Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blood oozing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Hi Pierre

    I accept you're semantics on oozing/oozed/had oozed. The problem is that Paul felt there was still evidence of respiratory effort and cardiac output (not necessarily a pulse). This does not prove Lechmere/Cross was the murderer, but Paul certainly arrived very soon after the cuts (which now work has settled I hope soon to return to examining).

    Best wishes

    Paul

    Comment


    • #32
      Correction

      QUOTE=Pierre;412130

      A correction from me to you:

      They are from The Thanet Advertiser, August 30, 1973,
      The correct year of course is 1873.

      As I wrote, the examples are all from the Victorian era.

      Pierre

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
        QUOTE=Pierre;412130

        A correction from me to you:



        The correct year of course is 1873.

        As I wrote, the examples are all from the Victorian era.

        Pierre

        Yeah but you also wrote the incorrect date so you can't really comment like I'm the one who misunderstood.

        Although maybe I should have known better than to take what you said at face value without checking first.

        Tj
        It's not about what you know....it's about what you can find out

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by kjab3112 View Post
          Hi Pierre

          I accept you're semantics on oozing/oozed/had oozed. The problem is that Paul felt there was still evidence of respiratory effort and cardiac output (not necessarily a pulse). This does not prove Lechmere/Cross was the murderer, but Paul certainly arrived very soon after the cuts (which now work has settled I hope soon to return to examining).

          Best wishes

          Paul
          There is a tendency in early material with the statements of Robert Paul. His statements are biased by his critique of the police. Therefore he had his own reason to give the impression that Nichols might have been alive - and the police coming late to the murder site.

          Regards, Pierre

          Comment


          • #35
            For those interested interested in the oozing debate the following post by Joshua and the follow up by jerry are interesting:

            http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...2&postcount=47.

            I wonder do we have any examples from the period where "oozing " can be shown to mean, well not oozing but flowing actively under some pressure.

            That I think would be a great step forward in the oozing debate.

            Steve

            Comment


            • #36
              Steve,

              Not sure if this helps but.... (part in bold, of course)

              Echo
              12 September 1888

              Dr. Thomas Neville, surgeon of 85, Pimlico-road, and of 128, Sloane-street, subsequently made an examination of the arm. It appears that the limb is the right arm of a female, probably of some 25 or 30 years of age. It has been severed at the shoulder-joint, and has the appearance of having been in the water some two or three days. The cut was not skillfully made, and was such as would be the case had the operation been performed by a person ignorant of the elements of anatomy. Round the arm and above the elbow was a piece of string, tied somewhat tightly, but not sufficiently taut to produce much of an indentation. It is thought not unlikely that by some of those who assume that a tragedy has been committed, that the string may have been employed to prevent the blood oozing through the veins, and so causing a risk of splashing to the person disposing of the severed limb. If this was the intention the artifice was scarcely successful, as when taken from the river there was still some bleeding. Another conjecture is that the string was merely attached for the purpose of easy carriage. At any rate, this was the idea which struck the police-constable, who conveyed the limb to the police-station by means of another piece of string attached to that already round the remains.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                Steve,

                Not sure if this helps but.... (part in bold, of course)

                Echo
                12 September 1888

                Dr. Thomas Neville, surgeon of 85, Pimlico-road, and of 128, Sloane-street, subsequently made an examination of the arm. It appears that the limb is the right arm of a female, probably of some 25 or 30 years of age. It has been severed at the shoulder-joint, and has the appearance of having been in the water some two or three days. The cut was not skillfully made, and was such as would be the case had the operation been performed by a person ignorant of the elements of anatomy. Round the arm and above the elbow was a piece of string, tied somewhat tightly, but not sufficiently taut to produce much of an indentation. It is thought not unlikely that by some of those who assume that a tragedy has been committed, that the string may have been employed to prevent the blood oozing through the veins, and so causing a risk of splashing to the person disposing of the severed limb. If this was the intention the artifice was scarcely successful, as when taken from the river there was still some bleeding. Another conjecture is that the string was merely attached for the purpose of easy carriage. At any rate, this was the idea which struck the police-constable, who conveyed the limb to the police-station by means of another piece of string attached to that already round the remains.


                Jerry looks like that is still talking about oozing rather than free flowing to me. It's talking about disposal of the limb and prevention of blood on the perpetrator, showing that it's after removal of the limb. Certainly not free flowing under pressure of any kind at that stage, other than gravity of course.

                Still another good example.

                Stevej

                Comment


                • #38
                  But venous blood would be under low pressure, in direct contrast to arterial blood of course.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by kjab3112 View Post
                    Hi Pierre

                    I accept you're semantics on oozing/oozed/had oozed. The problem is that Paul felt there was still evidence of respiratory effort and cardiac output (not necessarily a pulse). This does not prove Lechmere/Cross was the murderer, but Paul certainly arrived very soon after the cuts (which now work has settled I hope soon to return to examining).

                    Best wishes

                    Paul
                    Fair point regards Paul, of course this in all probability at least 3 minutes before PC Neil sees her. And of course it appears she is suffering significant blood loss in more than a single area.

                    Your input is always welcome and very valued BTW

                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by John G View Post
                      But venous blood would be under low pressure, in direct contrast to arterial blood of course.

                      Of course John, but there is still a degree of pressure unlike oozing in its normal usage.

                      And of course we are really relating to one case where there is both arterial and venious flow.

                      That is the reason it just occurred to me that rather than debate on and on about the meaning of "oozing" that actual examples which clearly use it in the context of "flowing" would be useful to look at.


                      Steve
                      Last edited by Elamarna; 04-17-2017, 11:18 AM. Reason: auto correct mistake!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                        For those interested interested in the oozing debate the following post by Joshua and the follow up by jerry are interesting:

                        http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...2&postcount=47.

                        I wonder do we have any examples from the period where "oozing " can be shown to mean, well not oozing but flowing actively under some pressure.

                        That I think would be a great step forward in the oozing debate.

                        Steve
                        Hi Steve,

                        Problem: flowing "actively". What was that described as in the Victorian era?

                        Here is an example where it sounds as if blood was percieved of as flowing actively, doesn´t it?

                        (From Sligo Champion - Monday 17 November 1851)

                        And still, the woman was first murdered, after that the husband went to the pub (green arrow), then the police took him to the station and thereafter two constables were sent to the house - and after that they sent for the surgeon (blue arrow), who said he saw the blood flowing (red arrow).

                        Pierre
                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                          Hi Steve,

                          Problem: flowing "actively". What was that described as in the Victorian era?

                          Here is an example where it sounds as if blood was percieved of as flowing actively, doesn´t it?

                          (From Sligo Champion - Monday 17 November 1851)

                          And still, the woman was first murdered, after that the husband went to the pub (green arrow), then the police took him to the station and thereafter two constables were sent to the house - and after that they sent for the surgeon (blue arrow), who said he saw the blood flowing (red arrow).

                          Pierre

                          Nice example Pierre and again it shows the problem with flowing.
                          Of course it is possible that in the above when it says she was murdered it could mean that the attack took place, but the women did not die immediately; or that the doctor used flowing when he meant oozing, having previously flowed, we cannot I venture be sure.

                          I use actively flowing as I can think of no other term, we are talking about bleeding under pressure I guess be that the pumping of the arteries or the slower more regular flow from the veins.

                          Taking the above into account that is why I am looking for an example or more which uses "oozing" in which the victim is clearly still alive or possibly so.

                          This actually I subject I shall be looking at in part 3 of the project, what do we mean when we say bleeding stops.


                          Steve

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Pierre

                            When I first read you post the attachment was failing to show up.
                            Now it has and I can see exactly the issue.

                            It is clear that flowing is used to describe blood coming from a lifeless body which does highlight a problem we have. And which you have highlighted.

                            However the article also uses oozing when referring to blood from a dead body.

                            Still looking for oozing from a living person or one who could be without a full examination.


                            Steve
                            Last edited by Elamarna; 04-17-2017, 12:00 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                              Pierre

                              When I first read you post the attachment was failing to show up.
                              Now it has and I can see exactly the issue.

                              It is clear that flowing is used to describe blood coming from a lifeless body which does highlight a problem we have. And which you have highlighted.

                              However the article also uses oozing when referring to blood from a dead body.

                              Still looking for oozing from a living person or one who could be without a full examination.


                              Steve

                              Lloyds Weekly Newspaper
                              Sunday, July 15, 1888, London, Middlesex

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                                Pierre

                                When I first read you post the attachment was failing to show up.
                                Now it has and I can see exactly the issue.

                                It is clear that flowing is used to describe blood coming from a lifeless body which does highlight a problem we have. And which you have highlighted.

                                However the article also uses oozing when referring to blood from a dead body.

                                Still looking for oozing from a living person or one who could be without a full examination.


                                Steve
                                Hi Steve,

                                Like this one? (Oxford Journal - Saturday 01 September 1888)

                                Pierre
                                Attached Files

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X