Blood oozing

[kjab3112]

Hi Pierre

I accept you're semantics on oozing/oozed/had oozed. The problem is that Paul felt there was still evidence of respiratory effort and cardiac output (not necessarily a pulse). This does not prove Lechmere/Cross was the murderer, but Paul certainly arrived very soon after the cuts (which now work has settled I hope soon to return to examining).

Best wishes

Paul

[Pierre]

Correction

QUOTE=Pierre;412130

A correction from me to you:

They are from The Thanet Advertiser, August 30, 1973,

The correct year of course is 1873.

As I wrote, the examples are all from the Victorian era.

Pierre

[tji]

QUOTE=Pierre;412130

A correction from me to you:



The correct year of course is 1873.

As I wrote, the examples are all from the Victorian era.

Pierre

Yeah but you also wrote the incorrect date so you can't really comment like I'm the one who misunderstood.

Although maybe I should have known better than to take what you said at face value without checking first.

Tj

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre

I accept you're semantics on oozing/oozed/had oozed. The problem is that Paul felt there was still evidence of respiratory effort and cardiac output (not necessarily a pulse). This does not prove Lechmere/Cross was the murderer, but Paul certainly arrived very soon after the cuts (which now work has settled I hope soon to return to examining).

Best wishes

Paul

There is a tendency in early material with the statements of Robert Paul. His statements are biased by his critique of the police. Therefore he had his own reason to give the impression that Nichols might have been alive - and the police coming late to the murder site.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

For those interested interested in the oozing debate the following post by Joshua and the follow up by jerry are interesting:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...2&postcount=47.

I wonder do we have any examples from the period where "oozing " can be shown to mean, well not oozing but flowing actively under some pressure.

That I think would be a great step forward in the oozing debate.

Steve

[jerryd]

Steve,

Not sure if this helps but.... (part in bold, of course)

Echo
12 September 1888

Dr. Thomas Neville, surgeon of 85, Pimlico-road, and of 128, Sloane-street, subsequently made an examination of the arm. It appears that the limb is the right arm of a female, probably of some 25 or 30 years of age. It has been severed at the shoulder-joint, and has the appearance of having been in the water some two or three days. The cut was not skillfully made, and was such as would be the case had the operation been performed by a person ignorant of the elements of anatomy. Round the arm and above the elbow was a piece of string, tied somewhat tightly, but not sufficiently taut to produce much of an indentation. It is thought not unlikely that by some of those who assume that a tragedy has been committed, that the string may have been employed to prevent the blood oozing through the veins, and so causing a risk of splashing to the person disposing of the severed limb. If this was the intention the artifice was scarcely successful, as when taken from the river there was still some bleeding. Another conjecture is that the string was merely attached for the purpose of easy carriage. At any rate, this was the idea which struck the police-constable, who conveyed the limb to the police-station by means of another piece of string attached to that already round the remains.

[Elamarna]

Steve,

Not sure if this helps but.... (part in bold, of course)

Echo
12 September 1888

Dr. Thomas Neville, surgeon of 85, Pimlico-road, and of 128, Sloane-street, subsequently made an examination of the arm. It appears that the limb is the right arm of a female, probably of some 25 or 30 years of age. It has been severed at the shoulder-joint, and has the appearance of having been in the water some two or three days. The cut was not skillfully made, and was such as would be the case had the operation been performed by a person ignorant of the elements of anatomy. Round the arm and above the elbow was a piece of string, tied somewhat tightly, but not sufficiently taut to produce much of an indentation. It is thought not unlikely that by some of those who assume that a tragedy has been committed, that the string may have been employed to prevent the blood oozing through the veins, and so causing a risk of splashing to the person disposing of the severed limb. If this was the intention the artifice was scarcely successful, as when taken from the river there was still some bleeding. Another conjecture is that the string was merely attached for the purpose of easy carriage. At any rate, this was the idea which struck the police-constable, who conveyed the limb to the police-station by means of another piece of string attached to that already round the remains.

Jerry looks like that is still talking about oozing rather than free flowing to me. It's talking about disposal of the limb and prevention of blood on the perpetrator, showing that it's after removal of the limb. Certainly not free flowing under pressure of any kind at that stage, other than gravity of course.

Still another good example.

Stevej

[John G]

But venous blood would be under low pressure, in direct contrast to arterial blood of course.

[Elamarna]

Hi Pierre

I accept you're semantics on oozing/oozed/had oozed. The problem is that Paul felt there was still evidence of respiratory effort and cardiac output (not necessarily a pulse). This does not prove Lechmere/Cross was the murderer, but Paul certainly arrived very soon after the cuts (which now work has settled I hope soon to return to examining).

Best wishes

Paul

Fair point regards Paul, of course this in all probability at least 3 minutes before PC Neil sees her. And of course it appears she is suffering significant blood loss in more than a single area.

Your input is always welcome and very valued BTW

Steve

[Elamarna]

But venous blood would be under low pressure, in direct contrast to arterial blood of course.

Of course John, but there is still a degree of pressure unlike oozing in its normal usage.

And of course we are really relating to one case where there is both arterial and venious flow.

That is the reason it just occurred to me that rather than debate on and on about the meaning of "oozing" that actual examples which clearly use it in the context of "flowing" would be useful to look at.


Steve

[Pierre]

For those interested interested in the oozing debate the following post by Joshua and the follow up by jerry are interesting:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...2&postcount=47.

I wonder do we have any examples from the period where "oozing " can be shown to mean, well not oozing but flowing actively under some pressure.

That I think would be a great step forward in the oozing debate.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Problem: flowing "actively". What was that described as in the Victorian era?

Here is an example where it sounds as if blood was percieved of as flowing actively, doesn´t it?

(From Sligo Champion - Monday 17 November 1851)

And still, the woman was first murdered, after that the husband went to the pub (green arrow), then the police took him to the station and thereafter two constables were sent to the house - and after that they sent for the surgeon (blue arrow), who said he saw the blood flowing (red arrow).

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Problem: flowing "actively". What was that described as in the Victorian era?

Here is an example where it sounds as if blood was percieved of as flowing actively, doesn´t it?

(From Sligo Champion - Monday 17 November 1851)

And still, the woman was first murdered, after that the husband went to the pub (green arrow), then the police took him to the station and thereafter two constables were sent to the house - and after that they sent for the surgeon (blue arrow), who said he saw the blood flowing (red arrow).

Pierre

Nice example Pierre and again it shows the problem with flowing.
Of course it is possible that in the above when it says she was murdered it could mean that the attack took place, but the women did not die immediately; or that the doctor used flowing when he meant oozing, having previously flowed, we cannot I venture be sure.

I use actively flowing as I can think of no other term, we are talking about bleeding under pressure I guess be that the pumping of the arteries or the slower more regular flow from the veins.

Taking the above into account that is why I am looking for an example or more which uses "oozing" in which the victim is clearly still alive or possibly so.

This actually I subject I shall be looking at in part 3 of the project, what do we mean when we say bleeding stops.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Pierre

When I first read you post the attachment was failing to show up.
Now it has and I can see exactly the issue.

It is clear that flowing is used to describe blood coming from a lifeless body which does highlight a problem we have. And which you have highlighted.

However the article also uses oozing when referring to blood from a dead body.

Still looking for oozing from a living person or one who could be without a full examination.


Steve

[jerryd]

Pierre

When I first read you post the attachment was failing to show up.
Now it has and I can see exactly the issue.

It is clear that flowing is used to describe blood coming from a lifeless body which does highlight a problem we have. And which you have highlighted.

However the article also uses oozing when referring to blood from a dead body.

Still looking for oozing from a living person or one who could be without a full examination.


Steve

Lloyds Weekly Newspaper
Sunday, July 15, 1888, London, Middlesex

[Pierre]

Pierre

When I first read you post the attachment was failing to show up.
Now it has and I can see exactly the issue.

It is clear that flowing is used to describe blood coming from a lifeless body which does highlight a problem we have. And which you have highlighted.

However the article also uses oozing when referring to blood from a dead body.

Still looking for oozing from a living person or one who could be without a full examination.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Like this one? (Oxford Journal - Saturday 01 September 1888)

Pierre