Blood oozing

[Elamarna]

https://books.google.se/books?id=XRk...ely%22&f=false

Fisherman, firstly many thanks for supplying the link.

Reading the whole statement was very useful.

When referring to wound and severe bleeding the medic says that the wound:

“became again very violent”

The comment about profusely bleeding is somewhat later and does not appear to be referring to bleeding of the same degree as above, rather it suggests from the context that what the doctor was referring to was the wound would not stop bleeding completely.

However there are issues which ask serious questions about how useful this quote is?

We can see that the document was written over 100 years before; (which of course is clear from your post) a time when medicine was still very much in its infancy. In addition the use of language not only very different from today but from 1888.

It was also clear from the link you supplied that your search found only this one example of the term, apparently it was not commonly used.

While the quote gives a snapshot of one medic in the 2nd half of the 18th Century; as a means of comparison to the words used by PC Neil, the statement is of very little use; If any.

In this very thread Both Jerryd and Pierre (and he was the OP) have given many examples from the LVP which show how the terms were used at that time.

They are of far greater relevance and use than this quote.

Have you read them?




Steve

[John G]

John

The main issues here are that Biggs has been told about Nichols, he even takes into account what could happen if she had severe abdominal wounds.

There is continual attempt by Fisherman to say that Dr Biggs's comments to Trevor are general comments, and do not refer specifically to Nichols:

post # 134

"Plus I have said that Biggs makes general observations."


This is not the case, Biggs was asked specific questions about all the C5, including Nichols.
Anyone who had read Trevor’s work would be aware of this, so one must assume that Fisherman has not.


Payne-James in the documentary, does not believe the abdominal wounds are very severe, recent discussion seem to disagree with this position.
This means of course the bleed out time would be reduced further still.

Once the heart stops and circulation ceases, pressure is gone and we are down to gravity. unconsciousness comes when volume of blood remaining falls below a percentage which is around 40-50%, a pulse will become difficult to detect as the heart struggles to beat and circulation will fail.

In the case of Nichols the heart would have probably stopped beating before Neil arrived, probably before he even entered Bucks Row.


Here is the problem as I see it, "bleed out" - Fisherman sees this as a complete loss of blood, none or very little remaining.
If one wants to fully remove all the blood from a body, one needs to assist gravity, as in the slaughtering of animals for religious requirements, by hanging with the open wounds downwards. Not the situation with Nichols.

Let us explore more of what Payne-James says and what Fisherman thinks he means:

Payne-James suggests strangulation prior to the cuts. In the documentary he says he expects little blood anyway.

Fisherman in post #69 on this thread says:

"And indeed, I think that Payne-James was working from the idea that the blood leaked and dribbled out with little or no underlying pressure. And that he thought that it would make for a bleeding period of a few minutes only, nevertheless."



So a body can "bleed out" completely according to Fisherman, ( Note not Payne-James as Fisherman begins with "And indeed I think") in only a few minutes even when there is no function circulation or pressure, and the body is in a basically horizontal position.

That is really an amazing bold and courageous stance to take!
One would truly like to see the scientific research which backs this up!

However is this not then followed up by a somewhat contradictory statement in post #post134

"I you had payed attention, you would know that I have said that Payne-James has also said that blood can flow/drip from a body a for a very long time after death."

So we have a suggestion that a body can stop bleeding after a few minutes and also that such may not be the case in the very same thread.
Classic example of "wanting your cake and eating it; not to mention fatally undermining the major assumption in the hypotheses.




steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, I fully accept that Dr Biggs was asked some specific questions by Trevor. However, in respect of the 20 minute time period, Dr Biggs stated, "If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding profusely, then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 minutes previously..."

Reference to "a body", suggests to me that Dr Biggs was speaking generally, although I could be mistaken. Moreover, Trevor referred to Nichols having her "throat cut", which I would argue significantly underplays the extensive and catastrophic nature of the neck injuries inflicted.

I agree with you in respect of Payne James and the extent of the abdominal injuries. Moreover, was he informed that Nichols was bleeding "profusely", or that the amount of blood consisted of a slow trickle?

I don't understand Fisherman's reference to "little or no underlying pressure." Clearly Nichols had suffered severe neck injuries, and arteries had been severed, meaning of course that some blood must have exited the wound under pressure.

If Nichols was lying in a prone position, might this also have affected blood flow? Thus, Dr Biggs opined: " Sometimes a wound will be 'propped' open by the position of the body, whereas in other cases the wound may be 'squeezed shut' by the weight of the body."

[David Orsam]

David,

I certainly do.

Thanks for confirming Steve.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Yes, I fully accept that Dr Biggs was asked some specific questions by Trevor. However,in respect of the 20 minute time period, Dr Biggs stated, "If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding profusely, then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 minutes previously..."


Yes agreed. Its the bleeding or rather oozing profusely I find odd. Not an actual quote but a report a few hours after the event, not suggested at any point it is a quote or interview of Neil, but presented as such by Fisherman.

Reference to "a body", suggests to me that Dr Biggs was speaking generally. Moreover, Trevor referred to Nichols having her "throat cut", which I would argue significantly underplays the extensive and catastrophic nature of the neck injuries inflicted.

That's not exactly how I read it john, while he may be talking in general terms, it is still a reply which addresses Nichols specifically.
You may be correct that he did not have the full details. However there is no reason to think oozing blood would not be visible at 20 minutes, indeed it is recorded as still bleeding when Nichols is put onto the ambulance.




I agree with you in respect of Payne James and the extent of the abdominal injuries. Moreover, was he informed that Nichols was bleeding "profusely", or that the amount of blood consisted of a slow trickle?

Who knows what information he was provided with?
The key thing is what did he actually mean about bleeding stopping, not what information he was given?



I don't understand Fisherman's reference to "little or no underlying pressure." Clearly Nichols had suffered severe neck injuries, and arteries had been severed, meaning of course that some blood must have exited the wound under pressure.

Not if she was already dead or near dead by strangulation, as Payne-James suggests in the documentary. in that case the heart is not beating, no pressure , at least not after first spurt.
And indeed Fisherman suggests the neck was second, thus there would be no pressure.

Of course Payne-James was like Llewellyn trying to explain the apparent lack of blood, again we do not know what info he was supplied with.




If Nichols was lying in a prone position, might this also have affected blood flow? Thus, Dr Biggs opined: " Sometimes a wound will be 'propped' open by the position of the body, whereas in other cases the wound may be 'squeezed shut' by the weight of the body."

Not sure on that, however scabs may have formed, and these could have been disturbed by movement, such as Llewellyn examining or the body going onto the ambulance.

One thing however is clear, in a prone position it is highly unlikely she would bleed out completely as some see it.
Any blood still in the lower extremities or below the wounds as she was laying could not get to the wounds be that neck or abdomen, once the heart stopped pumping.



Steve

[John G]

Not sure on that, however scabs may have formed, and these could have been disturbed by movement, such as Llewellyn examining or the body going onto the ambulance.

One thing however is clear, in a prone position it is highly unlikely she would bleed out completely as some see it.
Any blood still in the lower extremities or below the wounds as she was laying could not get to the wounds be that neck or abdomen, once the heart stopped pumping.



Steve

Steve,

Actually I made a slight error with the quote: Dr Biggs actually said "relatively profusely."

I don't see how it can be concluded that she'd been strangled: Dr Llewellyn certainly didn't commit himself on this point.

Good point concerning blood being trapped in the body if the victim was in the prone position. In fact, Dr Biggs also points out that blood could become trapped in the body due to factors such as "collapsing vessels", "valve effects", and the fact that the blood would have to negotiate lots of corners, i.e. because it's "spread around lots of long thin tubes, not sitting in a large container." (Marriott, 2015).

[Elamarna]

Steve,

Actually I made a slight error with the quote: Dr Biggs actually said "relatively profusely."

I don't see how it can be concluded that she'd been strangled: Dr Llewellyn certainly didn't commit himself on this point.

Good point concerning blood being trapped in the body if the victim was in the prone position. In fact, Dr Biggs also points out that blood could become trapped in the body due to factors such as "collapsing vessels", "valve effects", and the fact that the blood would have to negotiate lots of corners, i.e. because it's "spread around lots of long thin tubes, not sitting in a large container." (Marriott, 2015).

The word that is important is profusely. In the thread about the Lechmere/Cross name issue post 1004 the following claim was made by Fisherman
"
Yes! But nobody wants to read the word "running", since it dissolves the wanted picture produced by "oozing". As I have said before, the initital interviews - discareded by people who prefer "oozed" - have Neil saying that the wound bled "profusely"."



However that quote in full is from The East London Advertiser 1st September 1888:

"The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood. "

There is nothing there to suggest this is a direct quote or an interview with Neil rather than something constructed by the reporter. If some think it is, that is their right; but it should be noted the onus is on them to provide a coherent and reasoned argument for that view, given that the article does not say it is a quote nor use quotation marks at any point.
One issue with the report of course is that it claims the body was in a pool of blood, while there was apparently a small pool by the neck, the description given is far from accurate and does question the accuracy of the report. Indeed the report as a whole is somewhat at odds with the view Fisherman has expressed about the amount of blood present.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Your fervent desire to change the ordinary and accepted meaning of the word oozing is touching but the dictionaries define it as a gentle flow or a trickle and that simply must be what Neil was talking about.

"The ordinary and accepted meaning". I like that phrase, beacuse it clearly concedes that there are OTHER meanings than "the ordinary" one to consider.

To begion with, letīs clear away your childish idea that this ordinary meaning "simply must" be the one Neil employed - why on earth "must" this be so? Because you prefer it? Hello? Wake up! Of course it "must" not be so, there is no certainty at all involved on that point.

Letīs have a good look at the factors involved, and THEN we can see what probably - not must, I am not that cocky - will apply.

To begin with, the reason that we are having this discussion is that I have proven that the term "oozed profusely" was used by medical men (which is what I should have said instead of calling it a medical term, well spotted, Gareth) at least as early as 1770.

There are numerous other examples where other medical men have used the expression after that, leading up to our own time. Yes, David, it is in conflict with "the ordinary and accepted (who is it you are speaking of here, who accepts it?) meaning". But it is a very clear fact that the expression is and was used. Not only medical men use it, there are examples of other categories of people using it too.

So now that we have established that the expression is used (and so are expressions like "oozed heavily" and "oozed richly" for example), we may see that we are faced with the question which kind of oozing Neil referred to - did the blood slowly trickle or did it run more than so?

This IS a question that MUST be asked, because the alternatives ARE there, itīs a proven thing, so letīs not get all ostridgy and bury our heads in the sand, shall we? Good!

Now! What OTHER information is at hand, that may point us in the correct direction about what Neil meant?

I would say there are mainly two factors that must be weighed in.

1. Added information about the bloodflow from different sources and/or people
2. Physical evidence of the crime scene, as described at the time

When it comes to point 1, there are no other sources saying that the blood was oozing than the inquest articles. But in the inquest material, we ALSO have Neil saying that the blood was "running". And we have Mizen saying that as he arrived, a few minutes after Neil, the blood was "still running".
It is of course not credible that the blood went from a miniscule oozing to running afterwards. It is more likely that Mizen saw LESS blood running than Neil did.
There is also the fact that the initial reporting from the crime scene involves a large number of papers saying that the blood was running profusely as Neil sat the body. The Star, for example, points out that there was a two inch wide, gaping wound in the neck and that the blood was running profusely.
There are no papers reporting from the initial stages about blood only oozing - the papers that DO speak about the flowing rate all say that the blood was running profusely. It is quite possible that the source was the same, of course, but that does not detract from the fact that this description of the bloodflow is the one and only we have from the initial stages.

Of course, we can once again see that this description is much more in line with Mizens observations than any idea that there was barely any blood at all trickling from the wound - this is what normally happens, the cut is distributed, and the blood flows profusely first, only to then taper off into a more placid running and then disappear into oozing. The logic is there. No logic is there if it first oozed, then ran.

Over now to point two - the appearance on the crime scene.

If there was a complete torrent of blood running from the neck, then why was there not a pool of blood the size of an olympic swimming basin under Nichols?
Well, luckily, it was never spoken of such a torrent. It was said that the blood flowed profusely in the initial reporting and that it was running (or oozing) at the inquest.

The pool contained perhaps two wineglasses of blood or half a pint of it, as per Llewellyn. Very roughly speaking, that would mean that there was up towards three decilitres of blood in that pool.
That means that there cannot have been any torrent of bleeding, provided that there was no outled from the pool. Incidentally, there WAS such an outlet, and blood had run from then pool into the gutter. It is not specified how much blood had left the pool that way, but if it had been a very significant amount, we would have known. Instead, a scarcity of blood was commented on.

Using my water tap at home, I filled a deciliter cup with water, with the water running as slowly as I could make it run. It took around a minute and a half for the cup to fill up.

Blood has a different viscosity, and so filling such a cup with running blood could take a significantly longer period of time.

We may therefore conclude that the blood may well have been running from the neck into the pool over a period of many minutes, even if it only amounted to three decilitres in the pool afterwards. It is therefore quite possible that blood was indeed running when both Neil and Mizen saw the body. And the logical thing is to accept that the blood was running more profusely when Neil arrived than it did when Mizen arrived.

The small amount of blood in the pool, however, is a lot harder to stretch into a cutter before Lechmere - then we would need to add blood running for a further minute or two before Neil arrived. The described bloodflow and the smallish amount of blood is therefore more in line with Lechmere being the cutter than with the Phantom killer doing the honours.

There can be no certainties, of course, as always. Well, that is not entirely true - there can be ONE certainty: We cannot state as a fact that what Neil saw must have corresponded with the "ordinary and accepted" meaning of the word ooze. That much, we CAN be certain of.

PS. A "gentle flow" as you speak of can well be what Neil saw - but how much does a gentle flow involve...? The blood was running, and more so when Neil look than when Mixen did, that is what must be the logical solution to the riddle. And once blood flows a bit more, it comes closer to running profusely.

[Fisherman]

The word that is important is profusely. In the thread about the Lechmere/Cross name issue post 1004 the following claim was made by Fisherman
"
Yes! But nobody wants to read the word "running", since it dissolves the wanted picture produced by "oozing". As I have said before, the initital interviews - discareded by people who prefer "oozed" - have Neil saying that the wound bled "profusely"."



However that quote in full is from The East London Advertiser 1st September 1888:

"The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four on Friday morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood. "

There is nothing there to suggest this is a direct quote or an interview with Neil rather than something constructed by the reporter. If some think it is, that is their right; but it should be noted the onus is on them to provide a coherent and reasoned argument for that view, given that the article does not say it is a quote nor use quotation marks at any point.
One issue with the report of course is that it claims the body was in a pool of blood, while there was apparently a small pool by the neck, the description given is far from accurate and does question the accuracy of the report. Indeed the report as a whole is somewhat at odds with the view Fisherman has expressed about the amount of blood present.


Steve

Why would the reporters make up that the blood was said to be running profusely? How did they know that Nichols was so freshly killed as to still bleed? Why would the source NOT be Neil? Why should we favour the idea that is was make-believe over the idea that Neil simply said that the blood ran profusely?
They also said that the cut was from left to right - how would that be sexier than right to left? Maybe they were INFORMED that this was the general idea?

Until evidence can be presented to dispell what the papers - and they were many - said about the blood running profusely, it has to stand as the best bid we have. It is that simple, thatīs how it works. Itīs like the Alfred Long business - he has to be regarded as telling the truth until we can dispell what he said about the Goulston Street rag. Too much Ripperology is about people stating alternative views of their own as more reliable than views on different types of contemporary records.

As for the pool business, there was a pool of blood under Nichols, end of story. Letīs not be carried away by misguided ingenuity, shall we?

I will direct you to my post to David, since it involves my take on the business.

[Elamarna]

Why would the reporters make up that the blood was running profusely? Why would the source NOT be Neil? Why should we favour the idea that is was make-believe over the idea that Neil simply said that the blood ran profusely?
They also said that the cut was from left to right - how would that be sexier than right to left? Maybe they were INFORMED that this was the general idea?


Because at no point doas the article say or indicate such is the case.

Until evidence can be presented to dispell what the papers - and they were many - said about the blood running profusely, it has to stand as the best bid we have.

Would you care to name any which claim it is a quote?



It is that simple, thatīs how it works. Itīs like the Alfred Long business - he has to be regarded as telling the truth until we can dispell what he said about the Goulston Street rag. Too much Ripperology is about people stating alternative views of their own as more reliable than views on different types of contemporary records.


Not at all in this case. There are papers reports of Llewellyn on the first these are given as quotes and that is clear. The question of the comments about blood are not presented in that way. So no one is attempting to give an alternative view. It's just how one reads it. Some obviously read it to help their own ideas.


As for the pool business, there was a pool of blood under Nichols, end of story. Letīs not be carried away by misguided ingenuity, shall we?

No the article says lying in a pool giving a distinct impression. To try and write this off as misguided ingenuity is very interesting, if such is acceptable here, pray tell me why such is not so over the blood flowing issue?

I will direct you to my post to David, since it involves my take on the business.

Already seen it, disagree with most of it. The full rebuttal will take those points into account. Means I need to add a few bits to the blood section to do that thank you so very much.

Steve

[John G]

What I'm still very unsure about is what exactly is Payne-James attesting to. Is he, for instance, saying that, given the nature of the injuries, he considers it unlikely that there would be any blood exiting the wound after seven minutes, even a slow trickle?

[Fisherman]

What I'm still very unsure about is what exactly is Payne-James attesting to. Is he, for instance, saying that, given the nature of the injuries, he considers it unlikely that there would be any blood exiting the wound after seven minutes, even a slow trickle?

That was what I asked for - how long would it take for her to bleed out and for the blood to stop flowing. There was no slow trickle with Stride when she was found and it seems Eddowes bled out completely in only a few minutes.

[Fisherman]

Why would the reporters make up that the blood was running profusely? Why would the source NOT be Neil? Why should we favour the idea that is was make-believe over the idea that Neil simply said that the blood ran profusely?
They also said that the cut was from left to right - how would that be sexier than right to left? Maybe they were INFORMED that this was the general idea?


Because at no point doas the article say or indicate such is the case.

So where do you propose the information from? From Neil or from the police, quoting Neil, or was it a figment of their imagination? Given that they knew not for how long she had been dead, how would they know that she bled at all?

Until evidence can be presented to dispell what the papers - and they were many - said about the blood running profusely, it has to stand as the best bid we have.

Would you care to name any which claim it is a quote?

It does not have to be a quote. A paper conducts it work by speaking to the relevant people and print the information they get. Some papers make up quoted, by the way, so there is never any guarantee - but if it is in the papers - and a large number of them - then our best guess is that it is relevant.

It is that simple, thatīs how it works. Itīs like the Alfred Long business - he has to be regarded as telling the truth until we can dispell what he said about the Goulston Street rag. Too much Ripperology is about people stating alternative views of their own as more reliable than views on different types of contemporary records.


Not at all in this case. There are papers reports of Llewellyn on the first these are given as quotes and that is clear. The question of the comments about blood are not presented in that way. So no one is attempting to give an alternative view. It's just how one reads it. Some obviously read it to help their own ideas.

Which different ways can it be read in: "There was a two inch gaping wound in the neck and the blood was flowing profusely". Are you suggesting that I should read it "There was a miniscule little hole in the thumb but it had stopped bleeding"?
Can you please explain to me how YOU read it? What does it seem to say to you? What message is contained within the words used?
You really should not fault me for how the evidence always fits the Lechmere theory. I didnīt write it, I did not testify, I didnīt express any view back then.


As for the pool business, there was a pool of blood under Nichols, end of story. Letīs not be carried away by misguided ingenuity, shall we?

No the article says lying in a pool giving a distinct impression. To try and write this off as misguided ingenuity is very interesting, if such is acceptable here, pray tell me why such is not so over the blood flowing issue?

There was a pool of blood under her, where she was lying. There was nothing at all said aboyt the size of the pool in your quote. Ergo, there is nothing at all strange about it. The police may have said "There was a pool of blood under her" and the reporters may have written that she was lying in a pool of blood. Big deal. Misguided ingenuity, Steve.

I will direct you to my post to David, since it involves my take on the business.

Already seen it, disagree with most of it. The full rebuttal will take those points into account. Means I need to add a few bits to the blood section to do that thank you so very much.

I can see how the kind of reasoning you employ about "lying in a pool of blood" may take you a long way down the garden path, so it makes sense that you may disagree. And whatīs with the "thank you so very much"? Are you trying to be ironic? If so, you need to learn to swim before you dive in, Steve.

[Elamarna]

Fisherman, I did indeed say that I would come back on most of your points at a later date date but I feel at least one issue needs to be addressed quicker.

There is also the fact that the initial reporting from the crime scene involves a large number of papers saying that the blood was running profusely as Neil sat the body. The Star, for example, points out that there was a two inch wide, gaping wound in the neck and that the blood was running profusely.

Could perhaps name the papers and editions. Apart from The Star, which unfortunately I cannot trace the comment in, which edition are you using? The only others I have found it in are the East London Adveriser of the 1st and that appears to use the same words as you quote so was probably from a common source and The Weekly Hearald of the 7th.



Steve

[David Orsam]

"The ordinary and accepted meaning". I like that phrase, beacuse it clearly concedes that there are OTHER meanings than "the ordinary" one to consider.

To begion with, letīs clear away your childish idea that this ordinary meaning "simply must" be the one Neil employed - why on earth "must" this be so? Because you prefer it? Hello? Wake up! Of course it "must" not be so, there is no certainty at all involved on that point.

What utter nonsense. Of course the phrase "ordinary and accepted meaning" does not suggest there are other meanings to consider. I could equally have said the dictionary meaning. I'm only aware of one meaning of the word oozed. You can look it up in a dictionary. I note you don't suggest any alternative meaning yourself.

All you have done is tacked on the word "profusely" to the word "oozing" but the witness did not say "oozing profusely" so it's ridiculous. All I can think the phrase "oozing profusely" means is that there was a lot of oozing. But PC Neil did not use this expression so what's the point of wondering what someone meant when they used it in the 18th century?

When PC Neil said he saw the blood oozing he must have meant: "To emit or give out (liquid or moisture) slowly or gradually" or "to proceed by or as by oozing; to move gradually or imperceptibly", Oxford English Dictionary.

[David Orsam]

That was what I asked for - how long would it take for her to bleed out and for the blood to stop flowing.

Exactly, Fisherman, you asked the wrong question.

As Steve has pointed out, Nichols could not possibly have bleed out all the blood in her body in 3 minutes could she? Payne-James has understood you to mean flowing and focussed on that. He agrees with Biggs that there is unlikely to be a significant quantity of blood flowing after several minutes of death. But unlike Biggs he hasn't turned his attention to any subsequent trickling, dripping or oozing of blood. That's because you didn't ask him, even though the witness used the word "oozing". Perhaps that's because you preferred the "evidence" of a newspaper reporter who wasn't at the scene of the crime and only had that in your mind?