Blood oozing

[Fisherman]

Yes, in respect of Payne-James, Sam, the problem is that Fisherman asked about "bleeding" and P-J responded with a comment about blood "flow", thus:

"Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?"

In response, P-J said: "I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic."

That helps us not at all in respect of the scene at Bucks Row when Neil reported blood oozing from the wound in Nichols' neck. Clearly, as you say, and as Biggs confirmed, there would be absolutely nothing strange, unusual or surprising if Nichols had been murdered 20 minutes earlier than this.

Since the question asked was whether a person could bleed out completely and stop bleeding, such a thing would predispose a blood flow. When that blood flow was over, the person spoken about would have bled out and stopped bleeding.

Much as you may think that you have found a problem with this, you have not.

I see no further reason to discuss an errand once it topples over into farcical suggestions like this one. Doubtlessly, you will have another picture of your efforts - you always have - but for me, this puts an effective end to matters.

[David Orsam]

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 liong time after death.

Plus I have said that Biggs makes general observations.

If you combine these two matters, you may come a bit closer to understanding why Payne-James nevertheless spoke for a time of few minutes only in Nicholsī case.

Well suddenly I'm not playing the fool, and Payne James is now only talking about a specific case from which he has obtained all the evidence from the newspapers!

Firstly, can you tell me if Payne-James actually said "flow/drip"? In what context did he make such a statement? What were his exact words?

Secondly, you say that Payne-James "spoke for a time of a few minutes only" in the case of Nichols. What does that mean? A few minutes only of what? What were his exact words in respect of the Nichols case please?

[David Orsam]

Would you have expected Payne-James, given that he is presented as an expert on the subject of bleeding after death, to lay down an exact time schedule for Nicholsī bleeding? I've already indicated that the word "bleeding" is not the correct word to use so I would not have asked such question and the answer is "no".

Does the fact that he uses the word "guess" detract from his status as an expert in the field of post mortem bleeding? I've just looked at his website and nowhere does it say that he is an expert in the field of post mortem bleeding. If you can show me some evidence that he is such an expert I will answer your question directly but if, hypothetically, he was such an expert then the answer would be "no".

Does the fact that he uses the word "guess" detract from the value of his estimation of a the bleeding time more likely being three or five minutes than seven? Yes.

Has it occurred to you that no absolute certainty can be reached when commenting on a case like this one? Yes, of course, which is why the question I really want answered is whether Payne-James would be at all surprised if a witness saw blood oozing from the body of a woman lying prone on the floor with a very severe neck wound who had been murdered some 20 minutes earlier.

All questions answered.

[David Orsam]

Since the question asked was whether a person could bleed out completely and stop bleeding, such a thing would predispose a blood flow. When that blood flow was over, the person spoken about would have bled out and stopped bleeding.

That's one of my criticisms of your question. You asked a question with a premise which you had not properly established.

Firstly, you asked him about total desanguination, which means a massive blood loss. Perhaps you meant to ask him about exsanguination, which would mean the complete loss of blood, I really don't know but all he said was that total desanguination COULD occur in a few minutes. You asked him if he was aware of any examples and he said NO.

Then you asked him a confused question whereby you asked if it would be POSSIBLE for a person to bleed out completely (whatever that means) and then stop bleeding in three minutes. Then you threw out two random additional times of five and seven minutes (without going up to fifteen or twenty). In his response - which he says is a guess - he doesn't mention bleeding out but states that blood can continue to FLOW for up to seven minutes, but that wasn't what you had asked him. So I think you probably confused him and he wasn't sure of the answer anyway.

No mention of oozing at any point so we really have no idea how long he would have said oozing can (easily) go on for.

[John G]

I assume Payne-James' analysis took into consideration the severity of the neck wound and the position of the body.

Thus, Dr Biggs stated, "In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there may be little in the way of a 'clamping' effect possible no matter how the neck was angled." He added, "After the circulation has stopped, it will be down to gravity to continue the blood loss, and clearly this will depend on position/angle and so on. Sometimes a body will be 'propped' open by the position of the body, whereas in other cases it may be 'squeezed' shut by the weight of the body." (Marriott, 2015).

[John G]

That's one of my criticisms of your question. You asked a question with a premise which you had not properly established.

Firstly, you asked him about total desanguination, which means a massive blood loss. Perhaps you meant to ask him about exsanguination, which would mean the complete loss of blood, I really don't know but all he said was that total desanguination COULD occur in a few minutes. You asked him if he was aware of any examples and he said NO.

Then you asked him a confused question whereby you asked if it would be POSSIBLE for a person to bleed out completely (whatever that means) and then stop bleeding in three minutes. Then you threw out two random additional times of five and seven minutes (without going up to fifteen or twenty). In his response - which he says is a guess - he doesn't mention bleeding out but states that blood can continue to FLOW for up to seven minutes, but that wasn't what you had asked him. So I think you probably confused him and he wasn't sure of the answer anyway.

No mention of oozing at any point so we really have no idea how long he would have said oozing can (easily) go on for.

Presumably "oozing" would be as a consequence of gravity, I.e. after the heart has stopped pumping.

[Fisherman]

As I have already pointed out, I consider the discussion over and done with. Now you wish for me to prolong it, so I hope you wonīt turn to your old ways and say "Ha! He said he would not discuss any further and still he does!"

It would be just as disingenous as many of your points.

I will make a few remarks and comments, and I hope that will enable us to finish this discussion.

You ask what Payne-James said exactly in our exchange. The part about the bleeding time (I use that term since I find that it is a term that is employed by a good many experts in the field) for Nichols has been quoted word by word, and you can find it out on the boards. I have no inclination to look it up again and repost it, so thatīs how itīs gonna be.

There was never any question of this quotation applying generally to all cases of bleeding after death caused by sharp violence - it was always a comment made solely on the Nichols case, and I have made it abundantly clear in the past that this is the beauty of the matter - the fewest experts on these matters (and Payne-James IS such an expert, regardless if he calls himself by another title than "post mortem bleeding expert") have commented specifically on the Nichols case from this point of view.

I have - as I pointed out - also said that Payne-James is very much aware that post mortem bleeding can go on for a very prolonged period of time. However, if the circumstances are similar to those in the Nichols case, then we should not expect a very prolonged bleeding period, because she was lying down on her back on a relatively flat surface, she had had her abdomen extensively cut and she had had all the large vessels in her neck severed. All of them. And the wound in the neck was a gapingly open wound, meaning that there were no obstacles for the blood to pass out of the body.

If we have a different errand, where a person has his or her neck cut while, say, sitting in a chair, and if this person slumps back into the chair, the head dropping forwards, then the weight of the head could close the wound in the neck, meaning that only a small passage is allowed for the blood to pass out. In such a case, the bleeding will be very much prolonged, on account of the miniscule blood outlet allowed. This is the reason that Biggs says that it can be a very long process - and he is correct, when applying it to cases like these. Payne-James says the exact same thing.
My advice to those who fail to see how this works, is to fill two plastic bas with water, prick a hole with a small sewing needle in one of them, while cutting of a large corner from the other bag simultaneoulsy. Then sit back and watch what happens.

So there will always be a weighing of each errand needed, and the circumstances adahering to each specific case will have an impact on the bleeding time, as you may appreciate.

I will skip over how you say that Payne-James commented on the Nichols errand based on newspaper articles only. I find it an unworthy comment.

Iīm pleased to see that you concur that no exact schedule can be given for the bleeding, as per your answer to that question. Making it understandable why Payne-James used the word "guess".

Iīm pleased to see that you do not think that his use of the word guess should detract from any status as an expert on post morten bleeding on Payne-Jamesī behalf, although you somewhat childishly quibble over the title as such.

I totally disagree with you about his using the word guess detracting from his verdict - if anything, it urges us to realize that it is not and could never be an exact timing, itīs an estimation, based on his experience and - if I may - "his best guess".

Finally, you seem to understand that these matters involve estimations instead of exactitude, and I salute you for that insight. You would want to know if Payne-James would be at all surprised to see Nichols bleeding after twenty minutes, and I can only reiterate what I have said before: when things to not turn out as expected, we ARE suprised. That is the nature of that particular beast. So we can safely say that he would be MORE surprised by a seven minute bleeeding time than he would be by a three or five minute bleeeding time, since that was what he would have expected.What you seem to yearn for - and which would of course be interesting - would be an estimation on the 1-10 surprisal scale for Payne-James if he found Nichols bleeding after twenty minutes. I can offer no such thing. But I can offer Stride, who seems to have been cut between 00.45 and 1.00, and who was looked at by Edward Johnston at around, say, 1.12, 1.13. By this time, her one partially severed large vessel in the neck had resulted in the blood having left the body and coagulated at the time Johnston saw her, between, say, 13 and 28 minutes or so after the cutting. And I can offer Eddowes, where nothing was said about any running blood when she was found. Lawende seemingly saw her at around 1.35 and Watkins found her at around 1.45, leaving significantly less than ten minutes for her to be taken into the square, subdued, cut and to bleed out, by the looks of things. I could also offer examples of people who have been decapitated and bled out in around a minute or less. So there is nothing at all strange with a suggestion that Nichols would have bled out in the fewest of minutes - on the contrary.

I hope (which is not at all the same as "I think") that this tells you how and why I position myself the way I do. Good luck finding the quotation on the net - I know Steve Blomer (Elamarna) posted it a few days ago.

If I find something interesting in your inevitable next post, I will answer it. If I donīt answer, itīs because I did not find anything such.

[Fisherman]

Presumably "oozing" would be as a consequence of gravity, I.e. after the heart has stopped pumping.

I have very little doubt that this is the precise thing that Neil is telling us - there was no underlying pressure, and the blood trickled/flowed/oozed/welled/ran out. Nota bene that he ALSO uses the word "running" when commenting on the bloodflow.

I do think that the whole debate on the word "oozing" has done the errand a very great disservice, and has contributed to a misunderstanding of what Neil saw. Arguably, if the blood was "still running" when Mizen saw the body, a couple of minutes AFTER Neils observation, it would be decidedly odd if the bloodflow went from a miniscule oozing to a standard running over time. It would be a very backwards logic.

I have in the past shown a myriad of examples of people using the phrase "oozed profusely" - that should tell us something about the full meaning of the term.

[David Orsam]

You ask what Payne-James said exactly in our exchange. The part about the bleeding time (I use that term since I find that it is a term that is employed by a good many experts in the field)

It may be a term that is employed by "a good many experts" but it wasn't the term employed by the witness who was PC Neil who said he saw the blood oozing.

So all we want to know about is oozing.

Bleeding, as P-J makes clear in his answer to you, can mean flowing as so it's not very helpful in the context of this specific discussion which should be all about oozing.

for Nichols has been quoted word by word, and you can find it out on the boards. I have no inclination to look it up again and repost it, so thatīs how itīs gonna be.

Well I don't recall it.

[David Orsam]

There was never any question of this quotation applying generally to all cases of bleeding after death caused by sharp violence - it was always a comment made solely on the Nichols case, and I have made it abundantly clear in the past that this is the beauty of the matter - the fewest experts on these matters (and Payne-James IS such an expert, regardless if he calls himself by another title than "post mortem bleeding expert") have commented specifically on the Nichols case from this point of view.

What is so different about the Nichols case and on what does Payne-James base his knowledge about it?

And I still do not know what he said about it in his own words that you think is relevant to the discussion.

Was it included in the documentary?

[David Orsam]

I have - as I pointed out - also said that Payne-James is very much aware that post mortem bleeding can go on for a very prolonged period of time. However, if the circumstances are similar to those in the Nichols case, then we should not expect a very prolonged bleeding period, because she was lying down on her back on a relatively flat surface, she had had her abdomen extensively cut and she had had all the large vessels in her neck severed. All of them. And the wound in the neck was a gapingly open wound, meaning that there were no obstacles for the blood to pass out of the body.

There you go again: "prolonged bleeding period". Do you have a problem mentioning the word used by the witness which was "oozing"?

See title of this thread.

[David Orsam]

If we have a different errand, where a person has his or her neck cut while, say, sitting in a chair, and if this person slumps back into the chair, the head dropping forwards, then the weight of the head could close the wound in the neck, meaning that only a small passage is allowed for the blood to pass out. In such a case, the bleeding will be very much prolonged, on account of the miniscule blood outlet allowed. This is the reason that Biggs says that it can be a very long process - and he is correct, when applying it to cases like these. Payne-James says the exact same thing.
My advice to those who fail to see how this works, is to fill two plastic bas with water, prick a hole with a small sewing needle in one of them, while cutting of a large corner from the other bag simultaneoulsy. Then sit back and watch what happens.

So there will always be a weighing of each errand needed, and the circumstances adahering to each specific case will have an impact on the bleeding time, as you may appreciate.

And, as you should appreciate, we don't have enough specific information about the Nichols case to draw any sensible conclusions about how long blood could have been oozing from her neck wound.

If you think Payne-James was able to do it please provide the quote from him which shows that.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: It may be a term that is employed by "a good many experts" but it wasn't the term employed by the witness who was PC Neil who said he saw the blood oozing.

So all we want to know about is oozing.

Bleeding, as P-J makes clear in his answer to you, can mean flowing as so it's not very helpful in the context of this specific discussion which should be all about oozing.

Read my answer to John G. The bleeding after sharp violence has been employed, will, if the person bleeds out, go from flowing to oozing/trickling.


Well I don't recall it.

Itīs there.

[Fisherman]

What is so different about the Nichols case and on what does Payne-James base his knowledge about it?

And I still do not know what he said about it in his own words that you think is relevant to the discussion.

Was it included in the documentary?

No - it comes from a mail exchange I had with J P-J some time after the docu was aired.

All cases are different. J P-J based his verdict on the descriptions that are available to all of us through the paper articles, mainly the ones covering the inquest, where the position of the body and the character of the wounds are clarified. But I have said this before, David!

[David Orsam]

Iīm pleased to see that you concur that no exact schedule can be given for the bleeding, as per your answer to that question. Making it understandable why Payne-James used the word "guess".

I have never criticised him for using the word "guess", because if he is guessing that's exactly what he should be saying, but I am saying that his use of the word means that he doesn't know the answer. Which is what you seem to be agreeing with. But it's all a red herring because the answer on which he is guessing is not one to the question that he should have been asked.

Iīm pleased to see that you do not think that his use of the word guess should detract from any status as an expert on post morten bleeding on Payne-Jamesī behalf, although you somewhat childishly quibble over the title as such.

It doesn't detract from his status as an expert in forensic and legal medicine (which is what he is, according to his website) but there is no reason whatsoever to think that he is an expert in post mortem bleeding, which is a title you appear to have invented out of thin air.

I totally disagree with you about his using the word guess detracting from his verdict - if anything, it urges us to realize that it is not and could never be an exact timing, itīs an estimation, based on his experience and - if I may - "his best guess".

But it raises the question of how much we can rely on it. Not that it matters that much because he didn't speak about how long there will be oozing which is the only relevant question but I suspect he could only have guessed about that too. Shame he wasn't asked about it though. But that doesn't matter either because we have Dr Biggs' clear statement that oozing for 20 minutes is easily possible.