Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

I did not have to ask him to assume massive bloodloss, david - I think he figured that out for himself. The context of the question had nothing to do with massive bloodloss other than in the sense that we all know that there was massive bloodloss in Nicholsī case.

But how do we all know that there was massive blood loss in Nichols case in a very few minutes?

Because that is what you asked him to assume:

"Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case?"

Then, "Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes?"

[Elamarna]

And all the whole you know that I can answer any question you can put to me. The fact that I wonīt always do that nevertheless boils down to me safeguarding my sense of integrity. I make whatever calls I want to, and thatīs just something you will have to live with. It helps me keep my nose over the sewer pool, so it is not likely to change any time soon.

I seriously do not think you can answer any question.

It is clear from your replies that you do not fully understand the scientific/medical matters. Thus you make such incorrect deductions and comments that bleeding can stop in 3, 5 or seven minutes.
Do you actually understand the mechanisms involved in blood loss stopping ?

It appears your comments based on misunderstanding the information supplied to you by one "expert". An expert you appear to hold as THE authority on blood loss while disregarding the comments of other similar experts.

And finally the response you have given has nothing to do with the post you appear to be replying to.
However I note that still does not prevent you from the normal level of name calling you resort to when others disagree with you.

Bye for now


Steve

[David Orsam]

And you know this ... exactly how? How does the mastermind David Orsam conclude that he answered a question I did not ask instead of the question I DID ask? How does that idea arise in your head?

Because he is an expert and must know that corpses do not bleed.

He did not say "a dead person will stop bleeding in 7 minutes". He said "I guess blood may continue to flow for up to [7 minutes]".

Do you see the difference?

Not a word about oozing.

[David Orsam]

Instead, he said, in response to my question about how long it would take for the bleeding to be over and stop completely, that it could be a question of three, five or seven minutes, but that the lower estimations were more likely to be correct.

No he didn't. He changed bleeding to flowing. You never asked him when the bleeding would "stop completely" in any case.

You never asked him anything about oozing. He never said anything about oozing.

[David Orsam]

You make the baseless assumption that she would bleed more powerfully for that perios of time, and then it would go over to a less powerful bleeding.

Oh Fisherman, I love the way you now seem to want to refer to oozing as "less powerful bleeding".

I am not making any assumptions at all. I am relying on what an expert has stated:

"though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins "later.”

[Sam Flynn]

No, I was referring to a person like Nichols, which I specified very clearly. And people suffering massive blood loss will also stop bleeding at some point. In this case, normally at around three or five minutes

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.

[David Orsam]

Exsanguination is not the process of loosing every blood molecule. It is bleeding out what you can bleed out. Do you see any immediate reason that Nichols would not bleed out? I know that Payne-James worked from the assumption that she would do so - more likely in three or five minutes than in seven.

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

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

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.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

So sayeth the master of misunderstanding, misinformating and misleading.

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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

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.

[David Orsam]

No, I was referring to a person like Nichols, which I specified very clearly. And people suffering massive blood loss will also stop bleeding at some point. In this case, normally at around three or five minutes - that, at least, is likelier than a longer period of time.

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".

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.

[Fisherman]

Can you firstly provide a source for the above?

And secondly can you define the phrase "bleed out" for me please?

You do realise the issue is about oozing of blood don't you?

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.

Bye now.

[Fisherman]

It's not a matter of belief; it is the conclusion one must arrive at if looking at the actual hypothesis in an objective manner.

It does seem that so much time has been wasted on this hypothesis which is not scientificly valid.
Please note it is not what Payne-James says that is not valid, it is simply how those comments are used which are not valid.

Additionally the witness statements just support that the hypothesis as suggested is not valid from a scientific view point.

And finally those witness statements do not even fit with the proposed hypothesis, it fails not on one but many issues.

Don't worry it will be explained in detail later.



Steve

What makes you think I worry, Steve? Well, I do on fact worry somewhat about David, who seems to have suffered a breakdown of sorts.
But when it comes to the material involved in the Lechmere bid and the viability it represents, I am completely stoic. I am convinced that it will stand firmly, which comes with feeling that I am correct. But I am perfectly ready to dmit that I am wrong if that is proven by anybody. In fact, it would facilitate much of my life.
Right now, though, Iīll do a runner again, as you will sometimes have it, suggesting that I cannot answer different questions.

And all the whole you know that I can answer any question you can put to me. The fact that I wonīt always do that nevertheless boils down to me safeguarding my sense of integrity. I make whatever calls I want to, and thatīs just something you will have to live with. It helps me keep my nose over the sewer pool, so it is not likely to change any time soon.

Off I go, and the next time I look into Casebook, there will be nineteen Orsam contributions, all of them repeating what he has said earlier, and three from you, being a child (as per David, who does not like people knowing without telling - but donīt worry, ehrm, that notion only applies to me, probably).

[David Orsam]

Pane-James was asked about the bleeding time, and when it would stop completely.

But what does "bleeding time" mean in respect of a dead person in the context of massive blood loss?

It tells us precisely nothing about oozing.

And, as a matter of fact, you did not ask when him would the bleeding would "stop completely". You asked a double question about whether a person could "bleed out completely and stop bleeding" within 3, 5 and 7 minutes.

So you asked him two things. Perhaps you can tell us the difference between "bleed out completely" and "stop bleeding".

[Fisherman]

The end of story is that Payne-James only answered your inappropriate question about "bleeding", which dead people don't do, by changing your word to "flow[ing]" and did so (by guessing) in the context of having been asked to assume a massive blood loss when the throat was cut.

The end of story is that Payne-James said precisely nothing about blood oozing from the wound thereafter or at any time.

The postscript to the end of the story is that Dr Biggs has told us that blood can very possibly continue to ooze for 20 minutes and that Dr Payne-James has never contradicted this.

So sayeth the master of misunderstanding, misinformating and misleading.

[Fisherman]

So now you pretend to misunderstand the illusion.

The illusion is to go from oozing to oozing profusely to running to bleeding to flowing.

If you are seriously claiming that Payne-James said that oozing would "seize in a matter of minutes" then I am afraid I have to accuse you of lying.

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.