Blood oozing

[Elamarna]

This you do not take into account, because your aim is not to get to the root of things - it is to try and defend you own poppycock, and to try and tarnish me as best as you can.

And look how you fared.

Any examination of my posts on this forum will show that when I make a mistake I put my hands up and say so.
I have no investment to protect as such and am far too long in the tooth to worry making such mistakes. For some such a course of action seems to be near impossible

Your claim is unfounded. And while a tad annoying that is all it is.

Tarnish you? The challenges are to what you post, not an attack on you. The two are not the same.

And one is allowed to challenge ideas.




Steve

[Fisherman]

I think the time has come to point out a few things about how I look at the case, and how I reason.

The general approach out here is to say "No, it need not have been like that, it could have been like this instead".

Actually, I know that quite well.

The neck MAY have been cut first.

The blood MAY have left Nichols at a speed that is consistent with the general meaning of oozing when Neil saw her.

There MAY have been time for another killer.

And so on. In eternity.

What I am doing, is to try and see if the surrounding circumstances fit with Lechmere as the killer. I do this because I think that there are just too many anomalies involved for him not to be a very viable bid. And so, much as things MAY have been the other way around when it comes to the details, that is of inferior interest to me in my work to see if the details may fit Lechmere in the killerīs role.

It is suggested out here that Nichols MAY have been cut twenty minutes before Neil saw her, putting it in the vicinity of 3.25. It is claimed that it would be very odd if the neck was not cut first, and that this therefore MAY and probably WAS the case. It is said that there was an extension of the 15 centimeter pool of blood, reaching in under Nicholsī body, and that Llewellyn MAY have been blissfully unaware of this, although he would probably have been in place as the body was lifted onto the ambulance.
All sorts of things are suggested as alternative possibilities.

Fine. But you must be prepared to have these alternative suggestions challenged. And in the end, when it al has boiled down, we are left with how Neil said that the blood was running as he saw the body, how Mizen said that the blod was still running into the pool under the neck as he arrived, and that Llewellyn opted for a time of death no further removed in time than 30 minutes. And he saw the body att approximately 4.10, leaving us with 3.40 being the earliest possible cutting time as per Llewellyn.

Does that mean that Lechmere can be exonerated? No.

Does it in any way detract from the suggestion that he was the killer? No.

Are we left with any more probable killer, the Phantom killer included? No.

That is all there is to the matter, in the end:

Although it MAY be that Lechmere was not the killer, he is certainly the one and only man that is pointed out by the blood evidence.

Think Iīm done here now.

[Elamarna]

But no . Such does not fit the theory and so the experts, both of the medical ones may be wrong and the layman correct.

You are making a complete idiot of yourself, Steve. Try not to.

Payne-James does not say that the blood WILL only leak and dribble out after death, he says that it MAY do so. And he speaks of a period of minutes, meaning that he is discussing the bloodflow on the whole - what happens with the blood in a case like the Nichols case, where all the major vessels in the neck are opened up.
Nota bene that Payne-James was quite aware that she had also had the abdomen extensively cut, and if that came first, then why would the blood fro the neck NOT simply dribble and leak out?

This you do not take into account, because your aim is not to get to the root of things - it is to try and defend you own poppycock, and to try and tarnish me as best as you can.

And look how you fared.

Actual in the documentary he talks of far less extensive abdomenial damage, the charts shown echo this. It is in the documentary.

He say he believed that say was probably strangled and then he says the above. It is a direct quote my friend.
And of course it is only a possability but you appear to wish to discard this in favour of your own theory, that of a non expert over an expert. It again demonstrates the single view approach.

You do not like what Biggs and in this instance Payne-james say is possible, or indeed probable, that is not my fault.

Again personal insult do not reflect well on you.



Steve

[Fisherman]

But no . Such does not fit the theory and so the experts, both of the medical ones may be wrong and the layman correct.

Steve[/QUOTE

Hi Steve,

Yes, it's very peculiar, he seems to have abandoned his own expert, preferring instead his own layman's opinion. Of course, it makes no sense that the abdomen was attacked first as that would have meant a full-frontal confrontation, giving Nichols the opportunity to resist and call for help.

Moreover, if he did indeed strangle Nichols why would he then target the abdomen before returning to the neck? I mean, that would mean he strangles the victim until she's expired (as per Payne-James), then decides to target the abdomen, before suddenly realizing that he forgot to cut the throat, so he returns to the neck and commences a major throat/neck cut, even though by this point she's probably been dead for several minutes!

Aha. So if you throttle somebody, then you will inevitably cut the neck first, because you have already directed interest to it? Is that how you reason?

[Elamarna]

So there could have been no spray from the venous system if the heart had stopped beating, is that what you are saying?

No not what I am saying at all. It's possible; but not that common as I understand it. And it will not be on anything like the same magnitude as from arterial.

Christer,
While you continue to say there is only one possible intreptation of events I will continue to show that is not the case.
I can provide just as much source data as yourself, and argue equally as well based on that data and I will not say something that the data cannot be seen to support.

I assume you have the same view of what you post.

We disagree, my only objection to some of what you post is that you in fact present it as established fact when it is not. Say it's what you think and there is no problem.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Where does Dr Llewellyn say that?

At the inquest.

[Fisherman]

The issue over the lack or not of blood spray is truly fascinating.

Fisherman is intent on proving that there was none and thus this proves that the abdomenial wounds were first and the cause of death.
This is despite one expert Dr Biggs saying that spray is not always present.
And it now seems he does not wish to accept his own experts view on the issue.
In the documentary Payne-James said he believed she was strangled and that:

"Although we know the carotid arteries were cut, it would seem that that was after death so it may just leak out, and dribble out, or drain out, around the contours of the neck in this case, over a period of minutes."

But no . Such does not fit the theory and so the experts, both of the medical ones may be wrong and the layman correct.

Steve[/QUOTE]

You are making a complete idiot of yourself, Steve. Try not to.

Payne-James does not say that the blood WILL only leak and dribble out after death, he says that it MAY do so. And he speaks of a period of minutes, meaning that he is discussing the bloodflow on the whole - what happens with the blood in a case like the Nichols case, where all the major vessels in the neck are opened up.
Nota bene that Payne-James was quite aware that she had also had the abdomen extensively cut, and if that came first, then why would the blood fro the neck NOT simply dribble and leak out?

This you do not take into account, because your aim is not to get to the root of things - it is to try and defend you own poppycock, and to try and tarnish me as best as you can.

And look how you fared.

[Fisherman]

Truly wonderful how you seek to portray Paul's response as supporting your views.
The trouble is it actually does not.
However the argument is so damaged that you grab at anything, like the article earlier which you clearly did not understand. The same applies here.

Steve

So there could have been no spray from the venous system if the heart had stopped beating, is that what you are saying?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman you still haven't explained what you think desanguination means.

Are you going to do it?

No, I am banking on you understanding it anyway. If I do try, I may just get tangled up in that difficult language of yours.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: You may well speak a lot of languages but Swedish, Danish, German, French, Italian and Spanish don't help at all if you mess up the English.

I don't criticize you as a Swede for not speaking English well but it means that your arguments are not going to work if you misunderstand the language.

So I don't know why you think that oozing "can refer to a minimal leakage that is so small that it does not even run". In which dictionary do you find this meaning of the word ooze? Every one I have consulted refers to some kind of movement or flow.

So please don't try your sophistry with me

Of course it involves movement. But not necessarily running.

And Neil did not say the blood "ran rather profusely". He simply didn't say it. He said it was oozing.

I am not saying that Neil said it ran rather profusely. I am suggesting he may have, and that this is what was set off in the early paper articles.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: If only I had the hair left to let down.

I do hope I am not to blame?

[Fisherman]

You didn't finesse anything. My question was this:

"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?"

The one you answered was this:

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

I want my question answered, not the one you changed it to.

But you said the two words could mean the same thing, did you not? Has that changed all of a sudden?

[John G]

The issue over the lack or not of blood spray is truly fascinating.

Fisherman is intent on proving that there was none and thus this proves that the abdomenial wounds were first and the cause of death.
This is despite one expert Dr Biggs saying that spray is not always present.
And it now seems he does not wish to accept his own experts view on the issue.
In the documentary Payne-James said he believed she was strangled and that:

"Although we know the carotid arteries were cut, it would seem that that was after death so it may just leak out, and dribble out, or drain out, around the contours of the neck in this case, over a period of minutes."

But no . Such does not fit the theory and so the experts, both of the medical ones may be wrong and the layman correct.

Steve[/QUOTE

Hi Steve,

Yes, it's very peculiar, he seems to have abandoned his own expert, preferring instead his own layman's opinion. Of course, it makes no sense that the abdomen was attacked first as that would have meant a full-frontal confrontation, giving Nichols the opportunity to resist and call for help.

Moreover, if he did indeed strangle Nichols why would he then target the abdomen before returning to the neck? I mean, that would mean he strangles the victim until she's expired (as per Payne-James), then decides to target the abdomen, before suddenly realizing that he forgot to cut the throat, so he returns to the neck and commences a major throat/neck cut, even though by this point she's probably been dead for several minutes!

[John G]

It even answers questions I never asked.

Thanks for verifying that there can be postmortem spray from the venous system.

As for the abdominal damage done to Nichols, it was very severe, and it was said something like "all the vital organs were struck", so I think that there is a very fair possiblity that the large vessels were heavily affected. Indeed, Llewellyn stated that most of the blood had leaked out of arteries and veins and sunk into the abdominal cavity.

Where does Dr Llewellyn say that?

[Elamarna]

The issue over the lack or not of blood spray is truly fascinating.

Fisherman is intent on proving that there was none and thus this proves that the abdomenial wounds were first and the cause of death.
This is despite one expert Dr Biggs saying that spray is not always present.
And it now seems he does not wish to accept his own experts view on the issue.
In the documentary Payne-James said he believed she was strangled and that:

"Although we know the carotid arteries were cut, it would seem that that was after death so it may just leak out, and dribble out, or drain out, around the contours of the neck in this case, over a period of minutes."[/QUOTE]

But no . Such does not fit the theory and so the experts, both of the medical ones may be wrong and the layman correct.

Steve