Blood oozing

[John G]

Firstly, I can fully understand why a sensationalist newspaper might use the adverb "profusely" in the wrong context: typical journalistic hyperbole.

However, I think we're missing the bigger picture here. Firstly, even if blood was just oozing out that doesn't mean Nichols hadn't been recently killed. Dr Biggs said this in respect of Eddowes' murder, but it has general application:

"Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the blood to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally."

He added:

"The large arteries on the neck are quite well 'hidden' behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut the initial 'spray' is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes/flows/drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting." (Marriott, 2015).

Secondly,I consider what Paul said in Post 31 to have more relevance than the blood evidence: Robert Paul believed there was respiratory effort and cardiac output, and if he was right, he might not have been, then he must have arrived very soon after Nichols was cut.

As for Payne-James, I still have no real idea as to what question he was asked, or thought he was being asked, and on that basis, there is uncertainty as to what the 3-7 minute time period was meant to refer to.

[Fisherman]

John G: Firstly, I can fully understand why a sensationalist newspaper might use the adverb "profusely" in the wrong context: typical journalistic hyperbole.

I can understand that too. I don´t think there´s a single person out here who can NOT understand it, John.

However, I think we're missing the bigger picture here.

Do you? Well, let´s try and avoid that!

Firstly, even if blood was just oozing out that doesn't mean Nichols hadn't been recently killed.

Yes, it does. With blood oozing we do have a recent deed. It is instead a question of HOW recent.

Dr Biggs said this in respect of Eddowes' murder, but it has general application:

"Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed."

So let´s see, what does Biggs mean? That if the major vessels in the neck are severed, there may possibly be a lot of blood? Yes, that must be what he says. Interesting!

"It is possible for much of the blood to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally."

Okay. So if a person tied standing up has his neck cut, it may be that not all of the blood wells up to the wound and exits the body.
Sounds a very fair assessment to my ears, especially if the person is dead. It´s kind of how removing the cork from a wine bottle won´t necessarily have all the wine - or even much of it - exiting the standing bottle.
Once again, quite interesting, John. But ... doesn´t it kind of go without saying?

He added:

"The large arteries on the neck are quite well 'hidden' behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut the initial 'spray' is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes/flows/drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting." (Marriott, 2015).

Ah! THAT old canard again! You know, John, I have commented on this on a handful of occasions, and I always start the same way: Regardless of how well hidden the large arteries of the neck are, we have it in black and white that they were nevertheless severed in Nichols´ case.

So why bring it up? What relevance does it have here, when we know that all the major vessels in the neck were completely severed? Are you suggesting the arteries hid from the killers knife, or are you more interested in discussing other cases than Nichols?

As for the next point, yes, if the body is positioned in such a manner as to shut the wound and prevent the blood from flowing, there will be a longer exiting time for the blood.
But why bring it up in a case where we have a woman lying flat on her back, and who has had her neck cut off so as to sever every main vessel in it? It was a cut that almost took her head off. Why would we reason that the wound was probably shut by the positioning of the body, when it is not even possible?

The most important thing about Biggs is that we should take note that THESE are matters that he suggests may have contributed to a longer time of blood exiting. THIS is what he means when he says that bleeding can go on for a very long time. Payne-James says the exact same thing - if the circumstances allow for it, bleeding can be a very long process.

But as far as we are aware, the circumstances in the Nichols case do NOT allow for a prolonged bleeding. And that was why Payne-James opted for the bleeding being a finished chapter withing three or five minutes, at most. Maybe he would have thought two minutes an even likelier suggestion, I don´t know. But I DO know that he regarded seven minutes less likely than three or five.

Secondly,I consider what Paul said in Post 31 to have more relevance than the blood evidence: Robert Paul believed there was respiratory effort and cardiac output, and if he was right, he might not have been, then he must have arrived very soon after Nichols was cut.

I hear what you say, but I don´t think it as as relevant at all. He said he "thought" he may have felt a slight movement, but he was not sure. He was probably agitated, and that does not help. Last, but not least, depending on how he felt for warth at the chest, what he felt may have been a slight movement may have been his own pulse beating inside his hand.
So much as I take it into account, I myself do not think it carries as much relevance as the blood.

As for Payne-James, I still have no real idea as to what question he was asked, or thought he was being asked, and on that basis, there is uncertainty as to what the 3-7 minute time period was meant to refer to.

Here it is:

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

J P-J: 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.

David Orsams way of trying to get past this was to invent a situation where Payne-James spoke about "flow" only, and that he therefore did not include running, trickling or oozing in his answer. But he actually answered to a question about how long it would take for a person like Nichols to bleed out completely and STOP BLEEDING.

I´m not sure how you are going to try and get past it. Or if you will accept it. Let´s see.
Regardless of how you react to it, can we please leave suggestions of uncut major vessels and shut wounds and such matters aside? They are as irrelevant as they have always been, and I hope you can understand that now.

PS. If you want to know how I described Nichols, this is it:
Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground?
Payne-James was aware of the substantial damage to the abdomen and he was aware of how all the major vessels in the neck had been severed.

[Elamarna]

Christer

I will respond to your post from yesterday later or tomorrow as I am at a cricket match today.

However I wonder if you could be of assistance given you extensive knowledge of the events.

You may have seen I am looking at Thain at present and can honestly say that am undecided if he got the cape before of after. I have read arguments both for and against and see that you did go on the side of before. Is that still the case? And is it a strong belief or on the balance of probability call?

You also mentioned inquest testimony of his regarding how long he was at Llewellyn's.

I have searched high and low over the press records but can't find it. I don't suppose you remember the paper. I assume obviously was after his appearance so 17th until 24th is where I have looked?

If you can't remember it's ok.

I will reread all over next few days to see if I can find it.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer

I will respond to your post from yesterday later or tomorrow as I am at a cricket match today.

However I wonder if you could be of assistance given you extensive knowledge of the events.

You may have seen I am looking at Thain at present and can honestly say that am undecided if he got the cape before of after. I have read arguments both for and against and see that you did go on the side of before. Is that still the case? And is it a strong belief or on the balance of probability call?

You also mentioned inquest testimony of his regarding how long he was at Llewellyn's.

I have searched high and low over the press records but can't find it. I don't suppose you remember the paper. I assume obviously was after his appearance so 17th until 24th is where I have looked?

If you can't remember it's ok.

I will reread all over next few days to see if I can find it.



Steve

I don´t think there is any source material giving any timings for how long Thain was at Llewellyn´s place. There is a post by Edward from 2013 that is pretty useful when it comes to the timings and how I look upon them. If you could refrain from thinking that I look at these matters as being absolute truths, I would be thankful.
The post went like this:

"Whenever discussing timings the obvious caveat apples that clocks were few and far between and often inaccurate. Times were often rounded up or down.

The times that need to interest us are the times between Lechmere leaving his house and arriving at Brown’s Stable Yard.
The time it took for Paul to leave home and arrive at the same location.
The time it took for Paul and Lechmere to get from Brown’s Stable Yard to Mizen’s location.
The time Neil arrived at the murder scene.
The time Dr Llewellyn arrived at the murder scene.
The time between the Lechmere-Paul meeting and Llewellyn’s initial inspection of the body.

Although the actual o’clock time may be inaccurate, the time taken to walk the various short distances involved is less difficult to estimate.

The time Charles Lechmere left home is given as either 3.20 am or 3.30 am, depending on the newspaper report of his inquest testimony. That is quite an important difference given the nature of what happened and how long it would have taken to happen.
Chief Inspector Swanson’s report of 19th October 1888 states that Cross (Lechmere) and Paul found the body at 3.45 am
In his inquest testimony Lechmere said he got to work at 4.00 am.

Paul (in his Lloyd’s newspaper interview) claims that he met Lechmere at exactly 3.45 am.
In his inquest testimony he said he left home at about 3.45 am and that just 4 minutes elapsed between his meeting with Lechmere and when they got to Mizen.
He claimed to know that he was ate for work.

PC Mizen said that Lechmere and Paul met him at about 3.45 am

The only timing that PC Neil gave at the inquest seems to be when he said he passed the murder scene at 3.15 am, roughly half an hour before he found the body.
However in Inspector Spratling’s report of 31st August 1888 it is stated that PC Neil found Nichols’ body at 3.45 am. This time was repeated in Helson’s report of 7th September.
The initial pre-inquest newspaper reports also gave the time of PC Neil’s discovery as 3.45 am.

PC Thain said he was signalled by PC Neil at about 3.45 am.
He was sent to get the doctor and claims it took him ten minutes to return.
Caution has to be exercised with Thain’s timings for his trip to Dr. Llewellyn’s surgery as he was cross examined about when he picked his cape up. The cape had been left at the horse butchers yard in Winthrop Street, by a brother office allegedly. Thain claimed he didn’t tell the butchers about the murder. They said otherwise. Neil said the butchers were the first passers by the turn up and there were bystanders present when Llewellyn got there. The obvious inference is that Thain stopped off to get his cape when on his way to get Llewellyn.
Thain seemed sensitive to suggestions he had left his beat to deposit his cape at the slaughter yard and also to suggestions that he did not go immediately for Llewellyn but diverted to gossip with the butchers. It was against regulations to leave for an officer to leave his beat.
However it seems clear to me that Thain did get his cape at that stage as afterwards he was busy and the butcher’s yard would have been closed.
The significance of this diversion is that it would have delayed Thain in getting Llewellyn by quite a few minutes.

Llewellyn said he was called at about 4 am by Thain.
He then had to dress and get to Buck’s Row.
When he examined Nichols, he estimated that she had been dead for not more than half an hour. That is a very narrow time frame. That is why the few extra minutes delay in getting Llewellyn is of some significance.
Llewellyn probably didn’t get to Brown’s Stable Yard until 4.10 am.
This means his estimated time of death would have been around 3.40 – or later."

There may - surprise, surprise - be other solutions to the time issues, and many things can be argued two ways. I know that already, but as I keep saying, I am looking to see whether the circumstances fit with Lechmere as the killer or if they seem to either rule him out or simply diminish his viability. On the whole, I find that the carman fits the guilty scenario very well.

[Elamarna]

I don´t think there is any source material giving any timings for how long Thain was at Llewellyn´s place. There is a post by Edward from 2013 that is pretty useful when it comes to the timings and how I look upon them. If you could refrain from thinking that I look at these matters as being absolute truths, I would be thankful.
The post went like this:

"Whenever discussing timings the obvious caveat apples that clocks were few and far between and often inaccurate. Times were often rounded up or down.

The times that need to interest us are the times between Lechmere leaving his house and arriving at Brown’s Stable Yard.
The time it took for Paul to leave home and arrive at the same location.
The time it took for Paul and Lechmere to get from Brown’s Stable Yard to Mizen’s location.
The time Neil arrived at the murder scene.
The time Dr Llewellyn arrived at the murder scene.
The time between the Lechmere-Paul meeting and Llewellyn’s initial inspection of the body.

Although the actual o’clock time may be inaccurate, the time taken to walk the various short distances involved is less difficult to estimate.

The time Charles Lechmere left home is given as either 3.20 am or 3.30 am, depending on the newspaper report of his inquest testimony. That is quite an important difference given the nature of what happened and how long it would have taken to happen.
Chief Inspector Swanson’s report of 19th October 1888 states that Cross (Lechmere) and Paul found the body at 3.45 am
In his inquest testimony Lechmere said he got to work at 4.00 am.

Paul (in his Lloyd’s newspaper interview) claims that he met Lechmere at exactly 3.45 am.
In his inquest testimony he said he left home at about 3.45 am and that just 4 minutes elapsed between his meeting with Lechmere and when they got to Mizen.
He claimed to know that he was ate for work.

PC Mizen said that Lechmere and Paul met him at about 3.45 am

The only timing that PC Neil gave at the inquest seems to be when he said he passed the murder scene at 3.15 am, roughly half an hour before he found the body.
However in Inspector Spratling’s report of 31st August 1888 it is stated that PC Neil found Nichols’ body at 3.45 am. This time was repeated in Helson’s report of 7th September.
The initial pre-inquest newspaper reports also gave the time of PC Neil’s discovery as 3.45 am.

PC Thain said he was signalled by PC Neil at about 3.45 am.
He was sent to get the doctor and claims it took him ten minutes to return.
Caution has to be exercised with Thain’s timings for his trip to Dr. Llewellyn’s surgery as he was cross examined about when he picked his cape up. The cape had been left at the horse butchers yard in Winthrop Street, by a brother office allegedly. Thain claimed he didn’t tell the butchers about the murder. They said otherwise. Neil said the butchers were the first passers by the turn up and there were bystanders present when Llewellyn got there. The obvious inference is that Thain stopped off to get his cape when on his way to get Llewellyn.
Thain seemed sensitive to suggestions he had left his beat to deposit his cape at the slaughter yard and also to suggestions that he did not go immediately for Llewellyn but diverted to gossip with the butchers. It was against regulations to leave for an officer to leave his beat.
However it seems clear to me that Thain did get his cape at that stage as afterwards he was busy and the butcher’s yard would have been closed.
The significance of this diversion is that it would have delayed Thain in getting Llewellyn by quite a few minutes.

Llewellyn said he was called at about 4 am by Thain.
He then had to dress and get to Buck’s Row.
When he examined Nichols, he estimated that she had been dead for not more than half an hour. That is a very narrow time frame. That is why the few extra minutes delay in getting Llewellyn is of some significance.
Llewellyn probably didn’t get to Brown’s Stable Yard until 4.10 am.
This means his estimated time of death would have been around 3.40 – or later."

There may - surprise, surprise - be other solutions to the time issues, and many things can be argued two ways. I know that already, but as I keep saying, I am looking to see whether the circumstances fit with Lechmere as the killer or if they seem to either rule him out or simply diminish his viability. On the whole, I find that the carman fits the guilty scenario very well.

Many thanks Christer.

Just what I was looking for..

I only asked about the time at Llewellyn's because on an old post you were telling someone to read what Thain had said. It was 5 years back so things obviously were confused then or have become clearer now.


Thank you


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

There may - surprise, surprise - be other solutions to the time issues, and many things can be argued two ways. I know that already, but as I keep saying, I am looking to see whether the circumstances fit with Lechmere as the killer or if they seem to either rule him out or simply diminish his viability. On the whole, I find that the carman fits the guilty scenario very well.

What you're saying is that the "time issues" fit Cross being in the same street as Nichols' body at around the time of her death. In and of themselves, the timings say nothing about Cross's guilt, anymore than we can use the mere fact of time to attribute guilt to Cadoche, Schwartz, Diemschutz, PC Harvey, John McCarthy, Sarah Lewis, Elizabeth Prater etc etc etc.

[Fisherman]

What you're saying is that the "time issues" fit Cross being in the same street as Nichols' body at around the time of her death. In and of themselves, the timings say nothing about Cross's guilt, anymore than we can use the mere fact of time to attribute guilt to Cadoche, Schwartz, Diemschutz, PC Harvey, John McCarthy, Sarah Lewis, Elizabeth Prater etc etc etc.

There is no blood evidence that relates to Cadosh, Schwartz, Harvey, Mc Carthy, Lewis or Prater.
Diemschitz said that blood had run from the body towards the kitchen door, but nothing is said about that blood still flowing as he looked. Johnston said that the blood had all run away and was clotted as he saw Stride.

So these people are not relevant comparisons - as usual. With Lechmere, we know that the victim was bleeding many minutes after he left the body, and we know that Jason Payne-James says that he is more inclined to opt for a bleeding time of three or five than seven minutes.

The old hat balderdash about McCarthy - who saw Kelly hours after she died - would be of equal interest is as farcical as it ever was.

Nothing much changes, does it?

As an aside, of course there is no guilt involved of being close to a murder victim at a time that fits with the TOD. But as you well know, there are many other things that seemingly point a finger at Lechmere. Plus even if there was not, we would still be left with him as the only established person at the murder site who could have been the killer. Paul is ruled out by the circumstances, and we are left with the dreaded Phantom killer only as an alternative - the guy quibbling ripperologists call Druitt, Kosminski, Levy, van Gogh, Sickert, Hyams, Kelly, Feigenbaum...

Based on a traditional police investigation approach, Lechmere is and remains the prime suspect - ouch!!!

[Harry D]

There is no blood evidence that relates to Cadosh, Schwartz, Harvey, Mc Carthy, Lewis or Prater.

There's that phrase again.

[Fisherman]

There's that phrase again.

There´s that ignorance again.

[David Orsam]

However, I think we're missing the bigger picture here. Firstly, even if blood was just oozing out that doesn't mean Nichols hadn't been recently killed. Dr Biggs said this in respect of Eddowes' murder, but it has general application:

I've been following this thread John and I'm not aware of anyone who was saying that the oozing shows Nichols hadn't been recently killed. Where do you think you have read this?

[David Orsam]

But as far as we are aware, the circumstances in the Nichols case do NOT allow for a prolonged bleeding. And that was why Payne-James opted for the bleeding being a finished chapter withing three or five minutes, at most. Maybe he would have thought two minutes an even likelier suggestion, I don´t know. But I DO know that he regarded seven minutes less likely than three or five.

But the only "circumstances of the Nichols case" included in your question to Payne-James was that she was flat on level ground (as assumption not, in fact, supported by any evidence of which I am aware) and nothing was hindering the bloodflow. You didn't ask him anything about a victim who had been strangled or anything else specific to Nichols.

Hence, it is simply not possible for you to say that the circumstances in the Nichols case "do NOT allow for a prolonged bleeding". We have nothing to say whether they do or do not.

[David Orsam]

David Orsams way of trying to get past this was to invent a situation where Payne-James spoke about "flow" only, and that he therefore did not include running, trickling or oozing in his answer. But he actually answered to a question about how long it would take for a person like Nichols to bleed out completely and STOP BLEEDING.

I'm hardly inventing a situation; that's exactly what happened.

You asked Payne James about "bleeding" and he changed the word to "flow". That's probably because dead bodies don't 'bleed' as such, a point made by Dr Biggs:

"I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life."

But what you are ignoring, Fisherman, is the most critical point which is that you were asking Payne-James about a situation where someone had already suffered a massive blood loss, i.e. desanguination. You introduced the concept of massive blood loss into the picture so what Payne James can only have been saying (or guessing) is that when a body suffers a massive blood loss upon the throat being cut, the blood will most likely stop flowing in 3-5 minutes but possibly up to 7 minutes.

He said precisely nothing about oozing under any circumstances.

[Sam Flynn]

There is no blood evidence that relates to Cadosh, Schwartz, Harvey, Mc Carthy, Lewis or Prater.

There is as much "blood evidence" in their cases as there is in respect of Cross - each witness was in the right place and time to be in the vicinity of a victim who had shed, or would soon be shedding, a copious amount of blood.

PS: You forgot Diemschutz, who was demonstrably in closer proximity to a bleeding victim than Cross was when Paul arrived on the scene. And, if you like, the "blood evidence" is even more damning in respect of Diemschutz than it is in respect of Cross. (Not that it's "damning" in either case.)

[Sam Flynn]

There´s that ignorance again.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

[Observer]

But the only "circumstances of the Nichols case" included in your question to Payne-James was that she was flat on level ground (as assumption not, in fact, supported by any evidence of which I am aware) and nothing was hindering the bloodflow. You didn't ask him anything about a victim who had been strangled or anything else specific to Nichols.

Hence, it is simply not possible for you to say that the circumstances in the Nichols case "do NOT allow for a prolonged bleeding". We have nothing to say whether they do or do not.

Where's the evidence that Nichols was strangled?