Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

What relevance does it have if I discussed the matter with Payne-James? Well, have a guess.

You are getting bogged very deeply down in your spreading of disinformation right now. Making things up and presenting your misapprhensions as fact is unbecoming, David.

Payne-James was answering a direct question in written form. His answer was in red, since he fit it into my text to him. Your speculation that he was underinformed and answered something he was not asked is way beyond Kindergarten standard.

The other kinds there would beat the crap out of you for lying.

No mention of the word "desanguination" in your post Fisherman. How surprising. I put the words "MASSIVE BLOOD FLOW" in capital letters for your but you have nothing to say about it.

And I'm not speculating that he used the word "flow" in his answer am I?

Whatever discussions you may have had with him do not change the central fact that he said absolutely nothing in his answers about the time it can take for blood to ooze from a wound after death.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Once again, you seem to forget that you when you said "such a person" to Payne-James, that meant someone who had suffered MASSIVE BLOOD LOSS.

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.

This "such a person" had already been defined by you in the first question when you asked Payne-James to assume desanguination.

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.

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. Nobody ever suggested that in my conversation with Payne-James. 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.
Waky-waky, David. Itīs better than wacky-wacky, or maky-uppie.

That word you pretend does not exist in your questions.

But you have had my questions quoted, so you now perfectly well that I donīt deny anything at all, accept for your weird suggestions.

You now want to create the illusion that in asking Payne-James about "bleeding", a word he did not use himself, he must have been thinking about oozing, even though when answering your question he referred to "flow".

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? Is it in direct contact with your digestive system? He directly answered my question aboyt bleeding, and that is how it goes down in history. End of. Whine as much as you like about it.

And this was in the context of a massive blood loss that you had asked him to assume.

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.

The simple fact is that Payne-James said precisely nothing about oozing. He was not directing his mind to it. Whereas Dr Biggs has told us that there is nothing surprising about 20 minutes of oozing after death.

The-bleeding-would-STOP-, more-likely-in-three-or-five-minutes-than-in-seven.
Are you trying to infer that the oozing is not part of the bleeding? The what is it?
You have been revealed as a phantasist and a very rude disinformer, conjuring up alternative facts. There comes a time when we need to look ourselves in the mirror, and it has come for you now. It is not a pretty sight, I fear.

The idea that Payne-James was saying that blood is not likely to ooze from a neck wound much more than 7 minutes after death is utterly absurd.

To be perfectly fair he never said any such thing at all, so letīs not suggest that he did. 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 have asked Gareth for the same revelation, and I await your response with much fascination.
If you canīt produce the material, you will of course have revealed yourself as a trader of complete bogus. I am anticipating that very development myself, I must say.

[David Orsam]

Gravity is in play with a flat surface too, David. Didnīt you know?

If it was tilted ten percent in any direction, it would not matter anyway - Nicholsī wound went right around her neck, and so she would bleed out just the same. There would be no significant alterations it the timings.

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?

[Fisherman]

What is not going to go away Fisherman is that, in your questioning of him, you told Payne James to assume that there was a MASSIVE BLOOD LOSS.

You know, desanguination, that word you twice evaded defining in this thread. The word you NEVER mention.

So when P-J was talking about the blood loss, he was doing so in the context of desanguination, i.e. a massive blood loss after death. And THIS blood loss, he was telling you, or rather guessing, would likely stop after 7 minutes.

He said nothing about any subsequent oozing.

Your poorly worded question asked about “bleed out completely”. What on earth does it mean? It is a meaningless phrase.

Then when you asked him about bleeding he spoke of flowing in his answer.

It’s perfectly clear to anyone and everyone that you asked him in the context of a massive blood loss immediately after death how long the blood would take to stop flowing from the wound and this is what he told you when, in guessing, he selected from the three random options that you offered him.

"Perfectly clear"?

You could not tell perfectly clear from the sewage that is flowing (not oozing) from your mouth.

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

He opted for htee or five minutes being better suggestions than seven.

And I am having a field day enjoying you being so tormented by that fact that you are willing to try and conjure up an "alternative fact" - the Trump of the boards, as it were!

Soak it up. It wonīt go away.

[Fisherman]

Are you seriously telling me "I know something you don't know"? What are you, a child? If you have some relevant information post it. If not, you'll forgive me for accepting what Dr Biggs has stated clearly on the subject of blood oozing.

Yes, I know something you donīt know.

Yes, I am a child, by my father and mother.

Yes, you can join Trevor and choose Biggs over Payne-James.

Yes, you are ill-informed and puerile.

Wait - you never asked that. Sorry.

[Fisherman]

What relevance is it as to whether you and he "discussed the matter"? I mean, big deal. The premise of your specific questioning of him did not involve any strangulation.

On the contrary, your question assumed a MASSIVE BLOOD FLOW, inconsistent with what Payne James said about blood dribbling or leaking out of the body after death when strangulation occurs.

Conclusion.

When he answered your specific question he was NOT answering with strangulation in mind. Thus he was NOT answering your question with the specific case of Nichols in mind.

What relevance does it have if I discussed the matter with Payne-James? Well, have a guess.

You are getting bogged very deeply down in your spreading of disinformation right now. Making things up and presenting your misapprhensions as fact is unbecoming, David.

Payne-James was answering a direct question in written form. His answer was in red, since he fit it into my text to him. Your speculation that he was underinformed and answered something he was not asked is way beyond Kindergarten standard.

The other kinds there would beat the crap out of you for lying.

[Fisherman]

Well flat and almost flat are two different things.

Even a gentle slope in the street is potentially going to bring gravity into play isn’t it?

Gravity is in play with a flat surface too, David. Didnīt you know?

If it was tilted ten percent in any direction, it would not matter anyway - Nicholsī wound went right around her neck, and so she would bleed out just the same. There would be no significant alterations it the timings.

[Fisherman]

In which case he answered it wrongly. When you sustain wounds as catastrophic as those suffered by Polly Nichols, blood simply does not cease to exude from the body within a mere few minutes.

Prove that, please. And not by saying that you personally think this is so, but by using adequate material.

[Elamarna]

"And if you believe that, weīre gonna get along just fine."

Steve Earle, "Snake Oil"

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

[Elamarna]

When the comments of Payne-James are formulated to make a working hypothesis it becomes clear that the hypothesis itself fails. This is without actually even taking the various witness statements into account.

There is therefore no "blood evidence" which relates to Lechmere.


Steve

Let me rephrase that.

It is how the comments are intpereted and used to produce a hypothesis that lead to its failure; not the comments themselves which are not at fault.


Steve

[David Orsam]

The bloodflow on the whole contains all the different faces of bleeding. Payne-James answered my question about when the "bleeding" would seize.

End of story.

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.

[David Orsam]

It takes more of an illusionist to go from oozing to running, as Mizen adds. In the end, it is uninteresting, since either form of bloodflow would seize in a matter of minutes, according to Payne-James.

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.

[David Orsam]

Well, that idea of yours goes out the window when we look at the exact phrasing of the question J P-J answered:

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

... to which he answered:

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.

The total bloodflow involves all kinds of blood exiting, and Payne-James was clearly asked when the "bleeding" (not the flowing) would seize, not when it would go from "bleeding" to "oozing". And "oozing" is "bleeding".

So you are wrong. Quite simply. And that goes for the more exotic allegations involved too.

Once again, you seem to forget that you when you said "such a person" to Payne-James, that meant someone who had suffered MASSIVE BLOOD LOSS.

This "such a person" had already been defined by you in the first question when you asked Payne-James to assume desanguination.

That word you pretend does not exist in your questions.

You now want to create the illusion that in asking Payne-James about "bleeding", a word he did not use himself, he must have been thinking about oozing, even though when answering your question he referred to "flow".

And this was in the context of a massive blood loss that you had asked him to assume.

The simple fact is that Payne-James said precisely nothing about oozing. He was not directing his mind to it. Whereas Dr Biggs has told us that there is nothing surprising about 20 minutes of oozing after death.

The idea that Payne-James was saying that blood is not likely to ooze from a neck wound much more than 7 minutes after death is utterly absurd.

[David Orsam]

I lean against J P-J, who certainly IS qualified. And as you know, he said that the bleeding was more likely to be completed and stop withing three or five minutes than in seven. That is not going to go away, as you may understand.

What is not going to go away Fisherman is that, in your questioning of him, you told Payne James to assume that there was a MASSIVE BLOOD LOSS.

You know, desanguination, that word you twice evaded defining in this thread. The word you NEVER mention.

So when P-J was talking about the blood loss, he was doing so in the context of desanguination, i.e. a massive blood loss after death. And THIS blood loss, he was telling you, or rather guessing, would likely stop after 7 minutes.

He said nothing about any subsequent oozing.

Your poorly worded question asked about “bleed out completely”. What on earth does it mean? It is a meaningless phrase.

Then when you asked him about bleeding he spoke of flowing in his answer.

It’s perfectly clear to anyone and everyone that you asked him in the context of a massive blood loss immediately after death how long the blood would take to stop flowing from the wound and this is what he told you when, in guessing, he selected from the three random options that you offered him.

[David Orsam]

These are of course matters that I know of whereas you donīt

Are you seriously telling me "I know something you don't know"? What are you, a child? If you have some relevant information post it. If not, you'll forgive me for accepting what Dr Biggs has stated clearly on the subject of blood oozing.