Blood oozing

[Elamarna]

There were three main blood collections, and we donīt know the exact relations. But we DO know that Llewellyn said that the vessels were emptied of blood.
1. The pool on the ground (half a pint or so)
2. The blood in the clothing, to my mind a minor amount.
3. The blood that had flowed into the abdominal cavity. I think this was by far the greeater amount, and I think that abdominal cutting preceded the neck cut, hence the small amount in the pool and the lack of arterial spray on the ground.

On point one, the figure given does not include the pool under Nichols I assume as Llewellyn appears not to have noticed this, instead he talks about the pool by her neck.
Does he allow for any blood which has by this stage reached the gutter, he does not seem to have ?

Can I respectfully ask what data source you have used to come to the conclusion in point two?

On point 3 we disagree of course and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be established conclusively which came first. However having said that I will present an argument that concludes that the probability is lower that the abdomen was the first point of attack in part 3 of the Project.

It is of interest that Llewellyn gives no estimate for the volume of blood in the cavity, if one is going to argue that this area was attacked first that would be a primary source in support of such an hypothesis.

And of course as you seem to accept that strangulation took place first, as Payne-James says, if this did result in death, again as Payne-James says; there would be virtually no arterial spray anyway.

Another example of "wanting ones cake and eating it" I believe.

Seems to be a few of those being suggested in the case.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: On point one, the figure given does not include the pool under Nichols I assume as Llewellyn appears not to have noticed this, instead he talks about the pool by her neck.
Does he allow for any blood which has by this stage reached the gutter, he does not seem to have ?

I believe there was only ever one single pool - the pool under the neck. Mizen is the one who says that the blood has run into the gutter, but since Llewellyn commented on the scaricty of blood and estimated the volume in the neck pool, we can safely assume that there was not much blood in the stream towards the gutter.

Can I respectfully ask what data source you have used to come to the conclusion in point two?

Yes, you can. I rely on how it is said that there is blood only in the upper part of the dress, around the neck and shoulders. Apparently, the cloth was not of a character where capillary power allowed for the blood travel very far in it, and therefore not much blood will have ended up there - to my mind. I have no other sources than yours, so your guess is (almost ) as good as mine.

On point 3 we disagree of course and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be established conclusively which came first. However having said that I will present an argument that concludes that the probability is lower that the abdomen was the first point of attack in part 3 of the Project.

Okay. It should be interesting enough, I dare say!

It is of interest that Llewellyn gives no estimate for the volume of blood in the cavity, if one is going to argue that this area was attacked first that would be a primary source in support of such an hypothesis.

Are you suggesting that he should have collected the blood in a vessel to try and establish the volume? Was that common practice?
As a matter of fact, I do think that Llewellyn does give sort of an estimate:

"On the abdomen were some severe cuts and stabs, which the witness described in detail. Nearly all the blood had drained out of the arteries and veins, and collected to a large extent in the loose tissues."

Now, the blood that leaked out of the neck did NOT collect in any loose tissues, it went onto the ground or into the clothing. So when Llewellyn says "nearly all the blood" here, I am of the meaning that he means that the bulk of Nicholsī blood leaked into the abdominal cavity. So I see no point on your behalf, actually.

And of course as you seem to accept that strangulation took place first, as Payne-James says, if this did result in death, again as Payne-James says; there would be virtually no arterial spray anyway.

There is an underlying pressure even after death, for some time, albeit smaller than when the heart pumps. It generally expresses itself in arterial spray to some degree. It also should be said that if all the vessels of the neck were completely severed, the we should not expect three decilitres of blood on the ground under the neck - we should have a lot more blood there. But if the blood had already left the arteries and veins to a very large degree, leaking into the abdominal cavity, then it makes perfect sense that there was no arterial spray at the neck, since the pressure outlet had gone into the abdomen, and it makes perfect sense that there was only a very small amount of blood under the neck.

Another example of "wanting ones cake and eating it" I believe.

Another attempt at working logic, more likely. As opposed to your very strange suggestions.

Seems to be a few of those being suggested in the case.

What is suggested in the case is that I am twisting everything into an accusation act against Lechmere. The truth is that a number of posters, you being one of them, are so hellbent on not admitting the quality of the Lechmere bid that you are prepared to bend over backwards to deny it.

You are not seeking the truth, Steve. You are seeking to nullify what cannot be nullified. Nothing else. Your bias has shown very much for a very long time. Now, you go on back to your research about how one may best try and rid oneself of the one and only logical bid there ever was for the Ripperīs role, and we can discuss your findings - or whatever - when youīre done. If it is along the same line of quality as your "evidence" for the neck coming first, a very short discussion will follow, like when you listed the four routes Lechmere may have used.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: On point one, the figure given does not include the pool under Nichols I assume as Llewellyn appears not to have noticed this, instead he talks about the pool by her neck.
Does he allow for any blood which has by this stage reached the gutter, he does not seem to have ?

I believe there was only ever one single pool - the pool under the neck. Mizen is the one who says that the blood has run into the gutter, but since Llewellyn commented on the scaricty of blood and estimated the volume in the neck pool, we can safely assume that there was not much blood in the stream towards the gutter.

So ignore Thains comments that when the body was moved there was a pool of blood under the body. This was after Llewellyn had left so he did not see it.

There is nothing in the sources which imply Llewellyn took any notice of the blood in the gutter.

Can I respectfully ask what data source you have used to come to the conclusion in point two?

Yes, you can. I rely on how it is said that there is blood only in the upper part of the dress, around the neck and shoulders. Apparently, the cloth was not of a character where capillary power allowed for the blood travel very far in it, and therefore not much blood will have ended up there - to my mind. I have no other sources than yours, so your guess is (almost ) as good as mine.

No guess on my part the sources imply that much of her upper clothing was saturated/soaked with blood. Some sources say the blood went from her neck to her waist.

This will be covered in part 2 to a limited degree before full discussion in part 3.
However good to see you admit it is a guess on your part.

On point 3 we disagree of course and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be established conclusively which came first. However having said that I will present an argument that concludes that the probability is lower that the abdomen was the first point of attack in part 3 of the Project.

Okay. It should be interesting enough, I dare say!

It will be.

It is of interest that Llewellyn gives no estimate for the volume of blood in the cavity, if one is going to argue that this area was attacked first that would be a primary source in support of such an hypothesis.

Are you suggesting that he should have collected the blood in a vessel to try and establish the volume? Was that common practice?


As a matter of fact, I do think that Llewellyn does give sort of an estimate:

"On the abdomen were some severe cuts and stabs, which the witness described in detail. Nearly all the blood had drained out of the arteries and veins, and collected to a large extent in the loose tissues."

Now, the blood that leaked out of the neck did NOT collect in any loose tissues, it went onto the ground or into the clothing. So when Llewellyn says "nearly all the blood" here, I am of the meaning that he means that the bulk of Nicholsī blood leaked into the abdominal cavity. So I see no point on your behalf, actually.

As for you first suggestion of course not. Do you think he did such for the blood from the neck. He estitimated having observed the pool. The same could have been done for the blood in the cavity.

The second suggesting that he gives an estimate of sorts is I am afraid comical.
Firstly there is no attempt at a volume. While he does give one for the neck wound.
The quote appears to be saying that blood had drained from the vessels in the area of the wounds and that blood from there had settled somehow in the loose tissue.
Ignoring the issue of how unlikely the ability of said tissue to absorb most of the body's blood is. (covered in part 3 of course). He appear to be saying most of the blood from the vessels he can see has drained into the cavity, not most of the body's blood. That is just wishful and I am sorry to say misguided and to a degree misleading intreptation on your part.

And of course as you seem to accept that strangulation took place first, as Payne-James says, if this did result in death, again as Payne-James says; there would be virtually no arterial spray anyway.

There is an underlying pressure even after death, for some time, albeit smaller than when the heart pumps. It generally expresses itself in arterial spray to some degree. It also should be said that if all the vessels of the neck were completely severed, the we should not expect three decilitres of blood on the ground under the neck - we should have a lot more blood there. But if the blood had already left the arteries and veins to a very large degree, leaking into the abdominal cavity, then it makes perfect sense that there was no arterial spray at the neck, since the pressure outlet had gone into the abdomen, and it makes perfect sense that there was only a very small amount of blood under the neck.

How misguided. Once the heart stops beating there is no pressure, it drops considerably before it stops in the case of blood lose.
However assuming the victim is strangled to death first there would be very little spray after the first one or two seconds.
And of course the area was washed before any trace of spray could be saught in daylight.
Again the idea you suggest ONLY works if there is little blood from the neck which I dispute.
Guess what the apparent lack of spray is also covered in part 3.

Another example of "wanting ones cake and eating it" I believe.

Another attempt at working logic, more likely. As opposed to your very strange suggestions.

Seems to be a few of those being suggested in the case.

What is suggested in the case is that I am twisting everything into an accusation act against Lechmere. The truth is that a number of posters, you being one of them, are so hellbent on not admitting the quality of the Lechmere bid that you are prepared to bend over backwards to deny it.

Not true. If all you have on lechmere is the blood issue as so called strong evidence you do not have a case. However the claim is there is much evidence for both the Key case and the Torso killings too.
I have only looked at Bucks Row, not the case about his possible involvement in the others.

You are not seeking the truth, Steve. You are seeking to nullify what cannot be nullified. Nothing else. Your bias has shown very much for a very long time. Now, you go on back to your research about how one may best try and rid oneself of the one and only logical bid there ever was for the Ripperīs role, and we can discuss your findings - or whatever - when youīre done. If it is along the same line of quality as your "evidence" for the neck coming first, a very short discussion will follow, like when you listed the four routes Lechmere may have used.

The true is the only thing I am interested in.
The very fact that you claim that Lechmere is the one and only truly logical bid shows how closed your thinking is on the issue, from your own lips so to speak.

Your comments about my research do not bother me. It's the attack is The best form of defence scenario.
The fact that you fail to understand the point of looking at what routes Lechmere may taken is strange(It's 6 by the way not 4.).
Such allows us to discredit routes proposed on the net and which claim to take half the time they actually do.
It allows us to see at what speed Lechmere may have walked at to reach work by 4am.
And last but not least it allows us to say the time you stated for his route in the documentary was indeed possible; despite your refusal to say what that route was.


I note that most of your post is based on your views, and the abuse of other people's work continues.


Steve

[Pierre]

Was it NOT a ghastly sight? Had she NOT been ripped completely open?

"Ghastly! Ripped completely open!"

Indeed, you are a journalist and you work in 2017 as the journalists did in 1888.

It is both a sociological and historical fact.

Poor Lechmere.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: So ignore Thains comments that when the body was moved there was a pool of blood under the body. This was after Llewellyn had left so he did not see it.

Can you show me the quote where Thain said that there was a pool of blood under where the body had lain?
I donīt think any such pool was ever mentioned in any source at all. Maybe you know better?
Thain said that he got his hands bloodied when lifting the back of the body, as far as the waist, was covered with blood. This is of course in conflict with when the clothes were checked carefully at the morgue, after which the police laid down that the blood on the dress stretched only to the upper areas around neck and shoulder.
The inference being that Thain got the blood from there before he grabbed onto the waist.

You see, far from ignoring, I look at all the material, and then I conclude from that. And I think a thorough check of the clothes in retrospect is more likely to be true than a PC witnessing about how he got bloodied in a pitch dark street, when helping lifting a body onto an ambulance.
When do you gather the blood disappeared from the clothing, Steve?
When I picked deceased up, her back, as far as the waist, was covered with blood. ambulance and that the body was bloodied

There is nothing in the sources which imply Llewellyn took any notice of the blood in the gutter.

There is not even any information saying that there was blood in the gutter. It says that there was blood running towards it, methinks. And I never said that Llewellyn stated it, I extremely clearly pointed out that Mizen did.

No guess on my part the sources imply that much of her upper clothing was saturated/soaked with blood. Some sources say the blood went from her neck to her waist.

That source is - as I just proved - Thain, who will have been mistaken. The blood was in the upper part of the dress only. How much blood will there have been if the cloth did not even allow for any longer transport by capillary power, Steve?

This will be covered in part 2 to a limited degree before full discussion in part 3.
However good to see you admit it is a guess on your part.

It has already BEEN covered.

As for you first suggestion of course not. Do you think he did such for the blood from the neck. He estitimated having observed the pool. The same could have been done for the blood in the cavity.

It is a very hard thing to do, since the blood covers the outlining of the cavity. A guess would be extremely inexact therefore, perhaps wrong. It sufficed wuite well that he said that the blood had leaked out of the vessels and largely collected in the abdominal cavity.

The second suggesting that he gives an estimate of sorts is I am afraid comical.

But we have different senses of humour. Or, to be more exact, I have a sense of humour.

Firstly there is no attempt at a volume. While he does give one for the neck wound.

See the above. In which other Ripper case do you have a medico estimating volumes of blood? Hm?

The quote appears to be saying that blood had drained from the vessels in the area of the wounds and that blood from there had settled somehow in the loose tissue.

The ABDOMINAL wounds, that is.

Ignoring the issue of how unlikely the ability of said tissue to absorb most of the body's blood is. (covered in part 3 of course). He appear to be saying most of the blood from the vessels he can see has drained into the cavity, not most of the body's blood. That is just wishful and I am sorry to say misguided and to a degree misleading intreptation on your part.

Or you are misleading. Which is a lot more likely, given your ideas. The blood had run out of the veins and arteries and leaked into the abdomen. That is kind of clear to most people.

How misguided. Once the heart stops beating there is no pressure, it drops considerably before it stops in the case of blood lose.

So it doesnīt drop totally? Only considerably? Is that not exactly what I am saying? When thenheart stops beating, the heartbeat pressure goes away, but there is a built up pressure in the system for some little time anyway, and there will be an initial rush of blood if opened up close in time to that point.
It is what experts say, so they are the misguided ones, I take it? And you the master?
However assuming the victim is strangled to death first there would be very little spray after the first one or two seconds.
And of course the area was washed before any trace of spray could be saught in daylight.
Again the idea you suggest ONLY works if there is little blood from the neck which I dispute.
Guess what the apparent lack of spray is also covered in part 3.

I canīt wait! It will, Iīm sure, be the solution to all things Nichols! And you will DISPUTE things - thrilling!

Not true.

Yes, true.

If all you have on lechmere is the blood issue as so called strong evidence you do not have a case.

Others say "If all you have is the name swap", "If all you have is the Mizen scam", "If all you have is the covered up wounds", etcetera. I have a lot. Ask Scobie, I have him too. To pit you against that is a mismatch.

However the claim is there is much evidence for both the Key case and the Torso killings too.

Which case is the Key case?

I have only looked at Bucks Row, not the case about his possible involvement in the others.

Ars longa, vita brevis.

The true is the only thing I am interested in.

It is the only thing you CLAIM to be interested in. It seems to me you spend a lot of time telling others that I am not truthful. So you have two hobbies, at the very least.

The very fact that you claim that Lechmere is the one and only truly logical bid shows how closed your thinking is on the issue, from your own lips so to speak.

Yes, it shows how closed my thinking is. Whether it is fair to close it to that degree or not is another question. What other logical bid did YOU have in mind for the Nichols murder, and why is he/she logical? You need to take on board that from an investigative point of view, the Ripper case is nowadays a one-man show. Like it you must not, but there you are.

Your comments about my research do not bother me. It's the attack is The best form of defence scenario.

I did not state them to bother you. I stated them to better you.

The fact that you fail to understand the point of looking at what routes Lechmere may taken is strange(It's 6 by the way not 4.).

Wasnīt it seven? Or nineteen? I keep forgetting.It is not a very interesting matter to be perfectly frank, since we do not know when he left home. He cannot be challenged as being the killer on such grounds. All you can do is to suggest that maybe Paul need not have heard him - and that only works up until they enter Bucks Row, thirty or forty yards inbetween them.

Such allows us to discredit routes proposed on the net and which claim to take half the time they actually do.

Ah - discrediting. Thereīs that second hobby of yours again.

It allows us to see at what speed Lechmere may have walked at to reach work by 4am.

We already KNEW what speed he "may" have travelled at: Slow, rather slow, normal, quick or more quick. Oh, I forgot leisurely!

And last but not least it allows us to say the time you stated for his route in the documentary was indeed possible; despite your refusal to say what that route was.

I am not the only one to have measured and noted that, Steve. I am not the first either. We knew it all along.

I note that most of your post is based on your views, and the abuse of other people's work continues.

I am constantly abused by you too, so welcome to the freak show. You keep banging on about double standards and misleading and such things, and you suggest between the lines that I am a charlatan and a fraudster. I could choose to meet that by turning the other cheek, and maybe I would if I had a weak argument. As it stands, YOU are the one with the weak arguemnts, and you are the one who should be careful with that second hobby. Me, I have always tried to answer in the same vein as I am spoken to. That has made me a large number of enemies and a few really reliable and good friends, some of whom I disagree with - but where we are reciprocally respectful to each other.
What I will ask you to ponder is this: If you make a point/points that are better than the ones I make once you produce your thoughts on the blood issues, I will say so. It is vital for me to stay true to myself, no matter how little you may believe it.

My worst fear now is that you will answer by taking up half the band width out here, and I must prepare you for a much shorter answer if that is the case. Do as you wish.

[Fisherman]

"Ghastly! Ripped completely open!"

Indeed, you are a journalist and you work in 2017 as the journalists did in 1888.

It is both a sociological and historical fact.

Poor Lechmere.

Pierre

You avoid the questions I asked. Do you think the woman presented a ghastly sight? Was she completely ripped open? Yes, the paper is interested in selling copies, but were these matters lies?

By the way, papers have changed a lot since 1888 as has journalism. Not that you will know it, though, but for clarityīs sake, I thought Iīd mention it.

[Pierre]

Elamarna: So ignore Thains comments that when the body was moved there was a pool of blood under the body. This was after Llewellyn had left so he did not see it.

Can you show me the quote where Thain said that there was a pool of blood under where the body had lain?
I donīt think any such pool was ever mentioned in any source at all. Maybe you know better?
Thain said that he got his hands bloodied when lifting the back of the body, as far as the waist, was covered with blood. This is of course in conflict with when the clothes were checked carefully at the morgue, after which the police laid down that the blood on the dress stretched only to the upper areas around neck and shoulder.
The inference being that Thain got the blood from there before he grabbed onto the waist.

You see, far from ignoring, I look at all the material, and then I conclude from that. And I think a thorough check of the clothes in retrospect is more likely to be true than a PC witnessing about how he got bloodied in a pitch dark street, when helping lifting a body onto an ambulance.
When do you gather the blood disappeared from the clothing, Steve?
When I picked deceased up, her back, as far as the waist, was covered with blood. ambulance and that the body was bloodied

There is nothing in the sources which imply Llewellyn took any notice of the blood in the gutter.

There is not even any information saying that there was blood in the gutter. It says that there was blood running towards it, methinks. And I never said that Llewellyn stated it, I extremely clearly pointed out that Mizen did.

No guess on my part the sources imply that much of her upper clothing was saturated/soaked with blood. Some sources say the blood went from her neck to her waist.

That source is - as I just proved - Thain, who will have been mistaken. The blood was in the upper part of the dress only. How much blood will there have been if the cloth did not even allow for any longer transport by capillary power, Steve?

This will be covered in part 2 to a limited degree before full discussion in part 3.
However good to see you admit it is a guess on your part.

It has already BEEN covered.

As for you first suggestion of course not. Do you think he did such for the blood from the neck. He estitimated having observed the pool. The same could have been done for the blood in the cavity.

It is a very hard thing to do, since the blood covers the outlining of the cavity. A guess would be extremely inexact therefore, perhaps wrong. It sufficed wuite well that he said that the blood had leaked out of the vessels and largely collected in the abdominal cavity.

The second suggesting that he gives an estimate of sorts is I am afraid comical.

But we have different senses of humour. Or, to be more exact, I have a sense of humour.

Firstly there is no attempt at a volume. While he does give one for the neck wound.

See the above. In which other Ripper case do you have a medico estimating volumes of blood? Hm?

The quote appears to be saying that blood had drained from the vessels in the area of the wounds and that blood from there had settled somehow in the loose tissue.

The ABDOMINAL wounds, that is.

Ignoring the issue of how unlikely the ability of said tissue to absorb most of the body's blood is. (covered in part 3 of course). He appear to be saying most of the blood from the vessels he can see has drained into the cavity, not most of the body's blood. That is just wishful and I am sorry to say misguided and to a degree misleading intreptation on your part.

Or you are misleading. Which is a lot more likely, given your ideas. The blood had run out of the veins and arteries and leaked into the abdomen. That is kind of clear to most people.

How misguided. Once the heart stops beating there is no pressure, it drops considerably before it stops in the case of blood lose.

So it doesnīt drop totally? Only considerably? Is that not exactly what I am saying? When thenheart stops beating, the heartbeat pressure goes away, but there is a built up pressure in the system for some little time anyway, and there will be an initial rush of blood if opened up close in time to that point.
It is what experts say, so they are the misguided ones, I take it? And you the master?
However assuming the victim is strangled to death first there would be very little spray after the first one or two seconds.
And of course the area was washed before any trace of spray could be saught in daylight.
Again the idea you suggest ONLY works if there is little blood from the neck which I dispute.
Guess what the apparent lack of spray is also covered in part 3.

I canīt wait! It will, Iīm sure, be the solution to all things Nichols! And you will DISPUTE things - thrilling!

Not true.

Yes, true.

If all you have on lechmere is the blood issue as so called strong evidence you do not have a case.

Others say "If all you have is the name swap", "If all you have is the Mizen scam", "If all you have is the covered up wounds", etcetera. I have a lot. Ask Scobie, I have him too. To pit you against that is a mismatch.

However the claim is there is much evidence for both the Key case and the Torso killings too.

Which case is the Key case?

I have only looked at Bucks Row, not the case about his possible involvement in the others.

Ars longa, vita brevis.

The true is the only thing I am interested in.

It is the only thing you CLAIM to be interested in. It seems to me you spend a lot of time telling others that I am not truthful. So you have two hobbies, at the very least.

The very fact that you claim that Lechmere is the one and only truly logical bid shows how closed your thinking is on the issue, from your own lips so to speak.

Yes, it shows how closed my thinking is. Whether it is fair to close it to that degree or not is another question. What other logical bid did YOU have in mind for the Nichols murder, and why is he/she logical? You need to take on board that from an investigative point of view, the Ripper case is nowadays a one-man show. Like it you must not, but there you are.

Your comments about my research do not bother me. It's the attack is The best form of defence scenario.

I did not state them to bother you. I stated them to better you.

The fact that you fail to understand the point of looking at what routes Lechmere may taken is strange(It's 6 by the way not 4.).

Wasnīt it seven? Or nineteen? I keep forgetting.It is not a very interesting matter to be perfectly frank, since we do not know when he left home. He cannot be challenged as being the killer on such grounds. All you can do is to suggest that maybe Paul need not have heard him - and that only works up until they enter Bucks Row, thirty or forty yards inbetween them.

Such allows us to discredit routes proposed on the net and which claim to take half the time they actually do.

Ah - discrediting. Thereīs that second hobby of yours again.

It allows us to see at what speed Lechmere may have walked at to reach work by 4am.

We already KNEW what speed he "may" have travelled at: Slow, rather slow, normal, quick or more quick. Oh, I forgot leisurely!

And last but not least it allows us to say the time you stated for his route in the documentary was indeed possible; despite your refusal to say what that route was.

I am not the only one to have measured and noted that, Steve. I am not the first either. We knew it all along.

I note that most of your post is based on your views, and the abuse of other people's work continues.

I am constantly abused by you too, so welcome to the freak show. You keep banging on about double standards and misleading and such things, and you suggest between the lines that I am a charlatan and a fraudster. I could choose to meet that by turning the other cheek, and maybe I would if I had a weak argument. As it stands, YOU are the one with the weak arguemnts, and you are the one who should be careful with that second hobby. Me, I have always tried to answer in the same vein as I am spoken to. That has made me a large number of enemies and a few really reliable and good friends, some of whom I disagree with - but where we are reciprocally respectful to each other.
What I will ask you to ponder is this: If you make a point/points that are better than the ones I make once you produce your thoughts on the blood issues, I will say so. It is vital for me to stay true to myself, no matter how little you may believe it.

My worst fear now is that you will answer by taking up half the band width out here, and I must prepare you for a much shorter answer if that is the case. Do as you wish.

Fisherman,

Steve has not said that you are "a charlatan and a fraudster".

There may of course be people who think you are.

But itīs not that easy. You are not a "fraudster" but you are a journalist. Journalists create sensational news. You use the sensational news from 1888 to create your own sensational news, which of course are no news:

"And it was then that I said: thatīs him. Jack the Ripper". Quoting from memory from you "documentary".

There was no such thing as a "Mizen scam". Using another name was common. But you try to make headlines of it. And you canīt do anything else, since you are a journalist. You do not have any other tools.

Steve uses scientific methods to examine your Minutiae in Buckīs Row. I do see that you do not like this.

But you should actually be very grateful for it. If Steve has interesting results, new ones, you may benefit from it one way or the other.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

You avoid the questions I asked. Do you think the woman presented a ghastly sight? Was she completely ripped open? Yes, the paper is interested in selling copies, but were these matters lies?

By the way, papers have changed a lot since 1888 as has journalism. Not that you will know it, though, but for clarityīs sake, I thought Iīd mention it.

You are talking to me now, perhaps you did not notice.

Anyway, gastliness does not reveal Lechmere as a killer. It reveals the idea of the journalist, the expeience of witnesses or the rumours after the murder.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

Steve has not said that you are "a charlatan and a fraudster".

There may of course be people who think you are.

But itīs not that easy. You are not a "fraudster" but you are a journalist. Journalists create sensational news. You use the sensational news from 1888 to create your own sensational news, which of course are no news:

"And it was then that I said: thatīs him. Jack the Ripper". Quoting from memory from you "documentary".

There was no such thing as a "Mizen scam". Using another name was common. But you try to make headlines of it. And you canīt do anything else, since you are a journalist. You do not have any other tools.

Steve uses scientific methods to examine your Minutiae in Buckīs Row. I do see that you do not like this.

But you should actually be very grateful for it. If Steve has interesting results, new ones, you may benefit from it one way or the other.

Cheers, Pierre

I donīt dislike any new and real knowledge, regardless. If Steve offers it, nobody will be more thankful than me. Whether it helps or flaws the Lechmere theory is secondary.

[Fisherman]

You are talking to me now, perhaps you did not notice.

Anyway, gastliness does not reveal Lechmere as a killer. It reveals the idea of the journalist, the expeience of witnesses or the rumours after the murder.

Yes, I know I am talking to you, but the questions apply to you too. And you still have not answered them.

I canīt remember saying that ghastliness reveals Lechmere as the killer. I find the suggestion quite odd.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: So ignore Thains comments that when the body was moved there was a pool of blood under the body. This was after Llewellyn had left so he did not see it.

Can you show me the quote where Thain said that there was a pool of blood under where the body had lain?
I donīt think any such pool was ever mentioned in any source at all. Maybe you know better?
Thain said that he got his hands bloodied when lifting the back of the body, as far as the waist, was covered with blood. This is of course in conflict with when the clothes were checked carefully at the morgue, after which the police laid down that the blood on the dress stretched only to the upper areas around neck and shoulder.
The inference being that Thain got the blood from there before he grabbed onto the waist.

You see, far from ignoring, I look at all the material, and then I conclude from that. And I think a thorough check of the clothes in retrospect is more likely to be true than a PC witnessing about how he got bloodied in a pitch dark street, when helping lifting a body onto an ambulance.
When do you gather the blood disappeared from the clothing, Steve?
When I picked deceased up, her back, as far as the waist, was covered with blood. ambulance and that the body was bloodied

That is a very interesting response, especially considering post# 192 from this thread by yourself:

"There was a pool of blood under her, where she was lying. There was nothing at all said about the size of the pool in your quote. Ergo, there is nothing at all strange about it. The police may have said "There was a pool of blood under her" and the reporters may have written that she was lying in a pool of blood. Big deal. Misguided ingenuity, Steve."

Are now saying there was no blood under her?

The quote from Thain by the way is from the times 18th September:

"He was present when the spots of blood were washed away. On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6 in. in diameter, and had run towards the gutter. It appeared to him to be a large quantity of blood

By the CORONER. - He helped to put the body on the ambulance, and the back appeared to be covered with blood, which, he thought, had run from the neck as far as the waist. He got blood on to his hands. "

That would suggest that the pool was an extension of the pool by the neck, but was under her, so could not be seen without moving her, and Llewellyn had gone by that stage.."

The very fact that you quoted this point yesterday and refute it today leaves me somewhat speechless.

The issues of blood on the clothing as been discussed many times, most recently in the thread "Polly’s wounds, what were they like? "
post #174 and #179 probably give both sides of the argument equally.

In response to your request to save on band width I am not responding to all that very long post, just those bit I feel really need one.

Steve

[Elamarna]

No guess on my part the sources imply that much of her upper clothing was saturated/soaked with blood. Some sources say the blood went from her neck to her waist.

That source is - as I just proved - Thain, who will have been mistaken. The blood was in the upper part of the dress only. How much blood will there have been if the cloth did not even allow for any longer transport by capillary power, Steve?

This will be covered in part 2 to a limited degree before full discussion in part 3.
However good to see you admit it is a guess on your part.

No such point has been proven, you have suggested it that is all.
(see my previous post)

How can you possibly know how absorbent the clothing was, it was not tested and we have no samples of it,
That statement is based solely on your view that there was no blood below the upper parts of her clothing, specifically those around her neck.

It has already BEEN covered.

And it will be again.
Are you suggested that such may not be done and is wasteful, that is a recipe for never challenging anything is it not?


Steve

[Elamarna]

As for you first suggestion of course not. Do you think he did such for the blood from the neck. He estitimated having observed the pool. The same could have been done for the blood in the cavity.

It is a very hard thing to do, since the blood covers the outlining of the cavity. A guess would be extremely inexact therefore, perhaps wrong. It sufficed wuite well that he said that the blood had leaked out of the vessels and largely collected in the abdominal cavity.

No it is not sufficient he provides no evidence to back up his suggestion, he does for the neck wounds, he could do so here.
"blood covers the outlining(?) of the cavity"
In an uncut state? Really?

The second suggesting that he gives an estimate of sorts is I am afraid comical.

But we have different senses of humour. Or, to be more exact, I have a sense of humour.

Firstly there is no attempt at a volume. While he does give one for the neck wound.

See the above. In which other Ripper case do you have a medico estimating volumes of blood? Hm?

This one only, with the neck wounds and it is the only one where there is a debate of this kind and a possible need for such information.
Which of course just diverts from the issue that you claim he did make a sort of estimate- he patently did not.

Ignoring the issue of how unlikely the ability of said tissue to absorb most of the body's blood is. (covered in part 3 of course). He appear to be saying most of the blood from the vessels he can see has drained into the cavity, not most of the body's blood. That is just wishful and I am sorry to say misguided and to a degree misleading interpretation on your part.

Or you are misleading. Which is a lot more likely, given your ideas. The blood had run out of the veins and arteries and leaked into the abdomen. That is kind of clear to most people.

No that is not what he says, he says into the loose tissue, it is not the same thing as the cavity itself.
And he is talking about the blood vessels in that area, there is no inference in his statement that he is talking about blood running into the loose tissue from the whole circulatory system.




Steve

[David Orsam]

The way you try to interpret it, it seems very useful for your purposes.

This is a very odd statement. I have no "purposes" other than finding out the truth. Have you forgotten how and why the information from Biggs about 20 minutes of oozing was obtained? It was back in December 2014 when the only information we had about blood "flow" after death was that it lasted about 3-5 minutes.

On that basis, I said to Trevor Marriott in the thread, 'Let's Get Lechmere off the Hook' (#871):

"...if PC Neil saw blood still oozing from the throat wound (as he said he did in his evidence at the inquest), doesn't that mean that the actual time of death was no more than about five minutes before he discovered the body? And as, on any view of the evidence, Cross discovered the body about five minutes before Neil, doesn't that put Cross right bang in the frame????"

So there is clear evidence that my "purpose" in 2014 was the truth, even if that truth implicated Lechmere.

It was then, on the basis of various pressing by me (jointly with you), that Trevor contacted Biggs whose responses allowed us to establish that the initial belief that blood would only flow, or ooze, for 3-5 minutes after death was quite wrong and that 20 minutes was perfectly possible.

Having established that simple fact I realised that Cross was not "bang in the frame" because I work only on the facts and not out of an irrational desire to frame someone for murder.

[David Orsam]

For seven minutes to be the limit, it would have taken that Payne-James said so: "I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, BUT NOT ANY LONGER". He never said anything remotely like that.

Letīs try to help your gifts of understanding a bit on the way: A Mountain, Mount X, has four camps for climbers on it, situated on 6000, 6200, 6400 and 6800 meters. I am asked about a man who I know, and who is going to try and climb up the mountainside. He is not a very good climber. The question I am asked is whether I think he can reach any of the lower three camps, and I answer "I guess he can be able to reach all of them, but he is likelier to only reach camp one or two".

Does that mean that I exclude that he could reach camp 4, or does it mean that I simply think it very unlikely?

Fisherman you really do not need to create these various analogies because I can understand the English language perfectly well. So I know what Payne-James said. This new example you have given is irrelevant because the statement "I guess he can be able to reach all of them" is not what Payne-James said or anything like it.

Payne James said that blood can flow for up to 7 minutes. That's it. This statement implies that it cannot flow for more than 7 minutes. One would not expect him to say "it can flow for up to 7 minutes but no longer" because the "no longer" is already implied in what he did say. If he had wanted to say it can flow for more than 7 minutes one would have expected him to say "blood can flow for up to and beyond 7 minutes". But he did not say that. So we are left with what he DID say which is that it flows for up to 7 minutes.

If, however, as you maintain, he really IS saying (or guessing) that it can flow for beyond 7 minutes then it brings 15 and 30 minutes into play doesn't it? It's all very well you, as the oracle through which Payne-James' words flow, telling us that, beyond the time stated by the great man, 8 minutes is acceptable, 9 minutes is acceptable but that's it. 10 minutes not acceptable, 11 minutes not acceptable and so on up to 15 minutes and beyond to 20. That's doing exactly what I said earlier; you are trying to improve an answer for the obvious purpose of framing Lechmere for the murder of Nichols