Blood oozing

[Fisherman]

That was all I asked. Thank you .

You are ever so welcome. Sorry I could not help out with a mistake on my behalf.

[Fisherman]

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

Steve

Reading and understanding is no "failing" - it is a useful thing.

[Fisherman]

Since none of you seem to be able to get things right, I think I will leave you to your ramblings, and have a nice shower and a cup of tea. Then I will look in again and see if any of you has come up with anything even remotely useful and interesting.

Why do I have such grave misgivings...?

[John G]

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.

The bleeding wouldn't necessarily stop in seven minutes but would definitely do so in three or five minutes?

[John G]

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.

Okay, but to be objective this wasn't a report of the inquest proceedings but a piece of sensationalist, and un-sourced, journalism, from a rag whose typical headline was on the lines of "there's been another horrible murder!"

[David Orsam]

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.

I don't know why you felt the need to create an analogy with someone getting tired because you haven't improved the situation. The language used by P-J about the blood flow is clear enough. It can flow for up to 7 minutes with 3 or 5 being more realistic. He did not say it can flow up to and beyond 7 minutes. But if that is what he MEANT then we don't know whether he would have said (or "guessed" to use his language) that the blood would flow for up to 20 minutes. So his answer is completely useless for our purposes isn't it?

[David Orsam]

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.

I don't think J-P-J is blissfully unaware of the mechanisms of bleeding I think that YOU are which is why I cannot accept your speculative interpretations of what you think that J-P-J meant.

[David Orsam]

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

Yes, you did!

My level of debating referred you to an answer I had given which explained my reasoning. Your level of debating couldn't manage that.

[David Orsam]

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.

Of course it's a leading question. Why not just ask him how long blood flows for and leave it there? Why did you feel the need to offer him options of 3, 5 and 7 minutes? Did you think he was a complete idiot, unable to work out times for himself?

Even experts can be led and confused by badly worded questions you know.

[David Orsam]

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?

So here we have it. In a question expressly designed to test Fisherman's level of deviousness he refuses to answer a simple question, in an example of quite blatant evasion!!

This is despite him asking me four questions earlier in this thread demanding yes or no answers, which I gave him.

Why does he refuse to answer it? Because he realises that if he answers it honestly then that's the attempt to frame Lechmere, on the basis of the blood timings, finished.

[David Orsam]

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.

I love the way that at the same time as telling me he is less devious than I think, Fisherman is busy laying the groundwork to improve on the answer he was given by his trusted expert Payne-James.

Despite his own question to the expert going no higher than 7 minutes in respect of post-mortem "bleeding", Fisherman now introduces 8 or 9 minutes into the answer. Payne James never said it and, indeed, read properly, he has basically ruled it out but now Fisherman thinks his answer needs a re-tuning.

For, let's face, it if PC Neil could have arrived no earlier than 6 minutes after Paul first walked into Bucks Row that doesn't really give Lechmere much time to commit the murder does it? And Fisherman sees that. Sixty seconds isn't quite enough. He needs 2 or 3 minutes. So 7 minutes is out the window and we need a slightly larger window of time. 8 or 9 minutes is perfect. Still just enough time to exclude anyone other than Lechmere.

The fact that Payne-James didn't say anything about 8 or 9 minutes is not important. For Fisherman, the fact that the murder was most likely committed within 8 or 9 minutes of Neil's appearance but unlikely to have been 15 or 20 minutes before that is all he needs to frame Lechmere for the murder.

[John G]

I'm confused as to why Payne James, a respected forensic scientist, would say that Nichols would most likely, or perhaps very likely, be completely exsanguinated in seven minutes. That clearly doesn't take into account any blood still trapped in the body, and must surely be wrong if the victim was still bleeding when the ambulance arrived.

[Elamarna]

You are ever so welcome. Sorry I could not help out with a mistake on my behalf.

I informed you I could not find the wording in the edition of the Star i was looking at and assumed i had the wrong edition. I asked what edition the wording was in. Never did i say you had made a mistake, I accepted it was my inability to find that source. Why you could not have simply said it was in the edition of the 31st several hours ago I fail to understand.

Having now spent several hours look at press reports I can find 4 which all use the same basic wording, with minor variations. There is therefore a probability that they all come from the same original source.
As I have said before there are many mistakes in these early reports ranging from simply confusion to exaggeration and pure invention.
For those reasons I see no overriding reason to accept that the profusely comment is any different. We therefore need to compare it to the ACTUAL statements given by PC Neil. On those grounds it does not appear consistent.

In addition to the 4: Star Pall Mall Gazette Evening News all of 31/08 and the East London Advertiser 01/09 a shorter version is carried the the Weekly Herald a week later.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Reading and understanding is no "failing" - it is a useful thing.

Agreed however the implication in the orginal post was that I had not read and understood. Which has said aid is not a failing I suffer from.


Steve

[Elamarna]

6

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.

au contraire

While I disagree with much of what Trevor says, one thing he does well is to seek opinions from more than a single expert in his books. Credit where credit is due and on medical experts Trevor has those whom both agree with him and who disagree on certain issues.
It's his intepretation of what they say I often have issues with.

Looking at Biggs, yes some of the questions are very loaded as were some of yours to Payne-James, some the replies were general replies as well.
However there were specific questions about each of the c5.

What could be seen was the actual questions asked, the additional information supplied and the full replies. (Or course some stuff may not have made the final cut; but there is plenty there, a whole chapter in two of his books).

That to my way of thinking is a far better way of using medical experts than the method which hides the information supplied and the majority of the exchanges behind the cloak of confidentiallaity.

Steve