Blood oozing

[Sam Flynn]

I will sign off by mentioning the book "Medical and Philosophical commentaries" by Andrew Duncan, M.D., published in Edinburgh in 1770, and containing this passage:

"My reason for doing so was, that the half divided vessels, from which the blood oozed profusely, both of the pericranium and teguments, might, from a free ..."

As we can see, "oozed profusely" was an accepted medical term in 1770

That's a straightforward way of describing something that even a lay-person might have used, not a medical term, accepted or otherwise. I'd be quite happy to bet that there's never once been a medical dictionary in which "profuse oozing" is defined as a technical term, anymore than there'd be entries for "sweet-smelling breath" or "pasty complexion". They're just descriptions, pure and simple.

[David Orsam]

I will sign off by mentioning the book "Medical and Philosophical commentaries" by Andrew Duncan, M.D., published in Edinburgh in 1770, and containing this passage:

"My reason for doing so was, that the half divided vessels, from which the blood oozed profusely, both of the pericranium and teguments, might, from a free ..."

As we can see, "oozed profusely" was an accepted medical term in 1770, and there are examples of the exact same phrasing from thence up until today. It should, if anything, teach us not to try and push the idea that "oozing" can only mean a smallish trickling, but instead a large range of flow rates.

Read and learn - and try to draw a sensible conclusion or two from it!

Point proven.

I would love to know what you think you have proved. Neil, who was not a medical man, so would not have been using a "medical term", did not in, any case, refer to the blood as "oozing profusely". He just said it was oozing. So what possible relevance can this comment of Duncan have?

[Joshua Rogan]

For what it's worth, at least one paper described a victim's clothes lying on the mortuary floor with blood oozing from them.

[Fisherman]

Can we have the full quote please?
You know so that we can see the context it is being used in.

Steve

https://books.google.se/books?id=XRkUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA440&lpg=PA440&dq=%22blood+oozed+profusely%22&source=bl&ots=op7zq_ru26&sig=Y3IY4Us_J2aFr956stqiimmLV9I&hl=sv&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjmlqP2xuzTAhUmQJoKHUKlCkMQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=%22blood%20oozed%20profusely%22&f=false

[David Orsam]

Fisherman, the position is really very simple.

Look again at the quote of Dr Biggs. He 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..."

Let us just pause there.

For that, I suggest, is precisely what Payne-James was telling you when he guessed that seven minutes of blood "flow" after death is possible but that three minutes is more likely than five or seven minutes. Essentially they both agree that blood only flows out of a body for a few minutes after death.

BUT

Biggs goes on to say that

"...it would certainly be possible for blood to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later."

THAT is precisely on the point. You have nothing from Payne-James to counter this because I don't believe he has ever said anything about the time of oozing. So we are left with the unchallenged medical evidence of Dr Biggs that there would be nothing out of the ordinary for Neil to have seen blood oozing from the body of Nichols at 3.45am with the murder having taken place at 3.30am or 3.25am.

It really is that simple.

[John G]

To clarify, Dr Biggs did opine that blood could continue to "flow" for several minutes after an injury, i.e. under the influence of gravity. However, "this is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of blood that could come out would have done so much sooner." (Marriott, 2013.)

And, as previously noted, the position of the neck and extensiveness of the injuries would influence the rate of flow of blood.

[David Orsam]

To clarify, Dr Biggs did opine that blood could continue to "flow" for several minutes after an injury, i.e. under the influence of gravity. However, "this is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of blood that could come out would have done so much sooner." (Marriott, 2013.)

I think both Biggs and Payne-James are saying that blood normally flows for a few minutes only after death. I mean, at least, that is what they would both expect to happen in most circumstances.

But Biggs notes that blood can easily continue to trickle out, or ooze, for 20 minutes after death.

Is there any more to say than that?

[John G]

Fisherman, the position is really very simple.

Look again at the quote of Dr Biggs. He 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..."

Let us just pause there.

For that, I suggest, is precisely what Payne-James was telling you when he guessed that seven minutes of blood "flow" after death is possible but that three minutes is more likely than five or seven minutes. Essentially they both agree that blood only flows out of a body for a few minutes after death.

BUT

Biggs goes on to say that

"...it would certainly be possible for blood to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later."

THAT is precisely on the point. You have nothing from Payne-James to counter this because I don't believe he has ever said anything about the time of oozing. So we are left with the unchallenged medical evidence of Dr Biggs that there would be nothing out of the ordinary for Neil to have seen blood oozing from the body of Nichols at 3.45am with the murder having taken place at 3.30am or 3.25am.

It really is that simple.

Yes, but regarding the 20 minute period, "The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time...the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little." (Marriott, 2013).

Moreover, Dr Biggs was answering a question, provided by Trevor Marriott, that referred to a victim whose throat was cut (no reference was made in relation to Nichols being virtually decapitated.)

[David Orsam]

Yes, but regarding the 20 minute period, "The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time...the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little." (Marriott, 2013).

Yes John, his reference to "a trickle" after 20 minutes is exactly consistent with what I already quoted. So he would not be at all surprised to see blood dripping out, trickling or oozing after 20 minutes.

Do you agree with that?

[John G]

Yes John, his reference to "a trickle" after 20 minutes is exactly consistent with what I already quoted. So he would not be at all surprised to see blood dripping out, trickling or oozing after 20 minutes.

Do you agree with that?

I may be wrong, but I think he was answering in general terms. This conclusion is supported by what he says later: "It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound/gravity conditions were right..." (Marriott, 2013).

I think, therefore that, as one or two people seemed to have found to their cost, if you don't ask experts very specific questions then you are not likely to get very specific answers.

The question I would ask would begin with the words: "Given the extent of Nichols' neck injuries and the position of the body..."

[David Orsam]

I may be wrong, but I think he was answering in general terms. This conclusion is supported by what he says later: "It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound/gravity conditions were right..." (Marriott, 2013).

I think, therefore that, as one or two people seemed to have found to their cost, if you don't ask experts very specific questions then you are not likely to get very specific answers.

The question I would ask would begin with the words: "Given the extent of Nichols' neck injuries and the position of the body..."

Okay, of course, but in the absence of those specific questions and answers, and on the basis of what we have been told in general terms, do you agree that Biggs is saying that, as an expert, he would not be at all surprised to be told that a witness has seen blood oozing from the neck wound of the body of a person who had been murdered by having their throat cut 20 minutes earlier?

[John G]

Okay, of course, but in the absence of those specific questions and answers, and on the basis of what we have been told in general terms, do you agree that Biggs is saying that, as an expert, he would not be at all surprised to be told that a witness has seen blood oozing from the neck wound of the body of a person who had been murdered by having their throat cut 20 minutes earlier?

Yes, David, I would completely agree with that conclusion.

[David Orsam]

Yes, David, I would completely agree with that conclusion.

Thank you John.

[Elamarna]

Yes, but regarding the 20 minute period, "The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time...the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little." (Marriott, 2013).

Moreover, Dr Biggs was answering a question, provided by Trevor Marriott, that referred to a victim whose throat was cut (no reference was made in relation to Nichols being virtually decapitated.)

John

The main issues here are that Biggs has been told about Nichols, he even takes into account what could happen if she had severe abdominal wounds.

There is continual attempt by Fisherman to say that Dr Biggs's comments to Trevor are general comments, and do not refer specifically to Nichols:

post # 134

"Plus I have said that Biggs makes general observations."


This is not the case, Biggs was asked specific questions about all the C5, including Nichols.
Anyone who had read Trevor’s work would be aware of this, so one must assume that Fisherman has not.


Payne-James in the documentary, does not believe the abdominal wounds are very severe, recent discussion seem to disagree with this position.
This means of course the bleed out time would be reduced further still.

Once the heart stops and circulation ceases, pressure is gone and we are down to gravity. unconsciousness comes when volume of blood remaining falls below a percentage which is around 40-50%, a pulse will become difficult to detect as the heart struggles to beat and circulation will fail.

In the case of Nichols the heart would have probably stopped beating before Neil arrived, probably before he even entered Bucks Row.


Here is the problem as I see it, "bleed out" - Fisherman sees this as a complete loss of blood, none or very little remaining.
If one wants to fully remove all the blood from a body, one needs to assist gravity, as in the slaughtering of animals for religious requirements, by hanging with the open wounds downwards. Not the situation with Nichols.

Let us explore more of what Payne-James says and what Fisherman thinks he means:

Payne-James suggests strangulation prior to the cuts. In the documentary he says he expects little blood anyway.

Fisherman in post #69 on this thread says:

"And indeed, I think that Payne-James was working from the idea that the blood leaked and dribbled out with little or no underlying pressure. And that he thought that it would make for a bleeding period of a few minutes only, nevertheless."



So a body can "bleed out" completely according to Fisherman, ( Note not Payne-James as Fisherman begins with "And indeed I think") in only a few minutes even when there is no function circulation or pressure, and the body is in a basically horizontal position.

That is really an amazing bold and courageous stance to take!
One would truly like to see the scientific research which backs this up!

However is this not then followed up by a somewhat contradictory statement in post #post134

"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."

So we have a suggestion that a body can stop bleeding after a few minutes and also that such may not be the case in the very same thread.
Classic example of "wanting your cake and eating it; not to mention fatally undermining the major assumption in the hypotheses.




steve

[Elamarna]

Yes John, his reference to "a trickle" after 20 minutes is exactly consistent with what I already quoted. So he would not be at all surprised to see blood dripping out, trickling or oozing after 20 minutes.

Do you agree with that?

David,

I certainly do.


Steve