Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

I believe at least one witness did get his story mixed up at the inquest (PC Andrews). But, my current belief is based more on what Isaac Lewis Jacobs says he witnessed in addition to PC Andrews' testimony and all the other witnesses for that matter.

If you want to set out your current belief in a new thread I'll read it!

[David Orsam]

When Dr. Phillips arrived, even though he used the expression blood poured out from her neck, he also stated the blood was beginning to clot at that point in time which to me suggests he meant the blood poured out in the past tense.

Hmmmnnn, mind you, we have this report of Dr Phillips' inquest testimony in the Star (Guernsey) of 20 July 1889:

"Yesterday I received a call at one o’clock in the morning. I immediately went to Castle-alley, arriving in less than ten minutes. It was raining very hard…Arrived in Castle-place at the back premises of the wash-houses, I saw lying on the pavement, two and a half feet from the wall, the body of a woman. Her head was turned eastward, and her feet in a straight line in the contrary direction. She was about six yards from a gas lamp, which was lighted, her feet towards the lamp. Blood was flowing into the gutter. It apparently came from a wound at the left side of the woman’s throat."

[jerryd]

If you want to set out your current belief in a new thread I'll read it!

It will take some time of course, but I will be happy to do that. In the meantime, if your interested, all the information I gathered to arrive at this belief is in this thread (http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24484). I actually had a nice back and forth discussion with Christer (Fisherman) and Jon Simmons in this same thread. Many of the same discussions of "blood evidence" were talked about and with that many of the same problematic "terms" and timings were discussed.

As I said before, the thread is a progression of my thoughts and newspaper accounts, mainly the inquest reports, although I did add some relevant news articles that I felt had substance and a ring of truth based on the inquest or based on the reliability of the person being interviewed. The thread itself really needs to be read completely post by post to get the real feel of what I was getting at. I did a lot of countering of the arguments that were thrown at me. With that said, the thread has 167 posts, so it may take some time to absorb it all.

[jerryd]

Hmmmnnn, mind you, we have this report of Dr Phillips' inquest testimony in the Star (Guernsey) of 20 July 1889:

"Yesterday I received a call at one o’clock in the morning. I immediately went to Castle-alley, arriving in less than ten minutes. It was raining very hard…Arrived in Castle-place at the back premises of the wash-houses, I saw lying on the pavement, two and a half feet from the wall, the body of a woman. Her head was turned eastward, and her feet in a straight line in the contrary direction. She was about six yards from a gas lamp, which was lighted, her feet towards the lamp. Blood was flowing into the gutter. It apparently came from a wound at the left side of the woman’s throat."

David,

Trust me, I have no argument at all for blood flowing longer after she was found. It adds to my belief of Alice being murdered later than 12:40.

[David Orsam]

Trust me, I have no argument at all for blood flowing longer after she was found.

Okay, good, I was responding to your post in which you said that the wording in Dr Phillips' report "suggests he meant the blood poured out in the past tense" but if you are happy that it was in the present tense I am also content!

[jerryd]

Okay, good, I was responding to your post in which you said that the wording in Dr Phillips' report "suggests he meant the blood poured out in the past tense" but if you are happy that it was in the present tense I am also content!

Well, the past tense meaning would be one way to interpret it, I guess, The other is as you have suggested. I was playing devil's advocate, against you and me.

[David Orsam]

It will take some time of course, but I will be happy to do that. In the meantime, if your interested, all the information I gathered to arrive at this belief is in this thread (http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=24484). I actually had a nice back and forth discussion with Christer (Fisherman) and Jon Simmons in this same thread. Many of the same discussions of "blood evidence" were talked about and with that many of the same problematic "terms" and timings were discussed.

As you have already said Jerry, it's not really appropriate to discuss your theory here but I've started reading the thread to which you directed me, and in post #4, to my surprise, I find you saying that PC Andrews "is the killer or knew who was."

Yet you told me only a few posts ago, in response to me asking if he gave false testimony, that Andrews only got his story "mixed up". So before I continue reading, can you tell me if your belief as to Andrews' knowledge and/or involvement has changed since you made that post?

[jerryd]

As you have already said Jerry, it's not really appropriate to discuss your theory here but I've started reading the thread to which you directed me, and in post #4, to my surprise, I find you saying that PC Andrews "is the killer or knew who was."

Yet you told me only a few posts ago, in response to me asking if he gave false testimony, that Andrews only got his story "mixed up". So before I continue reading, can you tell me if your belief as to Andrews' knowledge and/or involvement has changed since you made that post?

I still feel he had to be near the murder scene very close in time to when the murder was perpetrated. I haven't discounted Isaac Lewis Jacobs as the murderer, yet.

[David Orsam]

I still feel he had to be near the murder scene very close in time to when the murder was perpetrated.

Well of course he was, it was on his beat!

I haven't discounted Isaac Lewis Jacobs as the murderer, yet.

That may be so but you said on 10 Oct 2015 that if PC Andrews wasn't the murderer he knew who was. So is it your belief that Andrews knew that Jacobs was the murderer (if he was) and gave false testimony at the inquest? Or has your belief changed since you said that Andrews either murdered Alice or knew who did?

[jerryd]

Well of course he was, it was on his beat!



That may be so but you said on 10 Oct 2015 that if PC Andrews wasn't the murderer he knew who was. So is it your belief that Andrews knew that Jacobs was the murderer (if he was) and gave false testimony at the inquest? Or has your belief changed since you said that Andrews either murdered Alice or knew who did?

Yes it was his beat but his beat took him as far west as Middlesex Street.

I still feel Andrews could have murdered Alice. When I said "or knew who was" that is because of the timings. I don't see any other way Andrews wouldn't have been able to see or hear the murder.

I sent you a PM so we don't get anyone angry here.

[David Orsam]

Yes, we really should go back to tearing the OP to pieces.

I mean, look at this sentence:

"In the Victorian era, “Blood oozing” was used, even by doctors, in a purely resultative way."

What absolute and utter nonsense!!!

[Pierre]

Yes it was his beat but his beat took him as far west as Middlesex Street.

I still feel Andrews could have murdered Alice. When I said "or knew who was" that is because of the timings. I don't see any other way Andrews wouldn't have been able to see or hear the murder.

I sent you a PM so we don't get anyone angry here.

Hi,

why do you not "see any other way" to explain why he didn´t see or hear him?

Regards, Pierre

[jerryd]

Hi,

why do you not "see any other way" to explain why he didn´t see or hear him?

Regards, Pierre

Because I feel he was close enough to the murder scene, if not at it, at the appropriate time to either see or hear the killer.

[Pierre]

Because I feel he was close enough to the murder scene, if not at it, at the appropriate time to either see or hear the killer.

What is the most problematic explanation: that he was the killer himself or that he saw the killer and didn´t testify about it?

[jerryd]

What is the most problematic explanation: that he was the killer himself or that he saw the killer and didn´t testify about it?

Both are problematic in my opinion. Henry Wainwright hung for being the murderer and his brother Thomas served 8 years (IIRC) for being an accessory.