Blood oozing

[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.

[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!!!

[Pierre]

But neither you nor Payne-James used the expression "post-mortem bleeding". You referred to "bleeding" and he said "flow[ing]". The point I am making is that Payne-James cannot properly be interpreted as saying that blood is not likely to ooze out of a wound (similar to that inflicted upon Nichols) for more than 7 minutes after death. He never said it, he was never asked about it and I suggest that such a interpretation of his words would be utterly absurd.

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

[David Orsam]

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.

Please tell me why what Biggs said about oozing would not apply to the Nichols case.

And I didn't "invent the idea that Payne-James would not have included all bleeding involved in his timings". I have referred you to the fact that he specifically used the word "flow" while speaking in the context of a massive blood loss when the throat was cut. I don't even recall you mentioning the word "flow" in any of your replies or explaining why he used it. He was not asked about oozing, nor did he say anything about oozing. It's funny that he wasn't asked about it bearing in mind that it's what the witness said he saw but fortunately Dr Biggs WAS asked about oozing and he made clear that it could easily go on for 20 minutes.

Any failure to absorb what Dr Biggs said in the clearest possible terms – something that has not been contradicted by any other expert – can only be regarded as appalling and intellectually corrupt.

[David Orsam]

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.

To be clear. Payne-James has never said that blood would not, or could not, have oozed from Polly Nichols' neck wound for up to 20 minutes after her death. He's just never said it. So if you were to claim he has said it, that would be a lie.

[David Orsam]

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 can you possibly claim to speak for what Payne-James would or would not say?

You had your chance to ask him if he would be surprised to find "post mortem bleeding" – and it really is AMAZING how you cannot bring yourself to use the word "oozing" even now - twenty minutes after the death of Nichols but you failed to do so.

You asked him a general question about someone with similar damage to Nichols who was lying flat on level ground and that's as close as your question got to being one about Nichols. You did not ask him about Nichols. You did not ask him to assume strangulation. So we really have no idea what conclusion he would draw about the time of death of Nichols from the fact that PC Neil saw "oozing" from the wound when he first saw the body.

[David Orsam]

Medicos out on the net have answered the question "for how long can we bleed after death?" numerous times, have a look for yourself.

When I followed your suggestion and typed this question into google, the only hit that came up was your post. But if oozing is bleeding, as you say, then Dr Biggs has already answered the question for us by saying (to use your wording) that we can certainly bleed for 20 minutes after death. Show me some evidence that this is wrong.

[David Orsam]

Post-mortem bleeding. Post-mortem bleeding, David. It is a VERY correct and usefuo term.

Just take a moment and read what I actually said Fisherman. I said "bleeding is the wrong word". That's because you should have been asking Payne-James about "oozing". Did PC Neil say that he saw "bleeding"? No, he said he saw "oozing".

[David Orsam]

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.

Are you having a laugh? What is your source for saying this? Either all the blood has run out of the body in a few minutes or it hasn't, right? You've already accepted that not all the blood will run out of the body. So if all the blood has not run out of the body in a few minutes there is still blood in the body isn't there? And if there is blood in the body it can still ooze out can't it?

[David Orsam]

In no case would we be left with a probable scenario of a twenty minute bleeding.

What utter nonsense, despite the caveat of "probable scenario" even though, as he knows, the question is not about probabilities but about whether twenty minute "bleeding" (to use his word) would be surprising or unusual. It is the view of a layman determined to pin the murder on Lechmere, unsupported by any evidence or expert opinion.

And STILL he refuses to use the word "oozing"!!!!

[David Orsam]

We do not know for how long she bled.

Aha! The admission. At last. We do not know for how long she bled. No we don't Fisherman. We don't know for how long she bled, we don't know for how long blood oozed from her wound.

[David Orsam]

Get me some solid proof that Nichols should have been bleeding for twenty minutes, get me an expert who comments specifically on her case

Yes that would be nice because Payne James certainly didn't comment specifically on her case.

But nice though it would be, any expert worth his or her salt would not comment specifically on the case of Nichols in respect of the time of blood flow and oozing because there isn't enough reliable evidence to do so, as Biggs has stated in the clearest possible terms.

[David Orsam]

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

What I said, Fisherman, was that corpses do not bleed. Blood can, of course, flow or ooze out of them though.

If you want to refer to blood emerging from a corpse as bleeding then fine but Payne James himself did not use that word. He only referred to the time of blood flowing from the corpse. Biggs expressly distinguished between blood flowing and blood oozing. Like Payne-James, he said that flowing would be expected to be over in a few minutes. But, he said, oozing can go on for longer. Payne-James did not speak to oozing. So we are left with Dr Biggs' clear opinion that oozing can easily continue for 20 minutes after death.

What is it about that you don't understand?

[David Orsam]

So oozing is not bleeding? Aha.

Well Payne-James didn't say anything about bleeding so even if oozing can be regarded as synonymous with bleeding it doesn't help you.

But as usual you deliberately miss the point which is that "bleeding" is an ambiguous word which can refer to EITHER a massive spurting, gushing flowing of blood or a very gentle, slow oozing. Unless you make clear to an expert what you are talking about, how can his answer, which in this case referred not to bleeding but to flowing, be used to contradict another expert who made it crystal clear that oozing CAN easily continue for 20 minutes?

[David Orsam]

That does not specifically refer to Nichols.

Nor did anything said by Payne-James.

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?

But what is it about the position of Nichols' body and the character of the damage inflicted upon her that makes you appear to believe that it would have been surprising for blood to have been dripping or oozing out of her body 20 minutes later?

Please don't say it's what Payne-James told you because he wasn't asked about oozing.