Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

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

No Fisherman, you still don't get it. I don't want to know about "bleeding". All I want to know if he would have been all surprised to see blood oozing from Nichols' neck wound after twenty minutes.

As far as I know, he's never said a word on the subject whereas Biggs has made clear, as I read him, that he would not be in the slightest bit surprised.

So that's where we are. Nothing surprising about it.

[Fisherman]

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.

Of course the information we have about Nichols can be wrong. Of course it is not full and exact. But J P-J commented on the errand from a point of view involving a number of factors that have been established.
-The body was lying flat on it´s back on a relatively or completely flat surface.
-The papers spoke of a gaping wound in the neck, meaning that there was no obstacle for the blood to pass out of the body.
-She was cut extensively in the abdomen.
-She was seemingly strangled or partially strangled before she was cut.

If any of these factors are wrong (if she was found hanging upside down in a tree, having had her foot severed, if the wound/s on her body had wine corks pushed into them, if she was patted on the abdomen and not cut or if she was told a joke, almost choking her when laughing, instead of being strangled/partiall strangled, for example) then of course we must reconsider the whole thing.

But if the list was a true list, providing real insights, then we have a case that can be commented on factually on very good grounds.

That is all, that is where we end up. If the papers were correct and if the picture given at the inquest was a factually sound one, then we do have a useful material for J P-J to work with. A degree of uncertainty must always be there, but overall, as it stands, J P-J:s contribution carries a tremendeous weight in my eyes.

[David Orsam]

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.

You see, here you are confusing the issue again.

In response to being asked about bleeding, Payne-James spoke about the time of the blood FLOW.

He has never, to my knowledge, been asked what he would have expected about oozing of the blood. If you can show me anywhere where he said he would not have expected blood oozing after 20 minutes, either generally in the case of a dead body, or specifically in the case of Nichols, you might have a point but in the absence of any such statement, and where we have Biggs' clear statement, you have nothing.

[Fisherman]

Now we´ve reached a point we were always going to reach, considering who is involved - the point of repetition. I think it´s time to call a halt here.

[David Orsam]

.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.

No, I'm no interested in any answer using the word "bleeding" because that is ambiguous and confusing in this context. I want to know about oozing because that is what the witness said he saw.

[David Orsam]

Of course the information we have about Nichols can be wrong. Of course it is not full and exact. But J P-J commented on the errand from a point of view involving a number of factors that have been established.
-The body was lying flat on it´s back on a relatively or completely flat surface.
-The papers spoke of a gaping wound in the neck, meaning that there was no obstacle for the blood to pass out of the body.
-She was cut extensively in the abdomen.
-She was seemingly stragled or partially strangled before she was cut.

Right, firstly where does "relatively or completely flat surface" come from? Is that from the evidence or is it an assumption based on her being found in the street?

Secondly, do you accept that the evidence of strangulation is uncertain? Does it actually affect the answer? Because if so you have a problem right there.

Finally, and most importantly, where does he tell us what the consequence of all this is for the amount of time blood could realistically have oozed from the neck?

[David Orsam]

Now we´ve reached a point we were always going to reach, considering who is involved - the point of repetition. I think it´s time to call a halt here.

Yes, the point we always reach where you suddenly realise you can't answer the questions.

[Fisherman]

No, I'm no interested in any answer using the word "bleeding" because that is ambiguous and confusing in this context. I want to know about oozing because that is what the witness said he saw.

But David, don´t you realize that the only interest that can attach to the term oozing is if we can establish exactly what it represents? Neil ALSO said "running", and Mizen said "running" when describing the bloodflow.

Much as some will have it that oozing can only be a very small trickling, that is simply not true. Oozing can be used to describe blood welling out, running out, trickling out, etcetera - I firmly believe that Neil used the term on account of there being no underlying pressure, something that is further strengthened by how the blood was "still running" a couple of minutes after having been "oozing".

If we were to try and discount the possibility that the blood WAS running when both PC:s saw it, we will do ourselves and the understaning of the case a very great disservice. We will never know for sure what Neil saw, but we CAN accept that the "oozing" (and running!) he spoke of was not necessarily a very small trickling of blood.

And there endeth that question, stranded on the shore of varying possibilities as ever. If you don´t concur, then that´s your prerogative, but it won´t change a thing, I´m afraid.

Now I REALLY cannot offer very much more, and it is all becoming extremely repetitious. I´m out, therefore, which I hope you respect, instead of resorting to cheap shots about me not being able to answer. It´s more about your unwillingness to take any other view than your own on board.

[Fisherman]

I will sign off by mentioning the book "Medical and Philosophical commentaries" by Andrew Duncan, M.D., published in Edinburgh in 1770, and containing this passage:

"My reason for doing so was, that the half divided vessels, from which the blood oozed profusely, both of the pericranium and teguments, might, from a free ..."

As we can see, "oozed profusely" was an accepted medical term in 1770, and there are examples of the exact same phrasing from thence up until today. It should, if anything, teach us not to try and push the idea that "oozing" can only mean a smallish trickling, but instead a large range of flow rates.

Read and learn - and try to draw a sensible conclusion or two from it!

Point proven.

Goodbye.

[Elamarna]

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.


No the term oozing describes the flow from the wound. The word running is used to describe the flow after that as it is in the street. The fact that you fail to understand this simple difference is telling.


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

A couple of minutes? That is an interesting definition of the word couple aund is not backed by the data in the witness statements if examined in detail.

Still carry on ignoring the science and quoting one "expert" it obviously makes you feel better to do so than address the issues.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Secondly, do you accept that the evidence of strangulation is uncertain? Does it actually affect the answer?

Strangulation might affect the "blood flow" question, but only if (as seems unlikely) Nichols were throttled until her heart ceased pumping. However, strangulation would have no effect on the "blood oozing" question, as oozing is caused by a combination of such passive agencies as gravity, elasticity, involuntary muscle contractions and capillary action. With that in mind, blood can ooze just as prolifically from a person who has been strangled as it can from a person who has not.

[Elamarna]

I will sign off by mentioning the book "Medical and Philosophical commentaries" by Andrew Duncan, M.D., published in Edinburgh in 1770, and containing this passage:

"My reason for doing so was, that the half divided vessels, from which the blood oozed profusely, both of the pericranium and teguments, might, from a free ..."

As we can see, "oozed profusely" was an accepted medical term in 1770, and there are examples of the exact same phrasing from thence up until today. It should, if anything, teach us not to try and push the idea that "oozing" can only mean a smallish trickling, but instead a large range of flow rates.

Read and learn - and try to draw a sensible conclusion or two from it!

Point proven.

Goodbye.

Can we have the full quote please?
You know so that we can see the context it is being used in.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

But David, don´t you realize that the only interest that can attach to the term oozing is if we can establish exactly what it represents? Neil ALSO said "running", and Mizen said "running" when describing the bloodflow.

If someone tells us simply that a tap is "running", we have no way of knowing anything about the speed of the water - it could be flowing at a rate of knots, or it could be a trickle; the water is still "running" nonetheless. Ergo, Neil's and Mizen's use of the word "running" tells us little or nothing about the rate of flow. If they'd said "dripping", "gushing" or "spurting", it would be a different matter; but "running" covers such a wide spectrum of possibilities that it doesn't tell us much at all.

[David Orsam]

But David, don´t you realize that the only interest that can attach to the term oozing is if we can establish exactly what it represents? Neil ALSO said "running", and Mizen said "running" when describing the bloodflow.

As I've said in the post, "running" does not necessarily equate to flowing or movement of any sort.

You can have a line of chalk or paint or whatever running across a street from point A to point B but it's not moving.

I see that Sam has already made a similar point.

Neil clearly used the word oozing and that is the word we need to focus on.

[David Orsam]

Much as some will have it that oozing can only be a very small trickling, that is simply not true. Oozing can be used to describe blood welling out, running out, trickling out, etcetera - I firmly believe that Neil used the term on account of there being no underlying pressure, something that is further strengthened by how the blood was "still running" a couple of minutes after having been "oozing".

If we were to try and discount the possibility that the blood WAS running when both PC:s saw it, we will do ourselves and the understaning of the case a very great disservice. We will never know for sure what Neil saw, but we CAN accept that the "oozing" (and running!) he spoke of was not necessarily a very small trickling of blood.

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.