Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

What David is ACTUALLY trying to do, is to infer that Payne-James was misled and that there can be no bleeding after death, since that term is reserved for pre-death only.

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite in respect of bleeding. I'm saying that Payne-James avoided being misled by it because he did not respond directly to your confused and confusing "bleeding" question and he changed the word to "flow".

The thing about bleeding is that we normally say that living creatures bleed so when we have an expert talking to a layman who asks him about bleeding after death he evidently prefers to talk about the blood flowing.

"Bleeding" is a confusing word not only because of the confusion between bleeding with the heart pumping and bleeding post-mortem but also because of the ambiguity about whether it refers to gushing/spurting/flowing or oozing/dribbling/leaking.

Just because YOU had a definition of "bleeding" in mind when you asked the question it doesn't mean that the expert understood this and, indeed, he NEVER USED THE WORD!!!

[David Orsam]

David even goes so far as to suggest that lies may be told in combination with my presentation of the case, if I am saying that Payne-James has suggested that nobody can ooze blood for twenty minutes - a completely flabbergasting suggestion, since Payne-James has never been even close to making such a generalized comment and would never do so, nor have I suggested any such thing or would ever do so. This I have declared very clearly, but that does not help - David apparently likes the idea of spreading the notion that my take on the case is somehoww connected to lying.

Let's remind ourselves of what you actually said.

Your exact words were:

"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."

In response I said:

"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."

I can amend this if you like to:

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

Because he said no such thing.

[Sam Flynn]

And if the "normal term" is exsanguination please tell me why you asked him about desanguination?

As far as I'm aware, there is no such word as "desanguination" anyway. Exsanguination, yes; desanguination, no.

[Elamarna]

Any researcher must conceptualize his hypotheses correct. If the concepts are ambiguous there will be lots of this type of problems with validity.

Which is why the hypothesis fails. It is not even possible to test it.

Steve

[Elamarna]

As far as I'm aware, there is no such word as "desanguination" anyway. Exsanguination, yes; desanguination, no.

Hi a interesting point and one I have looked at myself.

I believe you will find it is an older term. Often I am told used in stories of vampires.

Exsanguination is normal taken to mean lose of blood enough to cause death (which is around 50% of total volume.

desanguination on the other hand seems to mean massive blood loss.
It does not seem to be as specific as the more common term.
A Google search shows it is a very rarely used term and it seems in only one online dictionary.


Steve

[Pierre]

Which is why the hypothesis fails. It is not even possible to test it.

Steve

True. If you don´t reconceptualize it of course.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;415781]

Hi a interesting point and one I have looked at myself.

I believe you will find it is an older term. Often I am told used in stories of vampires.

Exactly what I told Fisherman: the fictive JtR is a vampire.

[Sam Flynn]

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

Unless the killer cut through the abdominal organs to sever the abdominal aorta, the amount of blood lost into the abdominal cavity wouldn't be as copious as one might think. All the signs are that her throat was cut first.

[Elamarna]

Unless the killer cut through the abdominal organs to sever the abdominal aorta, the amount of blood lost into the abdominal cavity wouldn't be as copious as one might think. All the signs are that her throat was cut first.

The issue of which was cut first is interesting in itself , and I have made it clear my reading of the evidence agrees with you.

However in relation to the idea of blood evidence it has little effect on the hypothesis Fisherman has constructed to place Lechmere at the scene of the crime. If anything it weakens it. It certainly does not strengthen it. The point of course is that Fisherman does not understand the science behind this.

Steve

[David Orsam]

As far as I'm aware, there is no such word as "desanguination" anyway. Exsanguination, yes; desanguination, no.

It may be recalled that I asked Fisherman twice what he meant by desanguination and he ducked it. Payne-James seemed to understand something by it but exactly what is by no means entirely clear. Like Steve, however, I understand it to mean a massive blood loss and Fisherman has not contradicted my understanding.

If Fisherman meant exsanguination, however, and Payne-James took him to mean that, this word is equally problematic.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of Forensic Science it means:

Bleeding to death

That would be problematic in Nichols' case because it would mean she was alive until she lost so much blood that she died. It would, therefore, surely affect the amount and speed of blood flow from the body.

The Oxford Dictionary of English, however, defines it in these two ways:

[mass noun] (Medicine) the action of draining a person, animal, or organ of blood: regional anaesthesia with exsanguination of the limb.

severe loss of blood: no patient died from immediate exsanguination.

Again, though, at least with the second definition, the implication is that the person is alive at the time. With the first definition it seems to refer to a deliberate draining which is not, of course, the case with Nichols.

The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary says:

exsanguination n.
1. depriving the body of blood; for example, as a result of an accident causing severe bleeding or – very rarely – through uncontrollable bleeding during a surgical operation.
2. a technique for providing a bloodless field to facilitate delicate or haemorrhagic operative procedures.
3. the removal of blood from a part (usually a limb) prior to stopping the inflow of blood (by tourniquet).

In no case do I see a reference to exsanguination as something which normally occurs after death.

So if Fisherman was putting the concept of exsanguination into the mind of Payne-James I suggest he was putting the concept of someone bleeding to death or losing a lot of blood while dying. It bears absolutely no relation to the concept of blood slowly oozing out from a dead body.

[Pierre]

The issue of which was cut first is interesting in itself , and I have made it clear my reading of the evidence agrees with you.

However in relation to the idea of blood evidence it has little effect on the hypothesis Fisherman has constructed to place Lechmere at the scene of the crime. If anything it weakens it. It certainly does not strengthen it. The point of course is that Fisherman does not understand the science behind this.

Steve

The word science is now allowed in the forum.

It is also allowed to tell others that they do not understand it.

Amen.

[Sam Flynn]

Like Steve, however, I understand it to mean a massive blood loss and Fisherman has not contradicted my understanding.

Indeed, but exsanguination needn't mean a rapid loss of blood, however. A person/animal can be exsanguinated over a period of time.

[David Orsam]

Indeed, but exsanguination needn't mean a rapid loss of blood, however. A person/animal can be exsanguinated over a period of time.

Sure, but if we assume that Fisherman meant exsanguination then his question to Payne-James was this:

"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 exsanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case?"

So, in saying "very few minutes" Fisherman was here asking about some form of rapid blood loss. He then tried to ask Payne-James to define this "very few minutes" in his third question and was told that 3-5 minutes was most likely to be the most realistic time of blood flow [for a total exsanguination].

[Elamarna]

Indeed, but exsanguination needn't mean a rapid loss of blood, however. A person/animal can be exsanguinated over a period of time.

Yes of course.. but of course this is all constructed, the order of the wounds, the fast bleed to fit Lechmere to the hypothesis.

Unfortunately the hypothesis fails because it is using non valid data.

The idea fails because the witness statements do not match the hypothesis even if the data used to construct it were valid.

It fails on all points.




Steve

[Elamarna]

Sure, but if we assume that Fisherman meant exsanguination then his question to Payne-James was this:

"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 exsanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case?"

So, in saying "very few minutes" Fisherman was here asking about some form of rapid blood loss. He then tried to ask Payne-James to define this "very few minutes" in his third question and was told that 3-5 minutes was most likely to be the most realistic time of blood flow [for a total exsanguination].

Given the extent of Nichols injuries that timing of 3-5 minutes may be just a tad generous..
The heart would have stopped well before the 7 minute mark. One assumes that Payne-James didn't have the actual figures for the rate of blood loss in his head and was giving a general estimation. Not one specifical for the wounds Nichols had, but for someone who had similar injuries.


Steve