Blood oozing

[Fisherman]

Sorry, but that's simply not the case. There's around 5 litres of blood in a body, and it will take far longer than 3-5 minutes for it to stop flowing/oozing, even if the throat has been cut.

A decapitated person can loose all his blood in well under a minute, and stop bleeding. It is well documented.

In a case like the Nichols case, Payne-James said that she would stop bleeding in a matter of three or five minutes, thereabouts.

If you have proof to the contrary, then present it.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Why are you referring to exsanguination? You asked Payne-James about desanguination didn't you?

Payne-James spoke of bleeding out, and the normal term there is exsanguination.

And I do not know what "bleeding out what you can bleed out" means. Nor, I suggest, did Payne-James.

Exsanguination is not the total emptying of blood - it is the process of loosing blood up til the point of death. But I also asked about how long it would take for the bleeding to stop, so although Iīm sure you may want to go on about this in eternity, you have nothing to show for your strange ideas.

When human beings bleed the heart is still pumping blood around the body. A corpse doesn't really bleed but the blood can flow out of the body immediately after death. Subsequently, at the point that blood flow stops, you could describe the body as having "bled out" but one might see continued oozing because there is still blood remaining in the body.

Not in this case, no, since I specifically asked how long the bleeding will go on. And Payne-James worked, as you know, from the assumption that Nichols was dead by strangulation. The suggestion that he was misinformed and did not know what he was answering is beyond absurd. Par for the course for you, therefore.
Have you ever seen the expression "post-mortem bleeding", David? According to you, such a thing cannot exist. And nevertheless, it is used in medical terminology in example after example out on the net.
Odd, that. Why didnīt these medicos consult you before they got it so wrong?

What we are trying to establish is how long that oozing could go on for. Dr Biggs tells us that there would be nothing surprising about it continuing for 20 minutes. Payne-James says nothing about oozing.
It's really just so simple.

Payne-James says nothing about exuding, tingling or welling either. What he says is that the process of bleeding would be over within a few minutes in a case like the Nichols case.
Speaking about simple.

[Fisherman]

It's not just about gravity, besides - as has already been observed - the pavements/roads in Victorian Whitechapel, even modern-day Whitechapel, aren't exactly spirit-level flat.

Did I say that it is just about gravity?

Did I infer that the pavement under Nichols must have been absolutely flat?

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Yes, a person like Nichols, so not necessarily Nichols herself and one who had suffered from "total desanguination", i.e. massive blood loss, in "very few minutes".

Donīt be daft. It was Nichols and nobody else we discussed.

Tell me how this massive blood loss is consistent with Payne-James' theory that the blood could simply have dribbled out from the neck wound of Nichols if she had been strangled.

The neck was not the only cut area, was it? If the first cuts were made in the abdominal area, and if Nichols had no heartbeat, then since most of the blood may have seeped into the abdominal cavity and since there would have been no blood pressure left, the blood from the neck wound would have been to a smaller or larger degree bound to run/dribble more slowly than if there were no other wounds.
Pretty consistent with Payne-James wording, would you not say? And of course, you just use "dribble" whereas Payne-James said that the blood would "leak, dribble or drain" out around the contours of the neck OVER A PERIOD OF MINUTES. What Payne-James implicates is that the blood will not spurt out, but instead run out over "the brim" of the wound, so to speak, and it will do that in amounts that will make for an exsanguination in minutes only.
It seems you forgot half of the message delivered?

[Fisherman]

But wasn't the tongue only slightly lacerated?

Yes, so it was said. But that is nevertheless consistent with strangulation.

[Fisherman]

As I've said before, don't be so hard on yourself.

Sorry Gareth, but now you are misunderstanding, misinforming and misleading.

[John G]

There IS evidence, but not proof, in the bruising on the body. There is also a lacerated tongue to consider. On balance, the suggestion must be looked at as a viable one, methinks.

But wasn't the tongue only slightly lacerated?

[kjab3112]

There IS evidence, but not proof, in the bruising on the body. There is also a lacerated tongue to consider. On balance, the suggestion must be looked at as a viable one, methinks.

Hi Fisherman

Certainly suggestive, but if Llewellyn did perform his autopsy corresctly, that and the bruising were his only suggestions of strangulation. More suggestive to me of strangulation to unconsciousness (about ten seconds), cut throat (stay unconscious after ten seconds i.e. not wake back up), bleeding from throat providing most of the 2.5 litres of blood loss prior to the heart failing, with limited arterial loss from the abdomen (but enough to be apparent).

Please remind me, was it your programme that included the reconstruction of the time these manoeuvres could be performed in? (I'm probably wrong).

PS Forgot the absence of defence wounds to the knife attack in evidence for proposed timeline.

Regards

Paul

[Elamarna]

Iīm so happy. I donīt understand Biggs. I donīt understand P-J. I am not stuck in Buckīs Row. I am not trying to construct or deconstruct Minutiae in Buckīs Row by trying to count minutes through newspaper articles. Hooray!

I am sure you do understand them, you are just not interested because it does not have any bearing on your theory, glad for you.

Yes it is tideous and boring I agree.

Maybe when you are ready we can have a good debate over your theory.


Steve

[Pierre]

I'm not saying that blood will "always" do anything. Based on the clear information provided by Dr Biggs, which has never been contradicted by Payne-James, I'm saying that it is certainly possible that blood can ooze for 20 minutes after death.

You do understand that right?

Iīm so happy. I donīt understand Biggs. I donīt understand P-J. I am not stuck in Buckīs Row. I am not trying to construct or deconstruct Minutiae in Buckīs Row by trying to count minutes through newspaper articles. Hooray!

[David Orsam]

Later, David, later.

Perhaps.

I can give you a smallish hint, though - the reason you do not elevate from your bed at night is because gravity is in play.

What has elevation got to do with flow of liquid?

[David Orsam]

So sayeth the master of misunderstanding, misinformating and misleading.

I said three things in the post to which you were responding:

1. Payne-James changed your word "bleeding" to "flow[ing]" and did so in the context of having been asked to assume a massive blood loss when the throat was cut.

2. Payne-James said precisely nothing about blood oozing from the wound thereafter or at any time.

3.Dr Biggs has told us that blood can very possibly continue to ooze for 20 minutes and Dr Payne-James has never contradicted this.

Now which of these three things am I misunderstanding, misinformating and misleading?

[David Orsam]

He said not a iot about oozing. You know exactly what he said and you know exactly what he responded to, since I have posted that material.

You are perfectly welcome to accuse me of lying, but not on the basis of my telling you what I asked and the answer I got. It has been given in exact wording out here. So what I would have lied about is something I find hard to understand. That, apparently, goes for you too.
It is Jason Payne-James you are accusing of lying, if you are saying that it is impossible to bleed out and stop bleeding in a matter of few minutes only.

I'm not challenging the notion that it is possible to "stop bleeding" (to use your expression) in a few minutes after death. What I am challenging is YOUR claim (not the claim of Payne-James) that it would be in any way surprising for oozing to go on for 20 minutes after death.

If you were to claim that Payne James has ever said that oozing is unlikely to go on for 20 minutes after death then that would be a lie.

[David Orsam]

But if you can prove that blood will always ooze for at least seven minutes in any case of exsanguination, while alive or post mortem, then feel free to do so!

I'm not saying that blood will "always" do anything. Based on the clear information provided by Dr Biggs, which has never been contradicted by Payne-James, I'm saying that it is certainly possible that blood can ooze for 20 minutes after death.

You do understand that right?

[David Orsam]

Are you trying to infer that the oozing is not part of the bleeding?

Yes, because bleeding is the wrong word.

You asked the expert to assume a massive blood loss in a few minutes, implying a fast flow of blood immediately after death, and then tried to pin him down as to when that massive blood loss would stop.

But you didn't ask him whether the blood could continue to slowly ooze out of the wound after the initial flow of blood has stopped nor how long such oozing could last for.

As to that, we already have an answer from Dr Biggs.