Blood oozing

[Pierre]

Calculations based on data within the sources given then linear regression and use of simple mathematics to give the times. For example, the superior mesenteric artery would take over a minute to lose 450ml of blood

1. What data have you performed regression on exactly?

2. What exactly is "data within the sources given"?

3. Do you have a random sample or not?

4. What independent variables are in your model?

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Murder of Alice McKenzie in Castle Alley:

Report of Supt Arnold dated 17 July 1889 states that "There can be no doubt that the crime was committed as near as possible about 12.40am".

Body discovered by PC Andrews "at 12.50am" (Report of Arnold and inquest evidence of PC Andrews, Times, 18 July 1889).

Death caused by "syncope arising for the division of the vessels of the neck" (Post Morten Report of Dr Phillips, 22 July 1889).

Inspector Reid was notified of the murder at 12.55am and ran to Castle Alley: "I saw she had a cut on the left side of the throat, and there was a quantity of blood under the head which was running into the gutter." (Inquest evidence, Times, 19 July 1889).

Dr Phillips report says he arrived at 1.10am: "Found the body of a woman lying on back. Face turned sharply to right...Blood poured out from wound in neck...the whole amount of blood lost would not amount to more than 2 pts".

Here we have a case of blood pouring from the neck wound some thirty minutes after the cutting of the throat.

I don't believe that this case is known to have rewritten all the text books on "post-mortem bleeding".

it depends on the damage done and to which vessels . Far less damage than in the Nichols case. So bleed out would be slower. It has been argued over on JtR forums that she was technically alive for some time after discovery.

But it does show that bleeding will not just stop after a set number of minutes.


Steve

[David Orsam]

It has been argued over on JtR forums that she was technically alive for some time after discovery.

While I always naturally respect the arguments on JtR forums, it was nevertheless the opinion of Dr Bond that "no doubt the wound in the throat would cause almost immediate death" and of Dr Phillips that "death almost immediately followed the incision of the neck".

[Sam Flynn]

1. What data have you performed regression on exactly?

2. What exactly is "data within the sources given"?

3. Do you have a random sample or not?

4. What independent variables are in your model?

This isn't statistics, Pierre, it's physiology. Paul cited Guyton as the source of his figures, and it's a hugely respected text. There are other good textbooks (e.g. Ganong) where the necessary base data can be obtained, and anyone competent at mathematics should be able to extrapolate from them.

[Elamarna]

While I always naturally respect the arguments on JtR forums, it was nevertheless the opinion of Dr Bond that "no doubt the wound in the throat would cause almost immediate death" and of Dr Phillips that "death almost immediately followed the incision of the neck".

Phillips report says only the left side was cut, far different from Nichols.
It just underlines that opinions of experts may be wrong.

If Phillips really meant pouring as we use the term, then death could not have been as quick as they suggested.


Steve

[John G]

According to Dr Bond "the two main cuts appeared to be about 3 inches long...", which suggests less extensive neck injuries than were inflicted on Nichols.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;415864]

This isn't statistics, Pierre, it's physiology.

Wrong. If you want to estimate physical results you need individual data, not structural data.

Paul cited Guyton as the source of his figures, and it's a hugely respected text.

If that text is respected it does not mean that Paul´s calculations are correct.

There are other good textbooks (e.g. Ganong) where the necessary base data can be obtained, and anyone competent at mathematics should be able to extrapolate from them.

Exactly what is neccessary "base data"? Do explain.

[David Orsam]

Phillips report says only the left side was cut, far different from Nichols.
It just underlines that opinions of experts may be wrong.

If Phillips really meant pouring as we use the term, then death could not have been as quick as they suggested.

Perhaps he was actually trying to say "oozing profusely".

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;415867]

Wrong. If you want to estimate physical results you need individual data, not structural data.



If that text is respected it does not mean that Paul´s calculations are correct.



Exactly what is neccessary "base data"? Do explain.

Individual data?

[Elamarna]

This isn't statistics, Pierre, it's physiology. Paul cited Guyton as the source of his figures, and it's a hugely respected text. There are other good textbooks (e.g. Ganong) where the necessary base data can be obtained, and anyone competent at mathematics should be able to extrapolate from them.

Sam to be fair to Pierre, and I am very often not, he is not a natural scientist and probably does not realise the data Paul is using is the result of many years of research on blood flow, data which is used in teaching medicine today.
So I do understand sort of why he asks, he does not know what the data is.

However you are of course correct, the data allows anyone with good mathematical skills to work out the figures.


Steve

[David Orsam]

"I´m planning to go on with the research and I know what data I need to prove who the killer was. There is only some very sparse data I need for this and it is probably not impossible to find." (Pierre, 17 December 2015)

Perhaps Paul has the data Pierre has long been looking for.

[John G]

Phillips report says only the left side was cut, far different from Nichols.
It just underlines that opinions of experts may be wrong.

If Phillips really meant pouring as we use the term, then death could not have been as quick as they suggested.


Steve

I very much doubt that death would have been instantaneous: see, for example, http://realfighting.com/unconsciousness_and_death.php

[Sam Flynn]

Wrong. If you want to estimate physical results you need individual data, not structural data... Exactly what is neccessary "base data"? Do explain.

We're talking about the rate of flow of a fluid through a tube, in essence. Taking into account factors like the average rate of flow, the average diameter of the tube (which is what I meant by "base data"), you can calculate to within a good approximation as to how long it would take a given volume of fluid to drain out of the tube. In respect of blood flow, data such as these are obtainable from textbooks on physiology, whose information content has been compiled, revised and refined for several decades. This is particularly true in the case of the textbook which Paul cites as his source (Guyton).

If that text is respected it does not mean that Paul´s calculations are correct.

Indeed, so why not get yourself a physiology textbook and work it out yourself?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;415867]

Wrong. If you want to estimate physical results you need individual data, not structural data.



If that text is respected it does not mean that Paul´s calculations are correct.



Exactly what is neccessary "base data"? Do explain.

Pierre

The data used has been collected from many years of research. It is used in the teaching of medicine.


I do understand that you want to understand if the data is robust and valid.


Flow rates are very well established and heavily documented academically.

Most of what you are asking will have been done in the sources Paul quotes.

I honestly think if you really want to understand it, you will need to read a great deal of that research.


Best wishes


Steve

[Elamarna]

I very much doubt that death would have been instantaneous: see, for example, http://realfighting.com/unconsciousness_and_death.php

Agree. Real instantaneous death is very rare.


Steve