Blood oozing

[Elamarna]

Time will not always tell, no - we can hope for it, but there can be no certainty that it happens. And history has judged many a killer innocent and many an innocent people killers, as Iīm sure you will agree.

So much for that, Iīm afraid.

But we only know they were innocent or guilty because of later discoveries. Therefore history has judged correctly.
Unless of course you mean simply that innocent get found guilty and guilty innocent, however that is not history judging, that is man ( or woman) making judgements at the time.

Steve

[David Orsam]

I have explained this in extenso before, John. But okay, here goes again!

Payne-James did not exclude anything at all. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was categorically ruled out. The reason being that it is impossible to determine a final bleeding point in time. Timings suggested will only be more or less likely. And some will be very unlikely, so as to be absurd.

He pointed out how he had frequently dealt with lawyers in court who pressed the timings, if you like. For example, if Payne-James said that he thought that a bleeding process would be over in no more than, say, ten minutes, then a lawyer could say "But if it could be ten, then surely it could be ten and a half? Or eleven?" And much as Payne-James did not think that ten and a half or eleven was a very viable proposition, he could not rule it out definitely. To do that, he would need to establish the exact borderline, and there is no such borderline - itīs not as if we can say that ten minutes and fortytwo seconds is possible but ten minutes and fortythree seconds is not.

So this is why he would not say that anything was impossible. He instead said that the timings suggested by lawyers to get their clients convicted or off the hook oftentimes ventured into the absurd.

That is how we must look upon the Nichols matter too. Payne-James, drawing upon his many years of experience, believed that the bleeding would most likely have been over within three or five minutes; something like that. He did not exclude seven minutes, but thought it somewhat less likely. And then, with every added minute it would become even less likely, and somewhere along the line, it would become an absurd suggestion.

Thatīs where Jason Payne-James leaves us.

There's a real problem with this logic and line of argument.

We are not, surely, interested in what is more or less likely but what is reasonable or plausible.

It's all very well saying that every minute added makes it less likely until it becomes absurd but that is a sort of backdoor way of saying that anything above seven minutes is absurd and cannot be contemplated, which is itself absurd.

What I would want to know from Payne James is, if I tell him a women had been murdered with a cut throat and blood was still oozing from her neck wound fifteen or twenty minutes later would he regard that as so unlikely and so implausible as to be able to be virtually discounted as fiction on my part or would he say it's entirely possible that this could have happened.

I'm not trying to get to theoretical possibilities here, I'm talking about practical possibilities within the norm. The answer you have summarised doesn't help us at all with this.

[John G]

I have explained this in extenso before, John. But okay, here goes again!

Payne-James did not exclude anything at all. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was categorically ruled out. The reason being that it is impossible to determine a final bleeding point in time. Timings suggested will only be more or less likely. And some will be very unlikely, so as to be absurd.

He pointed out how he had frequently dealt with lawyers in court who pressed the timings, if you like. For example, if Payne-James said that he thought that a bleeding process would be over in no more than, say, ten minutes, then a lawyer could say "But if it could be ten, then surely it could be ten and a half? Or eleven?" And much as Payne-James did not think that ten and a half or eleven was a very viable proposition, he could not rule it out definitely. To do that, he would need to establish the exact borderline, and there is no such borderline - itīs not as if we can say that ten minutes and fortytwo seconds is possible but ten minutes and fortythree seconds is not.

So this is why he would not say that anything was impossible. He instead said that the timings suggested by lawyers to get their clients convicted or off the hook oftentimes ventured into the absurd.

That is how we must look upon the Nichols matter too. Payne-James, drawing upon his many years of experience, believed that the bleeding would most likely have been over within three or five minutes; something like that. He did not exclude seven minutes, but thought it somewhat less likely. And then, with every added minute it would become even less likely, and somewhere along the line, it would become an absurd suggestion.

Thatīs where Jason Payne-James leaves us.

So, for example, even seven minutes would presumably be perfectly realistic, merely "somewhat less likely."

[Fisherman]

So, for example, even seven minutes would presumably be perfectly realistic, merely "somewhat less likely."

I cannot judge HOW much more unlikely it would be, but basically it would be a question of possible but less likely, yes. And eigth minutes would also be possibe, but more unlikely. And nine minutes... You get the drift, Iīm sure.

Indeed, if Mizen was on the money and Nichols was bleeding as he saw her, then we WILL almost certainly have passed the five minute mark. But bear in mind that if we DO have seven minutes between the time when Lechmere would have cut Nichols if he was the killer, then we would need eight or nine minutes to squeeze another killer in. And that would be streching things, as you may understand.

It all points to the carman, therefore. It is only when we accept a time that goes a fair way beyond Payne-Jamesī suggestion that we can begin to speak of another killer, a man who nobody saw or heard - a phantom killer, as I usually put it.

Lechmere works, he fits the bill perfectly, more so than any other person when it comes to the blood evidence. He is therefore, on purely factual grounds, not only the best bid, but actually the only identified bid there is.

It is what it is, regardless of how people donīt like the idea of Lechmere being the killer.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: There's a real problem with this logic and line of argument.

We are not, surely, interested in what is more or less likely but what is reasonable or plausible.

It's all very well saying that every minute added makes it less likely until it becomes absurd but that is a sort of backdoor way of saying that anything above seven minutes is absurd and cannot be contemplated, which is itself absurd.

That is your suggestion only, David. My own take on things is that seven minutes is in no way any absurd suggestion, just a less likely one than three or five minutes. We will have to travel to extremes before the absurd element comes in. Some say she could have bled for half an hour, and I do think that is an absurd suggestion.

What I would want to know from Payne James is, if I tell him a women had been murdered with a cut throat and blood was still oozing from her neck wound fifteen or twenty minutes later would he regard that as so unlikely and so implausible as to be able to be virtually discounted as fiction on my part or would he say it's entirely possible that this could have happened.

That would depend on the circumstances on the whole, as I understand it - if, for example, there was an obstacle for the blood to run freely, I donīt think he would be in the least surprised by a fifteen-twenty minute long bleeding. Likewise, the amount of damage done has to be weighed in. His conclusions were based on the reports saying that Nichols was on the ground, flat on her back and with a gaping wound in the neck. So there seems not to have been any obstacles to the bleeding and her vessels in the neck were all severed completely together with extensive damage to the abdominal vessels. That would ensure that there could be no vessel contraction, to mention just one important matter.
Whether he would discount the possibility that Nichols could have bled for fifteen or twenty minutes as completely implausible, I cannot say. But given that he opted for seven minutes being less likely than three or five, I think that he would at least have been genuinely surprised by such a thing.

I'm not trying to get to theoretical possibilities here, I'm talking about practical possibilities within the norm. The answer you have summarised doesn't help us at all with this.

Well, if we accept that Payne-James did not have any medical grounds for suggesting that seven minutes was less likely, but only threw the suggestion forward because he liked the sound of it, you have a point. To me, the conclusion that the longer the time, the less likely the suggestion becomes, seems an inavoidable one. Are you of the opposite meaning, do you think that - given what Payne-James said - a much longer time is just as likely than the one Payne-James opted for?
On the whole, I donīt think Payne-James would want to establish a range of "practical possibilities". The more interesting thing is - at least to my mind - which time span he deems the most likely one.

[David Orsam]

Fisherman, I can't help but notice that you have included your own opinion at various points during your post to me, or at least your opinion of what you think Payne James would think. You think 30 minutes of bleeding is absurd but you don't think that Payne James would be surprised by 15-20 minutes of bleeding (if there was an obstacle) but you do think he would be surprised at 15-20 minutes otherwise. You don't think that Payne James would want to establish a range of practical possibilities.

But with all due your respect, your opinion of these matters carries no weight. If there is a question about what Payne James thinks I would want to hear it from Payne James.

As you are aware, Trevor Marriott's expert, Dr Biggs has said something very different to what you are saying about what you think Payne James would say.

I repeat that this more or less likely business is not very helpful here if a forensic pathologist would not bat an eyelid on learning that a wound had continued bleeding for 20 minutes after death. I want to hear from a qualified person whether this eyelid would bat, not, with all due respect, from a layman.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Fisherman, I can't help but notice that you have included your own opinion at various points during your post to me, or at least your opinion of what you think Payne James would think. You think 30 minutes of bleeding is absurd but you don't think that Payne James would be surprised by 15-20 minutes of bleeding (if there was an obstacle) but you do think he would be surprised at 15-20 minutes otherwise. You don't think that Payne James would want to establish a range of practical possibilities.

You are mixing apples and pears, David. Nichols is a case where Payne-James worked from the assumption of all vessels cut and no obstacle to the bleeding. Your suggestion had no such clarifications to it, so that opens up other possibilities.
I of course express thoughts of my own based on what Payne-James said. If you think that inappropriate in any way, thatīs your prerogative. Most people do the same - listen to the experts and incorporate what they say in their thinking. Basically, thatīs a good thing.

But with all due your respect, your opinion of these matters carries no weight. If there is a question about what Payne James thinks I would want to hear it from Payne James.

I agree. Which is why I asked him.

As you are aware, Trevor Marriott's expert, Dr Biggs has said something very different to what you are saying about what you think Payne James would say.

Biggs is normally/generally not commenting on the specific cases. He thinks all dismemberment murders are sloppy affairs, for example. Worse, Marriott treats his words as gospel and as comments made on the Whitechapel murders.
Basically, two experts on these matters cannot differ wildly on how people bleed. Payne-James knows very well that people can bleed for very long - if the circumstances allow for it. In the Nichols case, he did not think they did.

I repeat that this more or less likely business is not very helpful here if a forensic pathologist would not bat an eyelid on learning that a wound had continued bleeding for 20 minutes after death.

Once more, it depends on the circumstances. Apples and pears, David - don+t get them mixed up.

I want to hear from a qualified person whether this eyelid would bat, not, with all due respect, from a layman.

Well, you certainly wonīt hear more from this layman (who quotes one of the foremost authorities, by the way) for the next few hours. Man United - Celta Vigo on the telly trumps this rather tedious discussion ten times out of ten. Goodnight.

[David Orsam]

I agree. Which is why I asked him.

So what did he say then?

In his own words.

[Fisherman]

So what did he say then?

In his own words.

Halftime! 1-0 to Man United!! Well, thatīs not what Payne James said, of course, but I believe I have quoted him here before? In an exchange with him, I asked how long a time the bleeding would reasonably go on in Nicholsīcase, and I asked if it was something like three minutes, or five or perhaps seven, to which he replied - as far as I remember - that none of the suggestions could be ruled out, but he found the two shorter periods of time more likely than the longer one.

I have it on my gmail log, but I cannot muster the will to dig it out again. I had a quick try, but I must ask you to look for the quotation on the boards. What I DID find was the piece about vessel contraction, where Dr Biggs suggested that this may have been a factor, but where Payne-James dispells this by stating that the internal carotid arteries would not spontaneously stop bleeding - nor would the internal jugular veins, since the latter do not contract anyway.

Thatīs all there is on offer for now, and it should go to exemplify why I take a limited interest in Biggs at times - if you do not have the full story, you cannot comment with accuracy. The second half of the football match coming up now, and much as there is a Swede in Celta Vigo, I am cheering for Man United.

See you out there, David.

[Elamarna]

I cannot judge HOW much more unlikely it would be, but basically it would be a question of possible but less likely, yes. And eigth minutes would also be possibe, but more unlikely. And nine minutes... You get the drift, Iīm sure.

Indeed, if Mizen was on the money and Nichols was bleeding as he saw her, then we WILL almost certainly have passed the five minute mark. But bear in mind that if we DO have seven minutes between the time when Lechmere would have cut Nichols if he was the killer, then we would need eight or nine minutes to squeeze another killer in. And that would be streching things, as you may understand.

It all points to the carman, therefore. It is only when we accept a time that goes a fair way beyond Payne-Jamesī suggestion that we can begin to speak of another killer, a man who nobody saw or heard - a phantom killer, as I usually put it.

Lechmere works, he fits the bill perfectly, more so than any other person when it comes to the blood evidence. He is therefore, on purely factual grounds, not only the best bid, but actually the only identified bid there is.

It is what it is, regardless of how people donīt like the idea of Lechmere being the killer.

Wrong my dear fisherman on every almost every count. The one which is certainly correct being Mizen arriving over 5 minutes after the attack.

All the best.


Steve

[John G]

Wrong my dear fisherman on every almost every count. The one which is certainly correct being Mizen arriving over 5 minutes after the attack.

All the best.


Steve

PC Mizen must have arrived considerably later than 5 minutes after the attack. Thus, even if Lechmere was responsible he first of all waits for Paul to arrive. Then he calls him over and they examine the body. Then they have a discussion and decide to look for a policeman. Then within about 4 minutes of Paul first arriving at the body they meet PC Mizen. However, he doesn't, of course, respond immediately but he finishes his "knocking up" task. Only at this point does he head off to Bucks Row.

[Pierre]

David Orsam: There's a real problem with this logic and line of argument.

We are not, surely, interested in what is more or less likely but what is reasonable or plausible.

It's all very well saying that every minute added makes it less likely until it becomes absurd but that is a sort of backdoor way of saying that anything above seven minutes is absurd and cannot be contemplated, which is itself absurd.

That is your suggestion only, David. My own take on things is that seven minutes is in no way any absurd suggestion, just a less likely one than three or five minutes. We will have to travel to extremes before the absurd element comes in. Some say she could have bled for half an hour, and I do think that is an absurd suggestion.

What I would want to know from Payne James is, if I tell him a women had been murdered with a cut throat and blood was still oozing from her neck wound fifteen or twenty minutes later would he regard that as so unlikely and so implausible as to be able to be virtually discounted as fiction on my part or would he say it's entirely possible that this could have happened.

That would depend on the circumstances on the whole, as I understand it - if, for example, there was an obstacle for the blood to run freely, I donīt think he would be in the least surprised by a fifteen-twenty minute long bleeding. Likewise, the amount of damage done has to be weighed in. His conclusions were based on the reports saying that Nichols was on the ground, flat on her back and with a gaping wound in the neck. So there seems not to have been any obstacles to the bleeding and her vessels in the neck were all severed completely together with extensive damage to the abdominal vessels. That would ensure that there could be no vessel contraction, to mention just one important matter.
Whether he would discount the possibility that Nichols could have bled for fifteen or twenty minutes as completely implausible, I cannot say. But given that he opted for seven minutes being less likely than three or five, I think that he would at least have been genuinely surprised by such a thing.

I'm not trying to get to theoretical possibilities here, I'm talking about practical possibilities within the norm. The answer you have summarised doesn't help us at all with this.

Well, if we accept that Payne-James did not have any medical grounds for suggesting that seven minutes was less likely, but only threw the suggestion forward because he liked the sound of it, you have a point. To me, the conclusion that the longer the time, the less likely the suggestion becomes, seems an inavoidable one. Are you of the opposite meaning, do you think that - given what Payne-James said - a much longer time is just as likely than the one Payne-James opted for?
On the whole, I donīt think Payne-James would want to establish a range of "practical possibilities". The more interesting thing is - at least to my mind - which time span he deems the most likely one.

Minutiae in Buckīs Row.

Why not step out of Buckīs Row for a while and behold the British Empire. Much more interesting.

Pierre

[Pierre]

I cannot judge HOW much more unlikely it would be, but basically it would be a question of possible but less likely, yes. And eigth minutes would also be possibe, but more unlikely. And nine minutes... You get the drift, Iīm sure.

Indeed, if Mizen was on the money and Nichols was bleeding as he saw her, then we WILL almost certainly have passed the five minute mark. But bear in mind that if we DO have seven minutes between the time when Lechmere would have cut Nichols if he was the killer, then we would need eight or nine minutes to squeeze another killer in. And that would be streching things, as you may understand.

It all points to the carman, therefore. It is only when we accept a time that goes a fair way beyond Payne-Jamesī suggestion that we can begin to speak of another killer, a man who nobody saw or heard - a phantom killer, as I usually put it.

Lechmere works, he fits the bill perfectly, more so than any other person when it comes to the blood evidence. He is therefore, on purely factual grounds, not only the best bid, but actually the only identified bid there is.

It is what it is, regardless of how people donīt like the idea of Lechmere being the killer.

The Whitechapel murderer was not a phantom.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

PC Mizen must have arrived considerably later than 5 minutes after the attack. Thus, even if Lechmere was responsible he first of all waits for Paul to arrive. Then he calls him over and they examine the body. Then they have a discussion and decide to look for a policeman. Then within about 4 minutes of Paul first arriving at the body they meet PC Mizen. However, he doesn't, of course, respond immediately but he finishes his "knocking up" task. Only at this point does he head off to Bucks Row.

Yes, considerably longer than 5 minutes John. The maths are actually very straight forward and it is made clear by reading Mizens statements in full.


Steve

[Pierre]

The last two points you are absolutely correct on. Especially as I am not looking for a suspect.

However not meaning to be disparaging to you in return I have a very different view on the blood issue, from several differing perspectives and viewpoints.

As I always say time will tell. History will judge.

Steve

Yes, indeed.