Blood oozing

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Why are you referring to exsanguination? You asked Payne-James about desanguination didn't you?

Payne-James spoke of bleeding out, and the normal term there is exsanguination.

And I do not know what "bleeding out what you can bleed out" means. Nor, I suggest, did Payne-James.

Exsanguination is not the total emptying of blood - it is the process of loosing blood up til the point of death. But I also asked about how long it would take for the bleeding to stop, so although Iīm sure you may want to go on about this in eternity, you have nothing to show for your strange ideas.

When human beings bleed the heart is still pumping blood around the body. A corpse doesn't really bleed but the blood can flow out of the body immediately after death. Subsequently, at the point that blood flow stops, you could describe the body as having "bled out" but one might see continued oozing because there is still blood remaining in the body.

Not in this case, no, since I specifically asked how long the bleeding will go on. And Payne-James worked, as you know, from the assumption that Nichols was dead by strangulation. The suggestion that he was misinformed and did not know what he was answering is beyond absurd. Par for the course for you, therefore.
Have you ever seen the expression "post-mortem bleeding", David? According to you, such a thing cannot exist. And nevertheless, it is used in medical terminology in example after example out on the net.
Odd, that. Why didnīt these medicos consult you before they got it so wrong?

What we are trying to establish is how long that oozing could go on for. Dr Biggs tells us that there would be nothing surprising about it continuing for 20 minutes. Payne-James says nothing about oozing.
It's really just so simple.

Payne-James says nothing about exuding, tingling or welling either. What he says is that the process of bleeding would be over within a few minutes in a case like the Nichols case.
Speaking about simple.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, but that's simply not the case. There's around 5 litres of blood in a body, and it will take far longer than 3-5 minutes for it to stop flowing/oozing, even if the throat has been cut.

A decapitated person can loose all his blood in well under a minute, and stop bleeding. It is well documented.

In a case like the Nichols case, Payne-James said that she would stop bleeding in a matter of three or five minutes, thereabouts.

If you have proof to the contrary, then present it.

[Fisherman]

Oh Fisherman, I love the way you now seem to want to refer to oozing as "less powerful bleeding".

I am not making any assumptions at all. I am relying on what an expert has stated:

"though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins "later.”

That does not specifically refer to Nichols. Do you think that the position of the body and the character of the damage will not affect these things? Are you really that ignorant?

Of course you are not. You are doing as best as you can in a lost cause, thatīs all. And it misfires every time.

[Fisherman]

No he didn't. He changed bleeding to flowing. You never asked him when the bleeding would "stop completely" in any case.

You never asked him anything about oozing. He never said anything about oozing.

He didnīt have to. Thatīs just your way of trying not to swallow the very bitter pill you have been served. You naughty boy, you.

[Fisherman]

Because he is an expert and must know that corpses do not bleed.

He did not say "a dead person will stop bleeding in 7 minutes". He said "I guess blood may continue to flow for up to [7 minutes]".

Do you see the difference?

Not a word about oozing.

So oozing is not bleeding? Aha.

And bleeding cannot take place after death? There can be no post-mortem bleeding, a term used by scores of specialists?

Somehow, I think you are making a bleeding fool of yourself.

[Fisherman]

I seriously do not think you can answer any question.

It is clear from your replies that you do not fully understand the scientific/medical matters. Thus you make such incorrect deductions and comments that bleeding can stop in 3, 5 or seven minutes.
Do you actually understand the mechanisms involved in blood loss stopping ?

It appears your comments based on misunderstanding the information supplied to you by one "expert". An expert you appear to hold as THE authority on blood loss while disregarding the comments of other similar experts.

And finally the response you have given has nothing to do with the post you appear to be replying to.
However I note that still does not prevent you from the normal level of name calling you resort to when others disagree with you.

Bye for now


Steve

I am certain that Jason Payne-James knows what he is talking about. Itīs not about me, you see. And I have not seen any other expert comment spoecifically on Nichols, saying that he or she fionds it even remotely likely that the bleeding/dribbling/oozing would go on for twenty minutes or so.
Stride had been dead for betweenaround 12-25 minutes when Johnston saw her. She had much less damage to her body than Nichols had. Her blood had all run away and clotted as Johnston examined her.
Was he lying?
Eddowes was not reported to be bleeding from the neck as Watkins saw her. Was he forgetting to point it out?

Get me some solid proof that Nichols should have been bleeding for twenty minutes, get me an expert who comments specifically on her case, find me something else that your own convictions, and I will listen. But only then.

[Fisherman]

But how do we all know that there was massive blood loss in Nichols case in a very few minutes?

Because that is what you asked him to assume:

"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? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case?"

Then, "Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes?"

You have gone into repetition mode again. We do not know for how long she bled. She may have had her abdomen cut one minute before the neck, or three minutes before, we donīt know. It will have impacted the amount of blood that could escape via the neck afterwards, and thereby also the time. In no case would we be left with a probable scenario of a twenty minute bleeding. The neck was opened up completely, and no resistance would have been offered for whatever blood was left in her vessels over the level of the wound, meaning that gravity would make sure that it ran out over a period of a few minutes only.
If you are suggesting that there was something that would hold it back to such a degree as to prolong the bleeding/dribbling/oozin/leaking/flowing/welling into twenty minutes, then you need to tell us that that something was.

[Fisherman]

Yes, because bleeding is the wrong word.

You asked the expert to assume a massive blood loss in a few minutes, implying a fast flow of blood immediately after death, and then tried to pin him down as to when that massive blood loss would stop.

But you didn't ask him whether the blood could continue to slowly ooze out of the wound after the initial flow of blood has stopped nor how long such oozing could last for.

As to that, we already have an answer from Dr Biggs.

Post-mortem bleeding. Post-mortem bleeding, David. It is a VERY correct and usefuo term. Medicos out on the net have answered the question "for how long can we bleed after death?" numerous times, have a look for yourself. They have not answered it "we stop bleeding the second we die", however.

You may benefit from , for example, Knight's Forensic Pathology, Fourth Edition, where it says "It is sometimes difficult to know how much of a haemorrhage found at autopsy may be accounted for by post-mortem bleeding."

I will now explain to you what this means: It means that it can be difficult to establish how much blood has left a dead person while he was still alive, and how much left him after death. And in BOTH cases, the blood leaving the person leaves through the process of bleeding.

Capisce? No? Do you want more examples, or shall we just throw them all out collectively, opting instead for the Orsam version of the truth, the Walternative facts", as it were?

[Fisherman]

I'm not saying that blood will "always" do anything. Based on the clear information provided by Dr Biggs, which has never been contradicted by Payne-James, I'm saying that it is certainly possible that blood can ooze for 20 minutes after death.

You do understand that right?

Useless repetition.

[Fisherman]

I'm not challenging the notion that it is possible to "stop bleeding" (to use your expression) in a few minutes after death. What I am challenging is YOUR claim (not the claim of Payne-James) that it would be in any way surprising for oozing to go on for 20 minutes after death.

If you were to claim that Payne James has ever said that oozing is unlikely to go on for 20 minutes after death then that would be a lie.

Are you still trying to squeeze in the terms "Fisherman" and "liar" into the same sentence, David? I have already told you it will not work.

Payne-James would GENERALLY not say that post-mortem bleeding would be surprising to find after twenty minutes of death.

But he WOULD say that he would be surprised to find it in the Nichols case, given that the circumstances involved would speak against such a thing.

How many times have I told you this now? Five? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? and all you can come up with is to say that if I said that Payne-James would NEVER allow ANY victim to ooze blood for twenty minutes, then that would be a lie...??? But nobody is saying that, David? You are inventing a false perspective.

[Fisherman]

I said three things in the post to which you were responding:

1. Payne-James changed your word "bleeding" to "flow[ing]" and did so in the context of having been asked to assume a massive blood loss when the throat was cut.

2. Payne-James said precisely nothing about blood oozing from the wound thereafter or at any time.

3.Dr Biggs has told us that blood can very possibly continue to ooze for 20 minutes and Dr Payne-James has never contradicted this.

Now which of these three things am I misunderstanding, misinformating and misleading?

The misleading lies in how you try to infer that Biggs general wordings would apply to the Nichols case, how you invent the weird idea that Payne-James would not have included all bleeding involved in his timings and how you try to get away woth this as if it was a mere trifle.

It is in fact quite appaling and intellectually corrupt.

[Fisherman]

What has elevation got to do with flow of liquid?

Unless you wet yourself at night, in this case nothing. Partial elevation of body parts and sections has everyting in the world to do with the amount and rate of bleeding. Thatīs why you should lie down if you have a noseblood - but not if you wet your bed.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

Certainly suggestive, but if Llewellyn did perform his autopsy corresctly, that and the bruising were his only suggestions of strangulation. More suggestive to me of strangulation to unconsciousness (about ten seconds), cut throat (stay unconscious after ten seconds i.e. not wake back up), bleeding from throat providing most of the 2.5 litres of blood loss prior to the heart failing, with limited arterial loss from the abdomen (but enough to be apparent).

Please remind me, was it your programme that included the reconstruction of the time these manoeuvres could be performed in? (I'm probably wrong).

PS Forgot the absence of defence wounds to the knife attack in evidence for proposed timeline.

Regards

Paul

Hi Paul!

Yes, I agree that partial strangulation may have been what happened. I am, however, placing my bet on the abdomen being cut first, and large amounts of blood escaping into the abdominal cavity from the severed vessels in there. To me, it makes sense that this explains the scarcity of blood by the neck. If Nichols was only partially strangled, the heart would go on beating, and we should have had arterial spray at the scene, but there was no such thing recorded.

For two and a half litres to have escaped that via the neck, there would also need to be 2,2 litres in the clothing, since there was only about 0,3 litres in the pool under the neck. And the police reports tell us that the clothing was bloodsoaked only at the collar and the upper parts around the shoulders.

If the blood did not travel longer than that in the clothing, the capillary power offered by the cloth was not large, and consequently, to my mind, there would not be much blood in the clothing at all - let alone a stiff two litres!

Can you give me a hint if my perspective would work?

Thanks for your input, by the way - much appreciated!

[Elamarna]

I am certain that Jason Payne-James knows what he is talking about. Itīs not about me, you see. And I have not seen any other expert comment spoecifically on Nichols, saying that he or she fionds it even remotely likely that the bleeding/dribbling/oozing would go on for twenty minutes or so.

Well one can only assume from that reply that you have not bothered to actually read Dr Biggs"s replies to Trevor Marriott's questions.

He Is Specifically asked about Nichols. And he specifically provides answers on her.

His replies are far more in depth than those of Payne-James and are avaible to see rather than is the case with Payne-James.

Yet you continually state that his opinions are not specific and are thus not of equal value to Payne-James.

That is demonstrably untrue. This refusal to acknowledge that Biggs is specifically talking about Nichols does nothing for crediabilty of the thoery.

Stride had been dead for betweenaround 12-25 minutes when Johnston saw her. She had much less damage to her body than Nichols had. Her blood had all run away and clotted as Johnston examined her.
Was he lying?

And blood was clotting according to the police officers in Bucks Row, so your point is?

Interestingly those times cover the possible times at which Mizen may have seen Nichols.

Eddowes was not reported to be bleeding from the neck as Watkins saw her. Was he forgetting to point it out?

The fact he does not mention it should not be seen as confirmation that it was or was not flowing/oozing. These types of argument based on ommisions really are very poor from an historical or scientific point.

Get me some solid proof that Nichols should have been bleeding for twenty minutes, get me an expert who comments specifically on her case, find me something else that your own convictions, and I will listen. But only then.

These are not my own convictions they are scientific fact with regards to blood flow.
From a research point of view the arguments put forward in support of the blood flow Hypothesis are subjective; objectivity or any attempt at such in the arguments as long disappeared.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Paul!

Yes, I agree that partial strangulation may have been what happened. I am, however, placing my bet on the abdomen being cut first, and large amounts of blood escaping into the abdominal cavity from the severed vessels in there. To me, it makes sense that this explains the scarcity of blood by the neck. If Nichols was only partially strangled, the heart would go on beating, and we should have had arterial spray at the scene, but there was no such thing recorded.

For two and a half litres to have escaped that via the neck, there would also need to be 2,2 litres in the clothing, since there was only about 0,3 litres in the pool under the neck. And the police reports tell us that the clothing was bloodsoaked only at the collar and the upper parts around the shoulders.

If the blood did not travel longer than that in the clothing, the capillary power offered by the cloth was not large, and consequently, to my mind, there would not be much blood in the clothing at all - let alone a stiff two litres!

Can you give me a hint if my perspective would work?

Thanks for your input, by the way - much appreciated!

Can you please stop saying that there was only blood on the collar and neck. That is not what Helston said.

The press reports have been shown to not say that; yet you ignore such as it does not fit your view.

To ask another for their views on a matter, based on the subjective information which is provided is not honest.

How anyone expects to arrive at the truth with this attitude is incredulous .





Steve