Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

Payne-James did not comment on times longer than seven minutes. In the exact same way, my analogy left out that kind of question, so the analogy is a perfect one. The kind you so dislike.

Payne James said that blood can flow for up to 7 minutes. That's it.

He did not say a iot about whether it could flow BEYOND seven minutes, and itīs time you realized that.

Well the ordinary meaning of a statement that blood can flow for up to seven minutes is that seven minutes is the upper limit of time that blood can flow.

Otherwise, if that's not what he's saying, who knows what the upper limit is? 10 minutes? 15 minutes? 20 minutes? Half an hour?

And if we don't know his answer to that question, the answer he did give is worthless.

[David Orsam]

Itīs that flowing - running - trickling - oozing canard all over again, right?

No, not really. It's you misunderstanding a question which you had already answered.

[David Orsam]

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?"

Ah, right, as I suspected, completely different from your summary of what you claimed I said.

You claimed:

"You earlier said that there was no chance that blood would only flow (or run or whatever) for three minutes only."

So. No chance that blood would flow for 3 minutes only. But, of course, that isn't what I said at all.

What I actually said – in fact what I asked – was whether blood could bleed out entirely in three minutes. Thus:

"As Steve has pointed out, Nichols could not possibly have bled out all the blood in her body in 3 minutes could she?"

You do see the difference right? Or have you stopped understanding English completely now?

It's not only not a statement, as you claimed, it was a question, but it was on a totally different point to the one you claimed I was making. Blood can flow for only one or two minutes as far as I am concerned but that doesn't mean the reason it has stopped is because all the blood has bled out from the body.

And, as a question, I thought you already answered it in #198 by saying that I was correct and that such a thing was indeed impossible (and see #206.)

The point is that if there is still blood in the body then there is blood left that can ooze out of the body long after the initial flow of blood has stopped. Just as Dr Biggs said.

Or do you not understand that either?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Sorry it was not 15 centimetres it was about 6 inches and that discription is given after the body is moved.

An inch is 2,54 centimeters, right? 6x2,54 makes 15,2 centimeters as far as I can tell. Correct me if I am mistaken. The pool was visible to both Neil and Mizen before any moving of the body.

It was not under her neck but by her neck was it not?

How can it not have been under her neck...?

And either way there is no reason why it could not have flowed under her body. To ask how could it extend under her body seems a strange statement to make.

It has to do with the size of the pool, and is not "strange" in any manner at all. The pool was seen by Neil and Mizen and was therefore not hidden under the body, the blood was running from the wound in the neck into the pool, ergo it was under the neck, and it could not have stretched in under her body with the size given - it can have stretched an inch or two in under her, something like that, but it will not have reached any further down that so, meaning that it did not reach anwhere near the waist - where there was no blood on the clothing anyhow, as per the investigation made by the police.

Let me get something clear.

Was there a pool under her body, yes or no.?

If you believe no, why did you post on sunday:


"There was a pool of blood under her, where she was lying. "

Well, believe it or not, but the body involves the head and the neck too, and the pool was apparently under the neck. What I am saying is that the pool will not have stretched in under her torso to any significant degree.

If you believe yes and stand by your post, where does this pool come from if it is not the one seen by Thain?

I have never suggested anything at all different from the notion that the pool under the neck was the one seen by Thain. If you try to twist that beyond recognition, you are in an uphill race.

And will you now agree that have not suggested two pools; just one. As demonstrated by my previous post and which you of course do not acknowledge.

Maybe you just worded yourself poorly, Steve, in which case Iīm fine with your stance that there was just the one pool - which is completely true, by the way. However, this was what you posted:

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

"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

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. "

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 clearly you speak of "the pool" which is "an extension of the pool by the neck", and to me that means that there were TWO pools, one of which was an extension of the first one. Becasue that is what you wrote.
If you had written that the blood Thain spoke of was part of the pool under the neck, I would have had a lot easier task to decioher what you meant, and you would have not been left with an urge to claim that I preposterously misquoted you.

Now, there was just the one pool, it was around 15 centimeters (or 6 inches) in diameter, it was under her neck, and the westernmost part of it may have been soaked in at the upper part of the dress, by the collar. There was however no pool hidden under the body - the pool there was, was seen and recognized by Neil as well as by Mizen.

Maybe we can agree on that?

[Elamarna]

It was fifteen centimeters in diameter, Steve. It was under her neck. so how could it extend under her body, given the size...? Maybe it was enough for the pool to come into contact with the collar, but that is not the same as extending in under her body.

Sorry it was not 15 centimetres it was about 6 inches and that discription is given after the body is moved.

It was not under her neck but by her neck was it not? And either way there is no reason why it could not have flowed under her body. To ask how could it extend under her body seems a strange statement to make.

Let me get something clear.

Was there a pool under her body, yes or no.?

If you believe no, why did you post on sunday:


"There was a pool of blood under her, where she was lying. "

If you believe yes and stand by your post, where does this pool come from if it is not the one seen by Thain?

And will you now agree that have not suggested two pools; just one. As demonstrated by my previous post and which you of course do not acknowledge.


Steve


Steve

[Fisherman]

Sorry Fisherman

You've confused venous and arterial blood pressures. In strangulation, pressure in the central venous system of the head does rise, resulting in the leakage of blood from capillaries and resultant petechial bruising (1-2mm sized). Arterial pressure only rises when the vagal stimulation slows the heart rate. Central venous and carotid arterial pressures though are an order of magnitude different so the rise in venous pressure would not significantly alter flow from venous cutting compared to the arterial flow (especially given intact valves)

Regards

Paul

If you translate that into common language, does that tell us that if the heart had indeed stopped before Nichols was cut, there would be no bloodspray? I believe I have read somewhere that there can be spraying in such cases too for some short time, due to a remaining pressure in the vessels.

I have also read that the heart can go on beating for an astonishing amount of time even after decapitation; can you comment on that?

On the whole, I think a case can be made for all the other C5 murders involving possible bloodspray, with Nichols as the only exception; it was there in Chapmans case (on the fence), in Kellyīs case (on the wall), it may have been covered by the extensive pools of blood around the neck of Eddowes (who had the neck cut BEFORE the abdominal cutting and hey presto - look what happened!) and in Strideīs case, her left side of the neck was resting over the blood running out of her, and that was the damaged side, so it may be that the killer cut her in the position she was lying in, and the bloodspray was directed to the ground and thereafter hidden by the oncoming bloodflow.
Only in the Nichols case can we say with some certainty that there was never any bloodspray.

[Fisherman]

You mean in your intreptation. Good that we agree I have never done such in my posts.

Will be responding in full later to each of these posts, and if you don't wish to reply as you suggest that is your choice.

The exchange has been most illuminating.

However let's stop this double pool nonsense.

My post 196 which you responding to does not mention a second pool at all.
It says:

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.."


There it is a single pool. Which extends under her body.
So please stop saying something which is demonstrably contrary to the ACTUAL words posted.



Steve

It was fifteen centimeters in diameter, Steve. It was under her neck, so how could it extend under her body, given the size...? Maybe it was enough for the pool to come into contact with the collar, but that is not the same as extending in under her body.

[kjab3112]

Elamarna: 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.

The pressure will NORMALLY drop, but if asphyxiation is involved, something interesting happens. This is from a 1940:s text by O A Trowell, the link being https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...01492-0078.pdf
When an animal dies from anoxia (or asphyxia) vacuoles rapidly develop during the first 5-15min. post-mortem, provided the animal is not bled out. In such an animal the venous blood pressure rises considerably just before death and a positive venous pressure persists for some time after death."

I looked into this years ago, but cannot find my original source. But this speaks of the same matter - blood pressure getting boosted by asphyxiation and remaining there for some time after death.

Sorry Fisherman

You've confused venous and arterial blood pressures. In strangulation, pressure in the central venous system of the head does rise, resulting in the leakage of blood from capillaries and resultant petechial bruising (1-2mm sized). Arterial pressure only rises when the vagal stimulation slows the heart rate. Central venous and carotid arterial pressures though are an order of magnitude different so the rise in venous pressure would not significantly alter flow from venous cutting compared to the arterial flow (especially given intact valves)

Regards

Paul

[Elamarna]

Reading between the lines.

I am calling it a day now, after having the rest of your posts and Davids efforts - much of it (Davids more so) is complete poppycock and tediously repetitious. David is not even able to tell a yes from a no, it seems.

Have a great day.

You mean in your intreptation. Good that we agree I have never done such in my posts.

Will be responding in full later to each of these posts, and if you don't wish to reply as you suggest that is your choice.

The exchange has been most illuminating.

However let's stop this double pool nonsense.

My post 196 which you responding to does not mention a second pool at all.
It says:

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.."


There it is a single pool. Which extends under her body.
So please stop saying something which is demonstrably contrary to the ACTUAL words posted.



Steve

[Fisherman]

I do not think I abuse you Fisherman...I believe you are a... researcher who has become one-eyed...
steve

Reading between the lines.

I am calling it a day now, after having the rest of your posts and Davids efforts - much of it (Davids more so) is complete poppycock and tediously repetitious. David is not even able to tell a yes from a no, it seems.

Have a great day.

[Fisherman]

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

He said the blood was running, and not only that it was oozing. And it was running minutes after too, as Mizen arrived. That paints a pretty clear picture.

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.

Yes, thatīs possible. But it is nevertheless the only source we have, and so it remains our best guess that the term was used.

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.

The problem is that we cannot establish what it took for Neil to use the term profusely. It may have been enough that the blood was steadly running into the pool, which is what I think happened. There was never any torrent of blood, as I said before.

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.

Ehrm - to "rely" on it would mean that I discarded alternative suggestion. Do you see me doing that, or do you see me saying that "profusely" is the only and therefore also the best source there is?

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?

But that is not true, is it? He used BOTH oozed and running. Why is it so important for you to leave that out? And just as it is impossible for us to establish what he would have meant by "profusely", it is equally impossible to gauge "oozing".
The blood was running from the neck wound, it must have tapered off after a while, but it was "stil running" when Mizen looked. Just how logical is it that it went from oozing to running, David? Why did not Mizen use "oozing" if that was what he saw?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: 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.

The pressure will NORMALLY drop, but if asphyxiation is involved, something interesting happens. This is from a 1940:s text by O A Trowell, the link being https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...01492-0078.pdf
When an animal dies from anoxia (or asphyxia) vacuoles rapidly develop during the first 5-15min. post-mortem, provided the animal is not bled out. In such an animal the venous blood pressure rises considerably just before death and a positive venous pressure persists for some time after death."

I looked into this years ago, but cannot find my original source. But this speaks of the same matter - blood pressure getting boosted by asphyxiation and remaining there for some time after death.

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.

Then you should begin by dropping the double pool idea. For starters.

[Fisherman]

But what does desanguinated mean in this context?

Chew on it. It will come to you, Iīm sure.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Fisherman you really do not need to create these various analogies because I can understand the English language perfectly well. So I know what Payne-James said. This new example you have given is irrelevant because the statement "I guess he can be able to reach all of them" is not what Payne-James said or anything like it.

Payne-James did not comment on times longer than seven minutes. In the exact same way, my analogy left out that kind of question, so the analogy is a perfect one. The kind you so dislike.

Payne James said that blood can flow for up to 7 minutes. That's it.

He did not say a iot about whether it could flow BEYOND seven minutes, and itīs time you realized that. I can count up to ten idiotic misunderstandings on your behalf on thsi thread only. Does that mean that I cannot count to eleven, if the question I was asked was "Can you count up to ten idiotic mistakes by David Orsam on this thread only?".

How should I answer the question? With a "no" because I can count to eleven? Or with a yes, because I certainly CAN count to ten?

If you are asked "can you jump one yard?", do you answer "no", because you can jump one and a half?

If somebody asks about you "Do you think David Orsam can jump one yard, one and a half yards or two yards", getting the answer "Yweah, I guees he can jump up to those lengths", does that mean that the person answering will never accept that you can jump any longer, or does it mean that he accepts that you can jump any of those three lengths suggested?

You are trying to misrepresent me, and you are trying to create the impression that I am a devious person who consciously misled Payne-James.

Thatīs the bad news.

The good news is that you are making a farce of the effort.

[Fisherman]

This is a very odd statement. I have no "purposes" other than finding out the truth.

Welcome on board, then. Itīs about time.