Blood oozing

[Pierre]

Let OTHERS decide? You are kidding, right?

Nah, I think I had better stick around, otherwise we will have a quick witch process and it will all be over. Somebody has to represent sense and measure too.

Am I being ironic? Yes. Am I joking? No.

I am largely unimpressed, yes - not by our tenacity and the work you have put in, but by the results of it. Pointing out that the participants of the drama may have walked at varying speeds and stating that more than one path could have been used is - if you forgive me - pointing to the very obvious. I don´t think I was put to shame by it, it was more like being put to sleep, which is the reason I have not commented much on it. If there had been something fresh and new and if the revelations hade rained down thick and fast, you can be certain that I would have been much more active - either opposing it or taking it on board. But there was very little to oppose - people CAN walk at different speeds and people CAN walk more than one path - and similarly, there was precious little to cheer about, since we all knew that before.

It sounds like you are going to try coming out with your guns blazing the next time you present your work, and to be frank, it sounds a lot more mouthwatering. I am looking forward to it.

Such absolute lack of insight and understanding.

YOU are the one who should have been analyzing speeds and possible paths before you started your propaganda for your specific speed and path to persuade everyone - even people like James Scobie with no knowledge about the different possibilities - that your favourite suspect was the Whitechapel murderer!

YOU are the one who should have drawn the correct conclusions from data, but you choose to look away from data and use just one single option: the Lechmere option.

YOU are the one who should have done YOUR homework before presenting conclusions based on biased opinions and sources with no reliability.

Instead, Steve is the one who did YOUR homework!

Pierre

[Pierre]

You are speaking of the Phantom killer, Patrick. I know him quite well, we´ve been introduced to each other hundreds of times.

There are a number of reasons why I don´t believe in him. One set of reasons lie in the fact that there are many anomalies pointing to Lechmere, that I would not have expected to be there if he was not the killer; the name swap, the disagreement with Mizen, the odd coincidence that he fits the blood evidence, the covered-up wounds etcetera.

There is also the fact that the Phantom killer was never seen or heard, the fact that Bucks Row did not offer very many places to hide close to the body, the fact that a Phantom killer would have been very much faced with the risk that the carmen saw what had happened and raised the alarm in the street, the fact that it seems that this killer was more likely to leave a victim uneviscerated if he was disturbed - as per Stride...

A few things I agree with you over is when you say that it is not impossible - it isn´t. And yes, it seemingly fits the blood evidence just as well or better than Lechmere does.

But I am overall quite reluctant to skip over a very relevant suspect in favour of a Phantom killer. I think maybe we should call him a surplus killer instead - we don´t need him. We really don´t.

As if it was a choice between two options and nothing else:

A "phantom" killer or Lechmere.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

Now I ask you:

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer of Annie Chapman?

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer of Catherine Eddowes?

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer of Elizabeth Stride?

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer of the Whitehall victim?

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer of Mary Jane Kelly?

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer of Alice MacKenzie?

What is the very compelling evidence pointing to Lechmere as the killer in the Pinchin Street case?

Do tell us all, since you say "if you ask me". I do ask you. Behold the list above and tell us.

Pierre

Of course, Pierre! Once you have divulged your suspect, I´d be only too happy to oblige.

[Fisherman]

As if it was a choice between two options and nothing else:

A "phantom" killer or Lechmere.

Pierre

It is, actually.

[Fisherman]

Such absolute lack of insight and understanding.

YOU are the one who should have been analyzing speeds and possible paths before you started your propaganda for your specific speed and path to persuade everyone - even people like James Scobie with no knowledge about the different possibilities - that your favourite suspect was the Whitechapel murderer!

YOU are the one who should have drawn the correct conclusions from data, but you choose to look away from data and use just one single option: the Lechmere option.

YOU are the one who should have done YOUR homework before presenting conclusions based on biased opinions and sources with no reliability.

Instead, Steve is the one who did YOUR homework!

Pierre

You are perfectly clueless as to what homework I have done. And if there is a lack of understanding and insight here, you are the one carrying that banner.

Now I will return to my old ways, and cherish a life with no Pierre in it. Throwing pearls for pigs is not one of my favourite pastimes.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Well I didn't say or suggest that did I?

I was rather under the impression that you did.

But in respect of one particular answer he began by saying "I guess...". English is his first language isn't it? So in ordinary English that means he was guessing doesn't it?

I guess language is just too complex a matter for you to understand.

See how that works? Was I guessing?

And I mean, let's think about it. How much personal experience can he possibly have of seeing a bleeding neck wound of an individual who has died a sudden death (as a result of that wound) within 15 or 20 minutes of their death? In virtually all cases, unless by some miracle he was very close by at the time of death, it's going to have taken him at least an hour to get to the body isn't it? So what can his actual personal experience of this subject be?

How much personal experience does he need if he can take in what others have witnessed about on innumerable occasions? Are you just playing the fool here, David? Yes, you are.

If it's not personal experience but based on written papers of others, what are the references?

Why ask me? I am not Jason Payne-James. I guess he is, though.

A piece of friendly advice: you need to sharpen up. If it happens any time soon, I won´t be around, though. Goodnight.

[David Orsam]

I guess language is just too complex a matter for you to understand.

See how that works? Was I guessing?

That doesn't strike me as a response that has any real meaning.

In reply to what, it has to be said, was a poorly worded question from you, Payne James said:

"I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic."

Doesn't sound like the words of a person who is confident in his answer. And, in fact, it is expressly stated to be the words of someone who is guessing.

[David Orsam]

How much personal experience does he need if he can take in what others have witnessed about on innumerable occasions?

But what "others" are you talking about? That's the point. Who are they? All these people who analysed the blood flow of murdered people within 15 or 20 minutes of their death. Where do we find their testimony?

[David Orsam]

Why ask me? I am not Jason Payne-James. I guess he is, though.

Hold on, Fisherman, that's exactly what started this part of the discussion. I said to you (in #81):

"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....If there is a question about what Payne James thinks I would want to hear it from Payne James."

Remember that?

In response, you said you agreed which is why you had asked him but it turns out you haven't asked him the question I want to know the answer to and what you did ask him produced a response which started "I guess..."

Now that I tell you that we don't have the answer, you tell me to ask Payne James because you can't offer an opinion. Exactly the thing I was complaining about in the first place, i.e. you offering your own layman's opinion of what you think or what you think P-J might say.

[David Orsam]

Are you just playing the fool here, David? Yes, you are.

A reminder of what Biggs said:

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later."

So it seems that one expert at least would not be at all surprised for blood still to be oozing from a wound 20 minutes after death.

Am I playing the fool? No, clearly I am not.

[Sam Flynn]

A reminder of what Biggs said:

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later."

So it seems that one expert at least would not be at all surprised for blood still to be oozing from a wound 20 minutes after death.

In mitigation, perhaps Payne-James was thinking of "blood-flow" in the technical sense, i.e. the active transportation of blood through the body, as opposed to passive oozing? As to the latter, of course blood can continue to drip/ooze out after 20 minutes, and Biggs is quite correct in stating as much.

[David Orsam]

In mitigation, perhaps Payne-James was thinking of "blood-flow" in the technical sense, i.e. the active transportation of blood through the body, as opposed to passive oozing? As to the latter, of course blood can continue to drip/ooze out after 20 minutes, and Biggs is quite correct in stating as much.

Yes, in respect of Payne-James, Sam, the problem is that Fisherman asked about "bleeding" and P-J responded with a comment about blood "flow", thus:

"Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?"

In response, P-J said: "I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic."

That helps us not at all in respect of the scene at Bucks Row when Neil reported blood oozing from the wound in Nichols' neck. Clearly, as you say, and as Biggs confirmed, there would be absolutely nothing strange, unusual or surprising if Nichols had been murdered 20 minutes earlier than this.

[Fisherman]

Now that I tell you that we don't have the answer, you tell me to ask Payne James because you can't offer an opinion.

No, I tell you to ask Payne-James because you have clearly stated that you are interested in what he thinks, and not what I think he thinks. I both can and have offered opinions on his thoughts.

Wrong, therefore.

[Fisherman]

A reminder of what Biggs said:

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later."

So it seems that one expert at least would not be at all surprised for blood still to be oozing from a wound 20 minutes after death.

Am I playing the fool? No, clearly I am not.

I you had payed attention, you would know that I have said that Payne-James has also said that blood can flow/drip from a body a for a very long time after death.

Plus I have said that Biggs makes general observations.

If you combine these two matters, you may come a bit closer to understanding why Payne-James nevertheless spoke for a time of few minutes only in Nichols´ case.

May, that is. I have no high hopes.

[Fisherman]

On the subject that Payne-James used the word "guess" in an informal exchange with me:

Would you have expected Payne-James, given that he is presented as an expert on the subject of bleeding after death, to lay down an exact time schedule for Nichols´ bleeding? Please answer yes or no.

Does the fact that he uses the word "guess" detract from his status as an expert in the field of post mortem bleeding? Please answer yes or no.

Does the fact that he uses the word "guess" detract from the value of his estimation of a the bleeding time more likely being three or five minutes than seven? Please answer yes or no.

Has it occurred to you that no absolute certainty can be reached when commenting on a case like this one? Please answer yes or no.

It saddens me to hear that you are not playing the fool. It can only mean that you are instead woefully uninformed, and that is never a good thing.