Blood oozing

[John G]

Hi John,

Evidence for strangulation would include the bruising you mention, plus discolouration of the face (not remarked upon) and protrusion of the tongue (note small laceration), amongst others. The coroner however issued a certificate stating violent syncope due to cuts to the neck and abdomen: I.e. bled to death from the neck and abdomen. It needs to be remembered that some of the postmortem evidence was retained from the jury (or at least from reporters).

Strangulation takes many stages, to initial unconsciousness can take seconds, but to complete asphyxic death can be minutes. If victim were merely unconscious, then the blood pressure would be maintained and in the case of the internal carotid, blood flow maintained, until a significant volume of blood has been lost, only starting to tail off after there is loss of consciousness from that blood loss (ignore for one moment that bilateral severance of the carotids results in unconsciousness within ten to twenty seconds).

Best wishes

Paul

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the very informative reply. It does therefore appear that Payne James was being speculative when postulating that the victim had been strangled. And, of course, even she had you point out that could add several minutes to the total time the perpetrator was with the victim.

[kjab3112]

The pool contained perhaps two wineglasses of blood or half a pint of it, as per Llewellyn. Very roughly speaking, that would mean that there was up towards three decilitres of blood in that pool.
That means that there cannot have been any torrent of bleeding, provided that there was no outled from the pool. Incidentally, there WAS such an outlet, and blood had run from then pool into the gutter. It is not specified how much blood had left the pool that way, but if it had been a very significant amount, we would have known. Instead, a scarcity of blood was commented on.

Fisherman,

The blood pool volume you refer to seems impossibly small. I am aware Llewllyn did not see the blood soaked clothes, but this estimate (which you state may be wrong due to an unrecognised outflow) seems at odds with his postmortem findings of exsanguination as a cause of death. Even more so as this would be the volume from only one carotid in less than a minute if completely severed and certainly not a fatal volume of blood loss.

Regards

Paul

[kjab3112]

In the documentary Payne-James refers to Nichols being strangled-based upon the bruise on the lower part of the jaw, which he says is consistent with manual strangulation. He then goes on to say that there would be no arterial spray if her throat was cut after strangulation because she would be dead. The blood would therefore, "leak out, drip out, drain out over a period of minutes."

However, I can't see how he could possibly be sure she'd been strangled. He obviously didn't examine the body and, although strangulation is a possibility, Dr Llewellyn did not arrive at that conclusion. Moreover, we can't be sure how old the bruise was. And Dr Biggs points out that "the presence or absence of bruising around the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation/suffocation." (Marriott, 2015.)

Hi John,

Evidence for strangulation would include the bruising you mention, plus discolouration of the face (not remarked upon) and protrusion of the tongue (note small laceration), amongst others. The coroner however issued a certificate stating violent syncope due to cuts to the neck and abdomen: I.e. bled to death from the neck and abdomen. It needs to be remembered that some of the postmortem evidence was retained from the jury (or at least from reporters).

Strangulation takes many stages, to initial unconsciousness can take seconds, but to complete asphyxic death can be minutes. If victim were merely unconscious, then the blood pressure would be maintained and in the case of the internal carotid, blood flow maintained, until a significant volume of blood has been lost, only starting to tail off after there is loss of consciousness from that blood loss (ignore for one moment that bilateral severance of the carotids results in unconsciousness within ten to twenty seconds).

Best wishes

Paul

[John G]

My transcription of his statement is:

"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."

Hi David,

Thanks. I've just viewed the relevant part of the documentary and your transcription is correct.

[David Orsam]

In the documentary Payne-James refers to Nichols being strangled-based upon the bruise on the lower part of the jaw, which he says is consistent with manual strangulation. He then goes on to say that there would be no arterial spray if her throat was cut after strangulation because she would be dead. The blood would therefore, "leak out, drip out, drain out over a period of minutes."

My transcription of his statement is:

"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."

[John G]

In the documentary Payne-James refers to Nichols being strangled-based upon the bruise on the lower part of the jaw, which he says is consistent with manual strangulation. He then goes on to say that there would be no arterial spray if her throat was cut after strangulation because she would be dead. The blood would therefore, "leak out, drip out, drain out over a period of minutes."

However, I can't see how he could possibly be sure she'd been strangled. He obviously didn't examine the body and, although strangulation is a possibility, Dr Llewellyn did not arrive at that conclusion. Moreover, we can't be sure how old the bruise was. And Dr Biggs points out that "the presence or absence of bruising around the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation/suffocation." (Marriott, 2015.)

[Pierre]

Nice one, Pierre

Thanks. It is just a sociological phenomenon.

Regards, Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

It is actually a journalistic description from 1888, constructed to sell papers. Very much like other journalistic expressions used by Fisherman the journalist in 2017, like "found with the body" and "found with a freshly slain victim".

A journalist in 2017 who recognizes his own strategies in the material from 1888.

Nice one, Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

Why would the reporters make up that the blood was said to be running profusely?

For the same reason that the same reporters also said that the corpse, resting in the mortuary, was "a ghastly sight", and that her abdomen had been "completely ripped open". It's standard shock-horror journalese, designed to grip the readers, gain their empathy, and make them come back for more.

I've no doubt that Nichols' body looked pretty awful, that her abdominal wounds (whilst not "completely ripped open") were severe, and that blood was still visibly leaving the body when Neil found her. But that's not to say that we should take the journalists' descriptions too literally.

I'm not blaming the journalists for this, or implying that they were being wilfully deceptive. On the contrary, they were only doing their jobs and some of them did it very well. However, their job was not to write objective, scientific reports of the crimes.

[Pierre]

Indeed, Steve, and - as I've pointed out - "profusely bleeding" isn't a medical term at all, it's just a description. It's no more a technical term than "slightly bleeding", "slowly bleeding", "intermittently bleeding" or "severely bleeding".

It is actually a journalistic description from 1888, constructed to sell papers. Very much like other journalistic expressions used by Fisherman the journalist in 2017, like "found with the body" and "found with a freshly slain victim".

A journalist in 2017 who recognizes his own strategies in the material from 1888.

[Sam Flynn]

It was also clear from the link you supplied that your search found only this one example of the term, apparently it was not commonly used

Indeed, Steve, and - as I've pointed out - "profusely bleeding" isn't a medical term at all, it's just a description. It's no more a technical term than "slightly bleeding", "slowly bleeding", "intermittently bleeding" or "severely bleeding".

[Pierre]

Why would the reporters make up that the blood was said to be running profusely? How did they know that Nichols was so freshly killed as to still bleed? Why would the source NOT be Neil? Why should we favour the idea that is was make-believe over the idea that Neil simply said that the blood ran profusely?
They also said that the cut was from left to right - how would that be sexier than right to left? Maybe they were INFORMED that this was the general idea?

Until evidence can be presented to dispell what the papers - and they were many - said about the blood running profusely, it has to stand as the best bid we have. It is that simple, thatīs how it works. Itīs like the Alfred Long business - he has to be regarded as telling the truth until we can dispell what he said about the Goulston Street rag. Too much Ripperology is about people stating alternative views of their own as more reliable than views on different types of contemporary records.

As for the pool business, there was a pool of blood under Nichols, end of story. Letīs not be carried away by misguided ingenuity, shall we?

I will direct you to my post to David, since it involves my take on the business.

I donīt care about the Lechmere case much. There are no sources connecting Lechmere to the other murders and the only connections in your idea about Nichols are two difficult source problems: 1. Did the blood "ooze" or "flow" / "profusely" and 2. What is the so called "Mizen scam" you have postulated?

As for the rest, Kattrup and David has already shown everyone here that it was a common thing, and nothing remarkable at all, to use another name at an inquest.

You are not able to connect these three problems: if the blood "oozed" that was because Lechmere saw the murderer. If Lechmere told Mizen what he saw and then took it back, that was because he saw the murderer and became scared. If Lechmere used his other name, that was either a common thing or done to protect his family from the murderer.

Three problems in the sources from the past, one historical explanation. Simplicity.

There was a risk that Lechmere would come along and see the killer. The murder site of Nichols is the site closest to his own home and on his way to work.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Fisherman, I repeat the question, which you have not answered, and now ask for a yes or no answer:

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?

[David Orsam]

Why do you want me to answer that question, after having mocked my lacking knowledge of medical insights and having stated that I am "playing an expert"?

What use would it be for me to answer it?

To the extent that Fisherman somehow believes that his questions require an answer before he will answer my question (the one that he has blatantly ducked) I want to make clear that I am trying to see if he is prepared to give an honest answer to a question which is consistent with Lechmere's innocence? Or is he acting in bad faith to try and frame Lechmere?

I remind him of what I said in my first post in this thread:

"What I would want to know from Payne James is, if I tell him a women had been murdered with a cut throat and blood was still oozing from her neck wound fifteen or twenty minutes later would he regard that as so unlikely and so implausible as to be able to be virtually discounted as fiction on my part or would he say it's entirely possible that this could have happened."

To which Fisherman responded:

"Whether he would discount the possibility that Nichols could have bled for fifteen or twenty minutes as completely implausible, I cannot say. But given that he opted for seven minutes being less likely than three or five, I think that he would at least have been genuinely surprised by such a thing."

This is the key. Ignoring Fisherman's deliberate (and devious?) change of my language of "oozing" to his word of "bled", would an expert like Payne-James be "genuinely surprised" to hear that Nichols, or anyone, had blood oozing from their wound 20 minutes after their death? Biggs said quite clearly NO. There would be no surprise. So why would Payne-James say something different?

[David Orsam]

David

Earlier today Fisherman actually proposed that something like that happened, not a conference but that someone said about blood under Nichols body and the press presented this as "lying in a pool of blood". However when suggested that the same could be true of the "profusely " comment he appeared to be unable to accept that.

It certainly baffles me that Fisherman seems to prefer something in a newspaper article over the reported evidence at the inquest but only, it seems, to the extent it incriminates Lechmere.