Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

Exsanguinated in this context means that she has bled out all she can bleed out, given the position she lay in, not that every drop of blood has left her body.

But what does desanguinated mean in this context?

[Elamarna]

How misguided. Once the heart stops beating there is no pressure, it drops considerably before it stops in the case of blood lose.

So it doesn´t drop totally? Only considerably? Is that not exactly what I am saying? When thenheart stops beating, the heartbeat pressure goes away, but there is a built up pressure in the system for some little time anyway, and there will be an initial rush of blood if opened up close in time to that point.
It is what experts say, so they are the misguided ones, I take it? And you the master?
However assuming the victim is strangled to death first there would be very little spray after the first one or two seconds.
And of course the area was washed before any trace of spray could be saught in daylight.
Again the idea you suggest ONLY works if there is little blood from the neck which I dispute.
Guess what the apparent lack of spray is also covered in part 3.

No the pressure will drop once the circulatory system is disturbed, - cut. Which is what I say, if one reads the section as a whole.
I am not disputing the medical facts, just how you interpret them. Patne-James seems to suggest there would be no rush at all, the same would apply to the abdomen wounds if they were inflected first, if the victim was strangled first.

I can´t wait! It will, I´m sure, be the solution to all things Nichols! And you will DISPUTE things - thrilling!

Not true.

Yes, true.

No it will of course not solve all things Nichols, as you put it. but it will make some issues about the whole event and the surroundings of bucks Rows clearer.


Steve

[David Orsam]

I have stated already that I think that the information came from Neil or someone within the police relating what Neil said. This is because only Neil saw the blood running at this point, and therefore only he could describe it.

If it did not originate from Neil, then it was a complete invention. It may have been -and I have already said asa much too - but it remains the only piece of information we have and must be regarded as more likely than not to be truthful. It´s extremely simple.

So why didn't he say so at the inquest?

You may be right that the information in the newspaper article came from "someone within the police relating to what Neil said" but then we are into the realm of Chinese Whispers as information is passed along the line to a journalist who then puts his own spin on it.

Earlier I made the point that Neil could have just said there was lots of blood (and it was stated at the inquest that there was a large quantity of blood) and this has been translated into Nichols bleeding profusely, which is something that was obvious to deduce must have happened prior to Neil's appearance on the scene because of the volume of blood.

To rely on a newspaper article which doesn't even contain a quotation to reflect it was the exact words of what the journalist was being told, or even have the source of the information stated, is bizarre and I am certain you would not do this if it was inconsistent with any theory you held.

And I finish this post by repeating what I said at the start. If Neil had seen that Nichols was bleeding profusely why did he not say this at the inquest? Why did he simply say he saw the blood oozing from the wound?

[David Orsam]

The mistake you make is to speak of "Nichols or anyone". The circumstances involved will rule the day. My belief is that Jason Payne-James would be very suprised if Nichols bled fr twenty minutes (we know this since he expected three or five minutes), whereas he would not be surprised at all in other cases, where the circumstances differed.

I'm not making any mistake Fisherman. The mistake you are making is that I am not asking you if he would be surprised if Nichols, or anyone, bled for twenty minutes. I am asking you if he would be surprised to see blood oozing for twenty minutes.

Can you please stop changing the word "oozing" to "bleeding"? Only a living person bleeds. Corpses to do not bleed. I am asking about blood oozing. You always reply with the word bleeding, without mentioning oozing at all. My word is based on the evidence of Neil.

In fact, it is you failing to ask Payne-James about oozing which has caused all the problems here. You keep deliberately avoiding using the word which is in the evidence. Why? Trying to frame Lechmere?

[Elamarna]

Which case is the Key case?

that was a typo i was on a bus using my phone and the autocorrect changed JtR to KEY. i didn't notice. my apologies to all for that

The true is the only thing I am interested in.

It is the only thing you CLAIM to be interested in. It seems to me you spend a lot of time telling others that I am not truthful. So you have two hobbies, at the very least.

I dispute your interpretation, I do not say you are untruthful, that would mean that you intentionally mislead, that is not what I say.

The very fact that you claim that Lechmere is the one and only truly logical bid shows how closed your thinking is on the issue, from your own lips so to speak.

Yes, it shows how closed my thinking is. Whether it is fair to close it to that degree or not is another question. What other logical bid did YOU have in mind for the Nichols murder, and why is he/she logical? You need to take on board that from an investigative point of view, the Ripper case is nowadays a one-man show. Like it you must not, but there you are.

No it is not a one man show, that is your view and the view of those who agree with you.
Many do not, plenty of research is going on that does not point to or involve Lechmere as you well know.

As for a logical bid, I am not looking for one at this moment, nor do I need to, I may move on to that at some later date.

Steve

[David Orsam]

You are doing a Biggs here, treating all cases as equally likely to bleed for twenty minutes. That is false.

Where is the evidence to support this statement?

But, for the record, I am not talking about "bleeding." What I have said is that no expert in the field would be surprised to learn that a dead body has had blood oozing from a wound for twenty minutes.

That, as far as I can tell, is true. It is certainly what Biggs said and I have not seen any expert contradicting him.

[David Orsam]

But WHY are you asking me, a person you put no trust at all in? You have clearly indicated that you do not even WANT me to comment, since you want Payne-James to do so instead. It is absolutely counterproductive and disingenuous, don´t you realize that?

No Fisherman you are confused. I want Payne-James to explain what Payne-James thinks, not you.

But I want YOU to comment on what YOU think, based on all the available evidence and information.

[Elamarna]

Wasn´t it seven? Or nineteen? I keep forgetting.It is not a very interesting matter to be perfectly frank, since we do not know when he left home. He cannot be challenged as being the killer on such grounds. All you can do is to suggest that maybe Paul need not have heard him - and that only works up until they enter Bucks Row, thirty or forty yards inbetween them.

No one is looking to challenge him on those grounds,?
As for Paul you are incorrect in what you think it shows.
I have explained sererval time the purpose of part 1, yes its boring, its meant to be, its just figures.

You really do fail to see what it is for?

Such allows us to discredit routes proposed on the net and which claim to take half the time they actually do.

Ah - discrediting. There´s that second hobby of yours again.

Is it not the role of a researcher to show that some statements are just blatantly untrue and should be corrected?

It allows us to see at what speed Lechmere may have walked at to reach work by 4am.

We already KNEW what speed he "may" have travelled at: Slow, rather slow, normal, quick or more quick. Oh, I forgot leisurely!

Those are not speeds, or possible times. they are unmeasurable descriptions .They do not show what is achievable and what is not.

And last but not least it allows us to say the time you stated for his route in the documentary was indeed possible; despite your refusal to say what that route was.

I am not the only one to have measured and noted that, Steve. I am not the first either. We knew it all along.

Of course not, many have done it as you say. But the issue was when you were asked which route you took, you refused to say which of the routes you took, and so some disputed your timings. That is now cleared up for all to see, you were indeed correct.



steve

[David Orsam]

As you are campaigning to claim that I cannot and dare not answer your question, I will do so - I always was for proving you wrong - but I will ask an answer from you in return on another question, and I will qualify my anseer beyond the simple yes or no you want me to give. That is because I have learn from Jason Payne-James that he tries never to do that, on account of the risks involved to get it wrong in the odd case.

My answer to your question is no. Nichols could not very possibly have been murdered 20 minutes before Neil saw the blood running. Nota bene that I use "running", because Neil said running as well as oozing. My qualification lies in how I know that there are people with very varying compositions of the blood, and so some will bleed for a longer time. But if we accept that Nichols had a blood composition that did not differ from the ordinary, and if we are correct in specualting that she lay flat on level or relatively level ground and if we reason that there was no obstacle for the blood to run, then TO MY MIND, being a layman, there is no realistic possibility that she may have bled actively for twenty minutes.

So you STILL haven't answered my question! You've changed my question and answered a different one.

I wouldn't mind if my question was written on a false basis but that is not the case.

Neil said at the inquest (according to the Telegraph) "There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck."

It was the pool of blood that was running from the wound. It's just like Llewllyn said: "There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. " It does not signify any kind of movement.

But if it did, the word "running" is ambiguous because it can mean fast flow or slow flow, or something in between, whereas "oozing" is very specific and clearly defined as a slow gentle flow or trickle. Why would you want to swap a unambiguous word for an ambiguous one? It makes no sense.

Neil's actual evidence was that he noticed "blood oozing from a wound in the throat". I'm not aware that you dispute this.

So can you please answer my question on the basis that Neil said "oozing" (whether you agree with it or not).

Given that PC Neil said in his sworn testimony that he saw blood oozing from the throat wound of Nichols could she quite easily, and very possibly, have been murdered 20 minutes before the time he saw this oozing?

Is the answer to THAT question yes or no?

[Elamarna]

I am constantly abused by you too, so welcome to the freak show. You keep banging on about double standards and misleading and such things, and you suggest between the lines that I am a charlatan and a fraudster. I could choose to meet that by turning the other cheek, and maybe I would if I had a weak argument. As it stands, YOU are the one with the weak arguemnts, and you are the one who should be careful with that second hobby. Me, I have always tried to answer in the same vein as I am spoken to. That has made me a large number of enemies and a few really reliable and good friends, some of whom I disagree with - but where we are reciprocally respectful to each other.
What I will ask you to ponder is this: If you make a point/points that are better than the ones I make once you produce your thoughts on the blood issues, I will say so. It is vital for me to stay true to myself, no matter how little you may believe it.

My worst fear now is that you will answer by taking up half the band width out here, and I must prepare you for a much shorter answer if that is the case. Do as you wish.

I do not think I abuse you Fisherman, I do not question the quality of you research. I challenge your interpretations.
I do not and have not as far as I am aware ever called you either a charlatan and a fraudster, I believe you are a good research who has become one-eyed to a very great extent.

You certainly do not know all of my arguments, some I have touched on, but others have not been mentioned at all.
Above all my work is not about Lechmere, its about many different aspects of Bucks Row, and there is the Issue: Bucks Row does not equal Lechmere to me.




steve

[David Orsam]

Here is my question to you: You earlier said that there was no chance that blood would only flow (or run or whatever) for three minutes only.

On what authority do you state this?

Can you tell me in which post you think I made such a statement?

I'm certain I never said it.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;414803]

You avoid the questions I asked. Do you think the woman presented a ghastly sight?

The statement is part of a discourse from 1888. It is not a photograph.

Was she completely ripped open?

Same answer to that one.

Yes, the paper is interested in selling copies, but were these matters lies?

Hard to know without any better sources.

By the way, papers have changed a lot since 1888 as has journalism. Not that you will know it, though, but for clarity´s sake, I thought I´d mention it.

That has nothing to do with my criticism of your using sources from 1888 as they were used then. One could perhaps say that you are more influenced by the Victorian journalism than by the journalism of our time.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;414816]

I have no "purposes" other than finding out the truth.

[Fisherman]

Can you tell me in which post you think I made such a statement?

I'm certain I never said it.

Of course - you probably meant something entirely different in post 195 when you wrote:
"As Steve has pointed out, Nichols could not possibly have bleed out all the blood in her body in 3 minutes could she?"

It´s that flowing - running - trickling - oozing canard all over again, right?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: That is a very interesting response, especially considering post# 192 from this thread by yourself:

"There was a pool of blood under her, where she was lying. There was nothing at all said about the size of the pool in your quote. Ergo, there is nothing at all strange about it. The police may have said "There was a pool of blood under her" and the reporters may have written that she was lying in a pool of blood. Big deal. Misguided ingenuity, Steve."

Are now saying there was no blood under her?

Did I EVER say there was no blood under her? Did I not always say that there was a pool of blood under her, containing around half a pint of blood?

The quote from Thain by the way is from the times 18th September:

[I]"He was present when the spots of blood were washed away. On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6 in. in diameter, and had run towards the gutter. It appeared to him to be a large quantity of blood.

And THAT, my friend, is the pool under the neck that is described. It was a mere fifteen centimeters in diameter, and the blood from it had run towards the gutter, as per Mizen.
Are you rooting for the idea that there was suddenly TWO pools of blood, both of them the same size and both of then running towards the gutter? Can you find any report at all mentioning TWO pools of blood?

By the CORONER. - He helped to put the body on the ambulance, and the back appeared to be covered with blood, which, he thought, had run from the neck as far as the waist. He got blood on to his hands.

But where, oh where, was that blood when the police checked the clothing for it at the morgue? You see, they could not find any blood but for in the upper part of the clothing, around neck and shoulders.

That would suggest that the pool was an extension of the pool by the neck, but was under her, so could not be seen without moving her, and Llewellyn had gone by that stage.

So you are seriously suggesting that Llewellyn took it upon himself to comment on the scarcity of blood, failing to realize that there may have been blood under the body? Here´s Neil from the inquest:

"I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and seeing another constable in Baker's row I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. I had, in the meantime, rung the bell at Essex Wharf, and asked if any disturbance had been heard. The reply was "No." Sergeant Kirby came after, and he knocked. The doctor looked at the woman, and then said, "Move the woman to the mortuary. She is dead, and I will make a further examination of her." We then placed her on the ambulance, and moved her there.

So we can see that Neil was around as the body was removed and wheeled away. Now, let´s see how the questioning proceeds:

The Coroner - Did you notice any blood where she was found?

Witness - There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck.

So Neil was asked, after he had told the coroner that he saw the body wheeled off, if there was any blood where Nichols had been found, and Neil says that there was "a pool". Not two pools. A pool.

And what about Helson, who said "He noticed blood on the hair, and on the collars of the dress and ulster, but not on the back of the skirts" ?
If she was lying in a pool of blood, how come none of it was set off on the clothes? Is that not rather remarkable?

The very fact that you quoted this point yesterday and refute it today leaves me somewhat speechless.

My comments SHOULD have left you speechless, but you keep going on, sadly. For whatever reason I can´t say, since you have it all backwards.

The issues of blood on the clothing as been discussed many times, most recently in the thread "Polly’s wounds, what were they like? "
post #174 and #179 probably give both sides of the argument equally.

In response to your request to save on band width I am not responding to all that very long post, just those bit I feel really need one.

Thanks for that!