Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

He would, Iīm sure, had said the same about eight or nine minutes

Well there we are, very interesting, because you didn't ask him about eight or nine minutes did you?

You asked him a leading question and he gave the answer he did:

"I guess blood may continue to flow for up to [seven minutes]."

[David Orsam]

So I may be less devious than you try to make me out.

Goodness, Fisherman, I wouldn't like to mischaracterise your level of deviousness.

Perhaps you are less devious than I think but, if so, you need to answer this question:

Given that PC Neil said in his sworn testimony that he saw blood oozing from the throat wound of Nichols could she quite easily, and very possibly, have been murdered 20 minutes before the time he saw this oozing?

[Elamarna]

Dead wrong again. Payne-James didnīt say that blood could flow for up to seven minutes, did he?

Did I claim that he did? No.

So you got it all wrong. Again. I guess (!) thatīs some kind of new record.

Payne-James would NOT state a time that was some sort of stoppage time, when there could not be any more bleeding. He said that he found seven minutes less likely than three or five, but not impossible. He would, Iīm sure, had said the same about eight or nine minutes - not impossible, but given what we know, even less likely. And with every added minute, the likelihood is diminshed, meaning that Lechmere fits the evidence nicely, whereas the Phantom killer fits it less well.
But that did not exclude the Phantom killer in Payne-Jamesī eyes - I know, since I asked (probably wording myself wrongfully in your eyes, but never mind).

So I may be less devious than you try to make me out. And you make your effort on faulty grounds, since Payne-James never said what you conjured up for him.

Now, can you please go away? No? Dear me, maybe I will have to run from this mastermind again, with all his misconceptions and conjured up "facts". Yes, I do think I need to do that.

Off we go!

Well that not exactly what you have posted in the past

The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" post#1054

"It is part of a e-mail exchange where I have asked Jason Payne-James if I could quote him, and he has given his consent. Here it is, my questions in red, his answers in blue:

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?

Yes

Do you know of any examples?

No

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


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."



So he said a total bleed out can occur in a few minutes in a situation similar to Nichols; but he knew of no examples, so he is to an extent guessing is he not if he has no examples to quote.


Please tell me how he is not saying bleeding will probably stop in about seven minutes. he infers that 7 is unrealistic compared to 3 and 5.



steve

[Fisherman]

Er, yes he did:

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

A. 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 amount of time" must be seven minutes otherwise "the shorter periods" makes no sense.

The problem being that you donīt know what he would have answered if I added eight or nine minutes. Can I tire of you in three, five or seven seconds? Yes, I can tire of you up to that amount of time. Whether I can tire of you beyond seven seconds is left unanswered (but you may guess what applies).

Once more, I spoke to J P-J. I know quite well that he would not call a halt after seven minutes.

You, on the other hand, did NOT speak to him, leaving you to speculate wildly and wrongly.

[Fisherman]

The replies are getting weaker Christer,

"faults in the paper reports, it does not follw that we should treat them all as faulty"

I quoted just a few examples, most of the reports on the 1st have faults, some major and some minor, sure it does not mean we dismiss all publish, but it must be treated very carefully.

And the point was this was a reply to your question:

"
So where do you propose the information from? From Neil or from the police, quoting Neil, or was it a figment of their imagination? Given that they knew not for how long she had been dead, how would they know that she bled at all?"

I asked the same about these examples, which you cannot answer without accepting that the statement about profusely may be equally faulty.




Semantics and , fooling no one.
The use of "puerile" is again not unexpected in tone.




Sorry that will not do, you claimed "a large number" now it is reduced to significant. which papers, how many come on I can find two, plus your use of the Star, and those words i cannot locate in that paper on the first in that publication. maybe i have the wrong edition?






But we do not what the press claimed they said.



He may well be, what has our propensity to humour to do with this case pray tell me?


steve

Once more, profusely MAY be wrong, but since it is in the reports, it is more likely not. End of story.

The mere idea of protesting that fact is TRULY weak.

[Fisherman]

Exactly! What I've noticed about Fisherman's responses is that he doesn't mention Biggs at all. I think he mentioned him once when he dismissed everything he has said as "general observations".

Instead, he has taken upon himself the role of expert in post-mortem bleeding to tell us what could or could not have happened, while ignoring everything Biggs has said.

If you think that J-P-J is blissfully unaware of the mechanisms of bleeding, then thatīs your choice.If you think I am ignoring Biggs, you are daft. I use him as an example of how NOT to approach a medico, as per Trevor Marriott.

[Fisherman]

Look, was there sufficient time for another person to murder & mutilate Nichols before Lechmere arrived on the scene? It's as simple as that. The answer must be yes, otherwise this case would be open and shut.

Donīt be daft. We cannot possibly know if there was sufficient time, it is all speculation. Maybe there was and maybe there wasnīt. It canīt be proven either way, but that does not mean that there WAS time.

[Fisherman]

No I didn't. See above.

This is a grand level of debating, so Iīll bite.

Yes, you did!

[Fisherman]

Well there we are, very interesting, because you didn't ask him about eight or nine minutes did you?

You asked him a leading question and he gave the answer he did:

"I guess blood may continue to flow for up to [seven minutes]."

Since when is that a leading question? It is a question whether the blood could keep running for as much as three, five or seven minutes. He would be a complete idiot to be led anywhere by that, since he hass his own view very clear, and that wonīt topple over on account of any question about specific times.

For your information, he is not a complete idiot.

[Fisherman]

Goodness, Fisherman, I wouldn't like to mischaracterise your level of deviousness.

Perhaps you are less devious than I think but, if so, you need to answer this question:

Given that PC Neil said in his sworn testimony that he saw blood oozing from the throat wound of Nichols could she quite easily, and very possibly, have been murdered 20 minutes before the time he saw this oozing?

Why do you want me to answer that question, after having mocked my lacking knowledge of medical insights and having stated that I am "playing an expert"?

What use would it be for me to answer it?

[Fisherman]

Well that not exactly what you have posted in the past

The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" post#1054

"It is part of a e-mail exchange where I have asked Jason Payne-James if I could quote him, and he has given his consent. Here it is, my questions in red, his answers in blue:

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?

Yes

Do you know of any examples?

No

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


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."



So he said a total bleed out can occur in a few minutes in a situation similar to Nichols; but he knew of no examples, so he is to an extent guessing is he not if he has no examples to quote.


Please tell me how he is not saying bleeding will probably stop in about seven minutes. he infers that 7 is unrealistic compared to 3 and 5.



steve

Yawn. He clearly says that ALL these timings could be possible, but that seven minutes to his mind is less likely than three or five. His idea was there not that the bleeding would "stop in about seven minutes" - it was very clearly that it would do so in three or five minutes.
Itīs all a question of reading and understanding fairly basic things.

[Elamarna]

Once more, profusely MAY be wrong, but since it is in the reports, it is more likely not. End of story.

The mere idea of protesting that fact is TRULY weak.

What a tiresome reply. Not addressing the points as usual.

Again just how many reports is profusely in?
If you don't know be honest and say so; if you do, there is no reason not to give that information as a large part of your theory appears to be based on it.
You claim it is in the Star, unfortunately I cannot find it. Can you please say which edition it is in, so one can check it against the other example found.

No it not weak to protest against and idea when the sources for evidence for it are not revealed despite those sources being in the public domain.
The days of just taking someone's word without any supporting evidence are TRULY over.

Steve

[Fisherman]

What a tiresome reply. Not addressing the points as usual.

Again just how many reports is profusely in?
If you don't know be honest and say so; if you do, there is no reason not to give that information as a large part of your theory appears to be based on it.
You claim it is in the Star, unfortunately I cannot find it. Can you please say which edition it is in, so one can check it against the other example found.

No it not weak to protest against and idea when the sources for evidence for it are not revealed despite those sources being in the public domain.
The days of just taking someone's word without any supporting evidence are TRULY over.

Steve

But you canīt find sources in the public domain with a flashlight and a pair of goggles, can you?

Here you are:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s880831.html

The Star. The 31:st of August.

But Iīll be damned if I look up all the rest, you will have to do that yourself. Try not to miss it this time.

[Elamarna]

Yawn. He clearly says that ALL these timings could be possible, but that seven minutes to his mind is less likely than three or five. His idea was there not that the bleeding would "stop in about seven minutes" - it was very clearly that it would do so in three or five minutes.
Itīs all a question of reading and understanding fairly basic things.

Which is not a failing I have. However it appears the same cannot be said of others.

Steve

[Elamarna]

But you canīt find sources in the public domain with a flashlight and a pair of goggles, can you?

Here you are:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s880831.html

The Star. The 31:st of August.

But Iīll be damned if I look up all the rest, you will have to do that yourself. Try not to miss it this time.

That was all I asked. Thank you .