Blood oozing

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: It is extended under the upper body, therefore of course it can be partially hidden from Llewellyn.

You are fabulating, Steve - we donīt even know that it did extend under the upper body. The blood in the cloth could have come from above, from the wound itself.

Not at all. The reports of Helston do not suggest that at all.

No it need not be directly under, it could be to the side, the description does not give enough information to say where it actually was.

Ah - so the blood could have run not straight down, but to the side, when flowing from the neck?

Read what is written and understand. I do not say it could not. I say it may not have.

I see your interpretation, no problem; but you really should say “I believe the pool will not,” rather than “the pool will not”.

Itīs not me saying it, itīs the police.

It is certainly not the police. It is you. This approach that only one intepretation is acceptable is that of a truly closed mind.
However the comment yesterday that there is only one logical bid demonstrated that clearly so I am not surprised.

Not at all there was one pool, its exact location and how far it went in any direction are certainly not fixed by the sources

Not down to the millimeter, no - but it did not reach the waist, for example, by a long way. It may not even have stretched a single millimeter in under the body. The blood in the cloth could have soaked into it from above.

Your own intepretation, ignoring much in the sources. Which you just ignore as they do not fit your view.

You have a very strange interpretation of the word extension my friend, to me it means, an extra part to the original but still part of the original, not a separate entity.
So that was not what I wrote, it was not poorly worded, you just have an odd view of the word extension.

You spoke of a second pool that was an extension of the first one. 1+1 makes 2. It came across as an idea that the first pool leaked into another pool.
If you cannot see and acknowledge that, I donīt really care - not all people recognize what they say, and some donīt want to. In the end, what metters is that we are agreed that there was just the one pool.

No I spoke of one pool that extended under the body.
Read what is written not what you wish was written.

But you did Fish, I never mentioned two pools. But I accept you misunderstood.
I was misinformed. I understood what was said. But as I say, itīs two waters under the bridge.

How could you have been misinformed? Who by other than yourself?

I am afraid not.

No? So exactly what do you disagree with?

Simply that I believe there was blood hidden under the body and that the clothing was blooded over a larger area than you suggest.

Steve

[Elamarna]

And when we have two reports, one where it is included that the collar and the upper part of the dress at the shoulders only was bloodied, and where this information is left out in the next, that points to an equal chance that it was ALL bloodied.

Actually no reports specifically say only one area was bloodied. Some only include the collar and shoulders and say the skirts were not bloodied but do not mention the area between.
Some say the area towards the neck and shoulders but are not specific.

Others again say the back is saturated with blood.

And of course we have the odd one which says the skirts were blooded and the rest not.

None of those fit what you describe here. And that failure to correctly engage in this part of the debate is sad.

Steve

[Elamarna]

The issue over the lack or not of blood spray is truly fascinating.

Fisherman is intent on proving that there was none and thus this proves that the abdomenial wounds were first and the cause of death.
This is despite one expert Dr Biggs saying that spray is not always present.
And it now seems he does not wish to accept his own experts view on the issue.
In the documentary Payne-James said he believed she was strangled and that:

"Although we know the carotid arteries were cut, it would seem that that was after death so it may just leak out, and dribble out, or drain out, around the contours of the neck in this case, over a period of minutes."[/QUOTE]

But no . Such does not fit the theory and so the experts, both of the medical ones may be wrong and the layman correct.

Steve

[John G]

It even answers questions I never asked.

Thanks for verifying that there can be postmortem spray from the venous system.

As for the abdominal damage done to Nichols, it was very severe, and it was said something like "all the vital organs were struck", so I think that there is a very fair possiblity that the large vessels were heavily affected. Indeed, Llewellyn stated that most of the blood had leaked out of arteries and veins and sunk into the abdominal cavity.

Where does Dr Llewellyn say that?

[John G]

The issue over the lack or not of blood spray is truly fascinating.

Fisherman is intent on proving that there was none and thus this proves that the abdomenial wounds were first and the cause of death.
This is despite one expert Dr Biggs saying that spray is not always present.
And it now seems he does not wish to accept his own experts view on the issue.
In the documentary Payne-James said he believed she was strangled and that:

"Although we know the carotid arteries were cut, it would seem that that was after death so it may just leak out, and dribble out, or drain out, around the contours of the neck in this case, over a period of minutes."

But no . Such does not fit the theory and so the experts, both of the medical ones may be wrong and the layman correct.

Steve[/QUOTE

Hi Steve,

Yes, it's very peculiar, he seems to have abandoned his own expert, preferring instead his own layman's opinion. Of course, it makes no sense that the abdomen was attacked first as that would have meant a full-frontal confrontation, giving Nichols the opportunity to resist and call for help.

Moreover, if he did indeed strangle Nichols why would he then target the abdomen before returning to the neck? I mean, that would mean he strangles the victim until she's expired (as per Payne-James), then decides to target the abdomen, before suddenly realizing that he forgot to cut the throat, so he returns to the neck and commences a major throat/neck cut, even though by this point she's probably been dead for several minutes!

[Fisherman]

You didn't finesse anything. My question was this:

"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?"

The one you answered was this:

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

I want my question answered, not the one you changed it to.

But you said the two words could mean the same thing, did you not? Has that changed all of a sudden?

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: If only I had the hair left to let down.

I do hope I am not to blame?

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: You may well speak a lot of languages but Swedish, Danish, German, French, Italian and Spanish don't help at all if you mess up the English.

I don't criticize you as a Swede for not speaking English well but it means that your arguments are not going to work if you misunderstand the language.

So I don't know why you think that oozing "can refer to a minimal leakage that is so small that it does not even run". In which dictionary do you find this meaning of the word ooze? Every one I have consulted refers to some kind of movement or flow.

So please don't try your sophistry with me

Of course it involves movement. But not necessarily running.

And Neil did not say the blood "ran rather profusely". He simply didn't say it. He said it was oozing.

I am not saying that Neil said it ran rather profusely. I am suggesting he may have, and that this is what was set off in the early paper articles.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman you still haven't explained what you think desanguination means.

Are you going to do it?

No, I am banking on you understanding it anyway. If I do try, I may just get tangled up in that difficult language of yours.

[Fisherman]

Truly wonderful how you seek to portray Paul's response as supporting your views.
The trouble is it actually does not.
However the argument is so damaged that you grab at anything, like the article earlier which you clearly did not understand. The same applies here.

Steve

So there could have been no spray from the venous system if the heart had stopped beating, is that what you are saying?

[Fisherman]

The issue over the lack or not of blood spray is truly fascinating.

Fisherman is intent on proving that there was none and thus this proves that the abdomenial wounds were first and the cause of death.
This is despite one expert Dr Biggs saying that spray is not always present.
And it now seems he does not wish to accept his own experts view on the issue.
In the documentary Payne-James said he believed she was strangled and that:

"Although we know the carotid arteries were cut, it would seem that that was after death so it may just leak out, and dribble out, or drain out, around the contours of the neck in this case, over a period of minutes."

But no . Such does not fit the theory and so the experts, both of the medical ones may be wrong and the layman correct.

Steve[/QUOTE]

You are making a complete idiot of yourself, Steve. Try not to.

Payne-James does not say that the blood WILL only leak and dribble out after death, he says that it MAY do so. And he speaks of a period of minutes, meaning that he is discussing the bloodflow on the whole - what happens with the blood in a case like the Nichols case, where all the major vessels in the neck are opened up.
Nota bene that Payne-James was quite aware that she had also had the abdomen extensively cut, and if that came first, then why would the blood fro the neck NOT simply dribble and leak out?

This you do not take into account, because your aim is not to get to the root of things - it is to try and defend you own poppycock, and to try and tarnish me as best as you can.

And look how you fared.

[Fisherman]

Where does Dr Llewellyn say that?

At the inquest.

[Elamarna]

So there could have been no spray from the venous system if the heart had stopped beating, is that what you are saying?

No not what I am saying at all. It's possible; but not that common as I understand it. And it will not be on anything like the same magnitude as from arterial.

Christer,
While you continue to say there is only one possible intreptation of events I will continue to show that is not the case.
I can provide just as much source data as yourself, and argue equally as well based on that data and I will not say something that the data cannot be seen to support.

I assume you have the same view of what you post.

We disagree, my only objection to some of what you post is that you in fact present it as established fact when it is not. Say it's what you think and there is no problem.



Steve

[Fisherman]

But no . Such does not fit the theory and so the experts, both of the medical ones may be wrong and the layman correct.

Steve[/QUOTE

Hi Steve,

Yes, it's very peculiar, he seems to have abandoned his own expert, preferring instead his own layman's opinion. Of course, it makes no sense that the abdomen was attacked first as that would have meant a full-frontal confrontation, giving Nichols the opportunity to resist and call for help.

Moreover, if he did indeed strangle Nichols why would he then target the abdomen before returning to the neck? I mean, that would mean he strangles the victim until she's expired (as per Payne-James), then decides to target the abdomen, before suddenly realizing that he forgot to cut the throat, so he returns to the neck and commences a major throat/neck cut, even though by this point she's probably been dead for several minutes!

Aha. So if you throttle somebody, then you will inevitably cut the neck first, because you have already directed interest to it? Is that how you reason?

[Elamarna]

But no . Such does not fit the theory and so the experts, both of the medical ones may be wrong and the layman correct.

You are making a complete idiot of yourself, Steve. Try not to.

Payne-James does not say that the blood WILL only leak and dribble out after death, he says that it MAY do so. And he speaks of a period of minutes, meaning that he is discussing the bloodflow on the whole - what happens with the blood in a case like the Nichols case, where all the major vessels in the neck are opened up.
Nota bene that Payne-James was quite aware that she had also had the abdomen extensively cut, and if that came first, then why would the blood fro the neck NOT simply dribble and leak out?

This you do not take into account, because your aim is not to get to the root of things - it is to try and defend you own poppycock, and to try and tarnish me as best as you can.

And look how you fared.

Actual in the documentary he talks of far less extensive abdomenial damage, the charts shown echo this. It is in the documentary.

He say he believed that say was probably strangled and then he says the above. It is a direct quote my friend.
And of course it is only a possability but you appear to wish to discard this in favour of your own theory, that of a non expert over an expert. It again demonstrates the single view approach.

You do not like what Biggs and in this instance Payne-james say is possible, or indeed probable, that is not my fault.

Again personal insult do not reflect well on you.



Steve