Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

To be perfectly fair, David, we DO have a number of sketches showing that the pavement was not very tilted (if at all) and we DO have descriptions and sketeches showing Nichols laying apparently flat or almost flat on the ground.
We CAN of course quibble over this too, but to what avail? To show all and sundry that there was never any estaboshed angle of the pavement and so she MAY have lain a little less that absolutely flat?

Well flat and almost flat are two different things.

Even a gentle slope in the street is potentially going to bring gravity into play isn’t it?

[David Orsam]

That was not involved in the passage quoted out here, no - but we certainly discussed the matter

What relevance is it as to whether you and he "discussed the matter"? I mean, big deal. The premise of your specific questioning of him did not involve any strangulation.

On the contrary, your question assumed a MASSIVE BLOOD FLOW, inconsistent with what Payne James said about blood dribbling or leaking out of the body after death when strangulation occurs.

Conclusion.

When he answered your specific question he was NOT answering with strangulation in mind. Thus he was NOT answering your question with the specific case of Nichols in mind.

[David Orsam]

These are of course matters that I know of whereas you don´t

Are you seriously telling me "I know something you don't know"? What are you, a child? If you have some relevant information post it. If not, you'll forgive me for accepting what Dr Biggs has stated clearly on the subject of blood oozing.

[David Orsam]

I lean against J P-J, who certainly IS qualified. And as you know, he said that the bleeding was more likely to be completed and stop withing three or five minutes than in seven. That is not going to go away, as you may understand.

What is not going to go away Fisherman is that, in your questioning of him, you told Payne James to assume that there was a MASSIVE BLOOD LOSS.

You know, desanguination, that word you twice evaded defining in this thread. The word you NEVER mention.

So when P-J was talking about the blood loss, he was doing so in the context of desanguination, i.e. a massive blood loss after death. And THIS blood loss, he was telling you, or rather guessing, would likely stop after 7 minutes.

He said nothing about any subsequent oozing.

Your poorly worded question asked about “bleed out completely”. What on earth does it mean? It is a meaningless phrase.

Then when you asked him about bleeding he spoke of flowing in his answer.

It’s perfectly clear to anyone and everyone that you asked him in the context of a massive blood loss immediately after death how long the blood would take to stop flowing from the wound and this is what he told you when, in guessing, he selected from the three random options that you offered him.

[David Orsam]

Well, that idea of yours goes out the window when we look at the exact phrasing of the question J P-J answered:

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

... to which he answered:

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.

The total bloodflow involves all kinds of blood exiting, and Payne-James was clearly asked when the "bleeding" (not the flowing) would seize, not when it would go from "bleeding" to "oozing". And "oozing" is "bleeding".

So you are wrong. Quite simply. And that goes for the more exotic allegations involved too.

Once again, you seem to forget that you when you said "such a person" to Payne-James, that meant someone who had suffered MASSIVE BLOOD LOSS.

This "such a person" had already been defined by you in the first question when you asked Payne-James to assume desanguination.

That word you pretend does not exist in your questions.

You now want to create the illusion that in asking Payne-James about "bleeding", a word he did not use himself, he must have been thinking about oozing, even though when answering your question he referred to "flow".

And this was in the context of a massive blood loss that you had asked him to assume.

The simple fact is that Payne-James said precisely nothing about oozing. He was not directing his mind to it. Whereas Dr Biggs has told us that there is nothing surprising about 20 minutes of oozing after death.

The idea that Payne-James was saying that blood is not likely to ooze from a neck wound much more than 7 minutes after death is utterly absurd.

[David Orsam]

It takes more of an illusionist to go from oozing to running, as Mizen adds. In the end, it is uninteresting, since either form of bloodflow would seize in a matter of minutes, according to Payne-James.

So now you pretend to misunderstand the illusion.

The illusion is to go from oozing to oozing profusely to running to bleeding to flowing.

If you are seriously claiming that Payne-James said that oozing would "seize in a matter of minutes" then I am afraid I have to accuse you of lying.

[David Orsam]

The bloodflow on the whole contains all the different faces of bleeding. Payne-James answered my question about when the "bleeding" would seize.

End of story.

The end of story is that Payne-James only answered your inappropriate question about "bleeding", which dead people don't do, by changing your word to "flow[ing]" and did so (by guessing) in the context of having been asked to assume a massive blood loss when the throat was cut.

The end of story is that Payne-James said precisely nothing about blood oozing from the wound thereafter or at any time.

The postscript to the end of the story is that Dr Biggs has told us that blood can very possibly continue to ooze for 20 minutes and that Dr Payne-James has never contradicted this.

[Elamarna]

When the comments of Payne-James are formulated to make a working hypothesis it becomes clear that the hypothesis itself fails. This is without actually even taking the various witness statements into account.

There is therefore no "blood evidence" which relates to Lechmere.


Steve

Let me rephrase that.

It is how the comments are intpereted and used to produce a hypothesis that lead to its failure; not the comments themselves which are not at fault.


Steve

[Elamarna]

"And if you believe that, we´re gonna get along just fine."

Steve Earle, "Snake Oil"

It's not a matter of belief; it is the conclusion one must arrive at if looking at the actual hypothesis in an objective manner.

It does seem that so much time has been wasted on this hypothesis which is not scientificly valid.
Please note it is not what Payne-James says that is not valid, it is simply how those comments are used which are not valid.

Additionally the witness statements just support that the hypothesis as suggested is not valid from a scientific view point.

And finally those witness statements do not even fit with the proposed hypothesis, it fails not on one but many issues.

Don't worry it will be explained in detail later.



Steve

[Fisherman]

In which case he answered it wrongly. When you sustain wounds as catastrophic as those suffered by Polly Nichols, blood simply does not cease to exude from the body within a mere few minutes.

Prove that, please. And not by saying that you personally think this is so, but by using adequate material.

[Fisherman]

Well flat and almost flat are two different things.

Even a gentle slope in the street is potentially going to bring gravity into play isn’t it?

Gravity is in play with a flat surface too, David. Didn´t you know?

If it was tilted ten percent in any direction, it would not matter anyway - Nichols´ wound went right around her neck, and so she would bleed out just the same. There would be no significant alterations it the timings.

[Fisherman]

What relevance is it as to whether you and he "discussed the matter"? I mean, big deal. The premise of your specific questioning of him did not involve any strangulation.

On the contrary, your question assumed a MASSIVE BLOOD FLOW, inconsistent with what Payne James said about blood dribbling or leaking out of the body after death when strangulation occurs.

Conclusion.

When he answered your specific question he was NOT answering with strangulation in mind. Thus he was NOT answering your question with the specific case of Nichols in mind.

What relevance does it have if I discussed the matter with Payne-James? Well, have a guess.

You are getting bogged very deeply down in your spreading of disinformation right now. Making things up and presenting your misapprhensions as fact is unbecoming, David.

Payne-James was answering a direct question in written form. His answer was in red, since he fit it into my text to him. Your speculation that he was underinformed and answered something he was not asked is way beyond Kindergarten standard.

The other kinds there would beat the crap out of you for lying.

[Fisherman]

Are you seriously telling me "I know something you don't know"? What are you, a child? If you have some relevant information post it. If not, you'll forgive me for accepting what Dr Biggs has stated clearly on the subject of blood oozing.

Yes, I know something you don´t know.

Yes, I am a child, by my father and mother.

Yes, you can join Trevor and choose Biggs over Payne-James.

Yes, you are ill-informed and puerile.

Wait - you never asked that. Sorry.

[Fisherman]

What is not going to go away Fisherman is that, in your questioning of him, you told Payne James to assume that there was a MASSIVE BLOOD LOSS.

You know, desanguination, that word you twice evaded defining in this thread. The word you NEVER mention.

So when P-J was talking about the blood loss, he was doing so in the context of desanguination, i.e. a massive blood loss after death. And THIS blood loss, he was telling you, or rather guessing, would likely stop after 7 minutes.

He said nothing about any subsequent oozing.

Your poorly worded question asked about “bleed out completely”. What on earth does it mean? It is a meaningless phrase.

Then when you asked him about bleeding he spoke of flowing in his answer.

It’s perfectly clear to anyone and everyone that you asked him in the context of a massive blood loss immediately after death how long the blood would take to stop flowing from the wound and this is what he told you when, in guessing, he selected from the three random options that you offered him.

"Perfectly clear"?

You could not tell perfectly clear from the sewage that is flowing (not oozing) from your mouth.

Pane-James was asked about the bleeding time, and when it would stop completely.

He opted for htee or five minutes being better suggestions than seven.

And I am having a field day enjoying you being so tormented by that fact that you are willing to try and conjure up an "alternative fact" - the Trump of the boards, as it were!

Soak it up. It won´t go away.

[David Orsam]

Gravity is in play with a flat surface too, David. Didn´t you know?

If it was tilted ten percent in any direction, it would not matter anyway - Nichols´ wound went right around her neck, and so she would bleed out just the same. There would be no significant alterations it the timings.

Can you firstly provide a source for the above?

And secondly can you define the phrase "bleed out" for me please?

You do realise the issue is about oozing of blood don't you?