
He said that nearly all of the blood had left the arterie and veins and (that blood) had to a large extent ended up in the loose tissues.


Speak for yourself! Or perhaps you were.

Actually no.

I'm sure I've told you before that Fishypoo, Fishykins, Fishy etc are terms of endearment, to show you I mean no ill will. I can't believe you really think I do it to try and 'diminish' you - as if I could, even if I wanted to. I have called my daughter Carlypoo and Carlykins for as long as I can remember, and I can assure you it's always meant with great tenderness and affection, as you would realise if we were to meet over a drink one day.

To think that I am the chosen one (I dont see you getting friendly with other posters in this manner).
Im very nearly blushing here!!


Toots I like. Ratbag would be okay too. Lassie I'm not so sure about.

Toots it is, then!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-03-2015, 06:19 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
He did explicitely NOT say that nearly all the blood had left the arteries and veins and most of the remaining blood eventually ended up in the loose tissues.
He said that nearly all of the blood had left the arterie and veins and (that blood) had to a large extent ended up in the loose tissues.
I will try once more, Fishy, then I think I'll have to give up.

Llewellyn observed during his post-mortem exam that the veins and arteries were nearly empty of blood. With me so far?

He could not observe (or measure) the blood that had left the body externally at the crime scene. This blood could therefore form no part of his post-mortem observations. It was gone. Still with me?

He could only observe blood that had remained within the corpse, and saw that this blood had to a large extent collected in the soft tissues, having left the veins and arteries internally.

To sum up then, three distinct areas of blood to account for: 1) x amount shed at the scene; 2) y amount left in the corpse; and 3) y divided between veins/arteries and the soft tissues, with most of y [NOT most of x + y] having now left the former and observable in the latter.

This is NOT the same as saying that most of the 10 pints originally in her veins and arteries [x + y] were still in the body and now observable in the soft tissues. This might have been so, but it's not what Llewellyn was saying.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 09-03-2015 at 06:23 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.