Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

Why would the reporters make up that the blood was running profusely? Why would the source NOT be Neil? Why should we favour the idea that is was make-believe over the idea that Neil simply said that the blood ran profusely?

Or maybe he just said there was lots of blood and the reporter translated that to newspaper speak.

[Fisherman]

Or maybe he just said there was lots of blood and the reporter translated that to newspaper speak.

Yes, thatīs a possibility - but as it says that the blood ran profusely in the articles, that remains the better suggestion. Al the rest of the suggestions are second level ones, possible, but significantly less likely.

As an aside, I think we may run the risk of misunderstanding thingsö owing to the extent of the damage done to Nicholsī neck. There is the risk that we reason that blood flowing profusely from such a wound must be a bucketload of the stuff.

However, I think that is surmising too much. Think, if you will, of somebody who receives a blow on the nose and begins to bleed from it. Normally, a nosebleed will trickle out of one of the nostrils, and run down the upper lip rather placidly. But sometimes, a nosebleed will be more powerful, and blood will actually run , as if from a tap, onto the ground.

In such a case, most would say that the noseblood was a profuse one.

My guess is that the blood coming out of Nicholsī neck was something along those lines when Neil and Mizen saw her, a bit more in Neilīs case, a bit less in Mizenīs.

I think that could well have sufficed for Neil to say that the blood flowed profusely. Or he said that there was a constant stream of blood coming from the wound, and the papers wrote that it bled profusely - once again the former sugestion being the better one, but the second one being viable nevertheless.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Exactly, Fisherman, you asked the wrong question.

No, I did not. But no matter HOW I worded it, somebody out here would make that claim. Itīs disingenuous. And Payne-James and I exchanged a lot more than what I have published out here, so I am the one better suited to know what he meant.

As Steve has pointed out, Nichols could not possibly have bleed out all the blood in her body in 3 minutes could she?

To begin with, she would never do so in the first place. Some blood would stay in the body, owing to reasons of gravity and the position in which she lay.

The amount of blood that she WOULD bleed out, could well be gone in three or five minutes, however. A decapitated person may bleed out in less than a minute.

Payne-James has understood you to mean flowing and focussed on that.

No, he did not. That would predispose that he meant that the blood would "flow" for a certain amount of time and then start to...what? Trickle? Ooze? The suggestion is plain dumb. Sorry, but I am inclined to name it correctly.

He agrees with Biggs that there is unlikely to be a significant quantity of blood flowing after several minutes of death. But unlike Biggs he hasn't turned his attention to any subsequent trickling, dripping or oozing of blood.

When they speak of bloodflow, they speak of the process on the whole, surprise, surprise. They are not dividing it up in the gushing, the welling, the flowing, the trickling and the oozing stages.

That's because you didn't ask him, even though the witness used the word "oozing".

But you donīt KNOW what I asked him, do you? You are guessing, with every intention of trying to be the better informed person. It is touching. It is like a little boy, hoping for icecream.

Perhaps that's because you preferred the "evidence" of a newspaper reporter who wasn't at the scene of the crime and only had that in your mind?

I have it ALL in my mind, David. Itīs the way I do things. You - different story.
I honestly think that you could be a brilliant reseacher, if it was not for the ego thing. It brings you down on a steady basis, more predictable than Mondays turning into Tuesdays. Once/if you can rid yourself of that, you may achieve great things, instead of getting bogged down over and over again.
Descending into speaking about me cherrypicking, claiming that Neil could ONLY have meant what YOU think he meant, claiming that crouching is kneeling, stating that you cannot be with somebody you cannot reach physically ...
Poppycock. Balderdash. And so much standing in the way for the logical and rational you.
Itīs a bummer, but there you are.

[David Orsam]

My guess is that...
I think that could well have sufficed for Neil to say that the blood flowed profusely. .

We don't need to guess Fisherman, nor do we need to speculate about what caused a newspaper reporter to write what he did, at least it is utterly pointless to do so.

We have the evidence from the inquest. Neil saw the blood oozing.

I appreciate that this makes it harder for you to pin the murder on Lechmere so you'd prefer to use the word "flowing" but that's kind of bad luck for you.

[Fisherman]

Here is a bit more of the exchange I had with J P-J over the bloodflow.

ME: "Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case?

-J P-J: Yes.

I take that to involve gushing, flowing, running, tricklig AND oozing, David.

It was in combination with this I further asked whether we were speaking of three, five or perhaps seven minutes in a case like the Nichols case, and got the answer "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 "

This probably spells trouble for you. You now need to find a way to say that Payne-James obviously did not include the oozing phaze in "total desanguination". Iīm sure youīll come up with something!

[David Orsam]

No, I did not. But no matter HOW I worded it, somebody out here would make that claim. Itīs disingenuous. And Payne-James and I exchanged a lot more than what I have published out here, so I am the one better suited to know what he meant.

Well, goodness, for starters you could have used the word "oozing" which was actually used by the witness. Isn't that, um, perfectly obvious?

[Fisherman]

What utter nonsense.

But utter nonsense is YOUR department, David!

[David Orsam]

To begin with, she would never do so in the first place. Some blood would stay in the body, owing to reasons of gravity and the position in which she lay.

So you asked him how long she would take to "bleed out" while knowing that she would never "bleed out". So what were you talking about? And how would he know?

[Fisherman]

Well, goodness, for starters you could have used the word "oozing" which was actually used by the witness. Isn't that, um, perfectly obvious?

No, becasue only "bloodflow" or "bleeding" covers the whole range. It would not have oozed the whole time, as you (just may) realize. Speaking about the perfectly obvious. Plus it is anything but sure that Neil meant oozing in the way you think he meant.

[David Orsam]

No, he did not. That would predispose that he meant that the blood would "flow" for a certain amount of time and then start to...what? Trickle? Ooze? The suggestion is plain dumb. Sorry, but I am inclined to name it correctly.

You can call it whatever you like but that is EXACTLY what Biggs told us could happen. An initial flow of blood and then dripping or oozing.

If this is the first time you have had this explained to you it is no wonder you messed up your questioning of Payne-James.

[Fisherman]

So you asked him how long she would take to "bleed out" while knowing that she would never "bleed out". So what were you talking about? And how would he know?

She would bleed out all she could bleed out. No person has ever bled out entirely, nobody in the whole wide world. Donīt try and turn this into a farce, because you will be on your own very soon if you do.

How would he know? Why he guessed, you have already concluded that. Surely, experience and knowledge had nothing at all to do with it.

[Fisherman]

You can call it whatever you like but that is EXACTLY what Biggs told us could happen. An initial flow of blood and then dripping or oozing.

If this is the first time you have had this explained to you it is no wonder you messed up your questioning of Payne-James.

Only I didnīt. We understood each other perfectly. But YOU have now messed up so badly as to be left alone in the Kindergarten yard.

Bye.

[David Orsam]

But you donīt KNOW what I asked him, do you? You are guessing, with every intention of trying to be the better informed person. It is touching. It is like a little boy, hoping for icecream.

When I referred to what you did not ask him I was, of course, referring to the three question/answer exchange that you posted on this forum and upon which you were telling me you earlier that you relied.

If you have asked him anything else that is relevant then isn't it time to put up or shut up?

[Fisherman]

Just a friendly piece of advice. Read back on your last posts - they are either quite funny or simply apalling, but I canīt decide what applies.

Any help? No?

Bye again.

[David Orsam]

I have it ALL in my mind, David. Itīs the way I do things. You - different story.
I honestly think that you could be a brilliant reseacher, if it was not for the ego thing. It brings you down on a steady basis, more predictable than Mondays turning into Tuesdays. Once/if you can rid yourself of that, you may achieve great things, instead of getting bogged down over and over again.
Descending into speaking about me cherrypicking, claiming that Neil could ONLY have meant what YOU think he meant, claiming that crouching is kneeling, stating that you cannot be with somebody you cannot reach physically ...
Poppycock. Balderdash. And so much standing in the way for the logical and rational you.
Itīs a bummer, but there you are.

Hey thanks for the advice but there is no ego involved here. Not on my part. All that happens is you obviously realise the strength of my arguments (including the two random ones you have mentioned above) and then get flustered and upset and usually end up running away.