Blood oozing

[Elamarna]

And when we have two reports, one where it is included that the collar and the upper part of the dress at the shoulders only was bloodied, and where this information is left out in the next, that points to an equal chance that it was ALL bloodied.

Actually no reports specifically say only one area was bloodied. Some only include the collar and shoulders and say the skirts were not bloodied but do not mention the area between.
Some say the area towards the neck and shoulders but are not specific.

Others again say the back is saturated with blood.

And of course we have the odd one which says the skirts were blooded and the rest not.

None of those fit what you describe here. And that failure to correctly engage in this part of the debate is sad.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: It is extended under the upper body, therefore of course it can be partially hidden from Llewellyn.

You are fabulating, Steve - we donīt even know that it did extend under the upper body. The blood in the cloth could have come from above, from the wound itself.

Not at all. The reports of Helston do not suggest that at all.

No it need not be directly under, it could be to the side, the description does not give enough information to say where it actually was.

Ah - so the blood could have run not straight down, but to the side, when flowing from the neck?

Read what is written and understand. I do not say it could not. I say it may not have.

I see your interpretation, no problem; but you really should say “I believe the pool will not,” rather than “the pool will not”.

Itīs not me saying it, itīs the police.

It is certainly not the police. It is you. This approach that only one intepretation is acceptable is that of a truly closed mind.
However the comment yesterday that there is only one logical bid demonstrated that clearly so I am not surprised.

Not at all there was one pool, its exact location and how far it went in any direction are certainly not fixed by the sources

Not down to the millimeter, no - but it did not reach the waist, for example, by a long way. It may not even have stretched a single millimeter in under the body. The blood in the cloth could have soaked into it from above.

Your own intepretation, ignoring much in the sources. Which you just ignore as they do not fit your view.

You have a very strange interpretation of the word extension my friend, to me it means, an extra part to the original but still part of the original, not a separate entity.
So that was not what I wrote, it was not poorly worded, you just have an odd view of the word extension.

You spoke of a second pool that was an extension of the first one. 1+1 makes 2. It came across as an idea that the first pool leaked into another pool.
If you cannot see and acknowledge that, I donīt really care - not all people recognize what they say, and some donīt want to. In the end, what metters is that we are agreed that there was just the one pool.

No I spoke of one pool that extended under the body.
Read what is written not what you wish was written.

But you did Fish, I never mentioned two pools. But I accept you misunderstood.
I was misinformed. I understood what was said. But as I say, itīs two waters under the bridge.

How could you have been misinformed? Who by other than yourself?

I am afraid not.

No? So exactly what do you disagree with?

Simply that I believe there was blood hidden under the body and that the clothing was blooded over a larger area than you suggest.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

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

[Elamarna]

The arteries and veins of the abdominal area are actually part of a closed blood circuit. When they are emptied, it is due to the system not refilling them.


Maybe because of lose somewhere else?


And yes, the clothing issue is how one looks at it. Like how the police looked at it, stating that there was blood only at the upper parts.

No they did not. That is how you chose to interperate some of the reports.
While you ignore those that do not back your view.

Live with that fact my friend

Steve

[David Orsam]

Question revised

Fisherman,

If it makes it easier for you, I'm happy to rephrase my question as follows:

If we assume that PC Neil saw blood oozing from the throat wound of Nichols then, in that case, would you accept she could quite easily, and very possibly, have been murdered 20 minutes before the time he saw this oozing?

So I'm not even putting it that he did see blood oozing, and you can treat it as a hypothetical question if you wish.

I only ask that whatever answer you give you supply your reasoning.

[David Orsam]

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

Are you going to do it?

[David Orsam]

I speak Swedish, mainly. And Danish, German, French and English, plus I get by with some little Italian and Spanish. If that is not enough for you, I really do apologize.

I know that oozing can be running, but I also know that it need not be. It can refer to a minimal leakage that is so small that it does not even run, but stays on the surface.

Do YOU realize that the blood will have run more freely as Neil looked than it did when Mizen did? Do YOU realize that there may have been a steady stream of blood running from the wound, and that this may have been enough for Neil to say that it ran rather profusely?

Or is it too hard for you, David? I mean, if yiu set out to hint at lacking gifts of understanding on my behalf, then surely you wonīt object to me doing the same for you?

Can you answer in Swedish please? Or are your language gifts too limited for that?

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

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

[David Orsam]

I can see from the menu to the left on my screen that David has let his hair down again.

If only I had the hair left to let down.

I am not even going to bother reading his posts anymore tonight. I may do so tomorrow, if I feel like it.

That's fine, if you don't, I will simply address my posts to the members of the forum.

[David Orsam]

I did? And you call me unaware of language finesses?

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.

[John G]

Hi Fisherman

Blood spray is variable based both on the pressure in the vessel and the size of the hole. In cases of decapitation in execution blood spray is barely remarked upon. As for postmortem spray that can certainly occur, but tends to be venous not arterial from my reading.

For heart beating post decapitation, yes the heart can continue, so too can the brain. In the execution of Anne Boleyn, witnesses reported her continuing her prayer and her eyes moving. In experiments, full decapitation can maintain measures of consciousness for around ten seconds. The heart though requires just oxygenated blood flow to beat and is effectively independent from the brain on most actions. It's death results in insufficient blood to maintain the beating muscle, and typically occurs after approximately half of blood volume has been lost.

Although fatal haemorrhage can (and does) occur from abdominal wounds, it typically requires severance of major arteries, not the superficial vessels of the abdominal wall. The rate of exsanguination from vessels is dependent on the flow through them and the preservation of flow during shock. The carotid (especially internal) and coronary vessels have significant protective mechanisms, the vessels to the gut tend to be less resilient to reduced blood volume.

Hope answers your questions

Regards

Paul

Hi Paul,

Of course, venous pressure is much lower than arterial pressure. Therefore presumably any venous "spray", will be of a much lower magnitude than arterial spray.

[Fisherman]

I can see from the menu to the left on my screen that David has let his hair down again. I am not even going to bother reading his posts anymore tonight. I may do so tomorrow, if I feel like it. They are not much use and highly repetitive, normally.

I think we need to let him practice on his Swedish overnight, and weīll see where we end up next time over.

Actually, David, my English has always been considered very good by most people, Swedes and Brits alike. I always got the best possible grades, and I am sometimes met by comments out here - by Brits! - who tell me that I write better English than they do.

You are depriving me of all that now. Itīs disheartening. You are not a very generous man, are you?

[Fisherman]

You didn't qualify my question you changed it.

I did? And you call me unaware of language finesses?

[Fisherman]

To recap, Dr Biggs points out that "vessel spasm" and "rapid clotting" can staunch the flow of blood even from catastrophic injuries. Collapsing vessels and valve effects can prevent passive flow and, of course, there are lots of corners for blood to negotiate: see Marriott, 2013. As a consequence, a lot less blood may be present at the crime scene than you might expect.

Vessel spasm can certainly staunch the bloodflow - but not in the Nichols case. The vessels involved would not allow for it. Some of the smaller vessels may have contracted, but thatīs about it. The larger ones offered a free outlet.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

Blood spray is variable based both on the pressure in the vessel and the size of the hole. In cases of decapitation in execution blood spray is barely remarked upon. As for postmortem spray that can certainly occur, but tends to be venous not arterial from my reading.

For heart beating post decapitation, yes the heart can continue, so too can the brain. In the execution of Anne Boleyn, witnesses reported her continuing her prayer and her eyes moving. In experiments, full decapitation can maintain measures of consciousness for around ten seconds. The heart though requires just oxygenated blood flow to beat and is effectively independent from the brain on most actions. It's death results in insufficient blood to maintain the beating muscle, and typically occurs after approximately half of blood volume has been lost.

Although fatal haemorrhage can (and does) occur from abdominal wounds, it typically requires severance of major arteries, not the superficial vessels of the abdominal wall. The rate of exsanguination from vessels is dependent on the flow through them and the preservation of flow during shock. The carotid (especially internal) and coronary vessels have significant protective mechanisms, the vessels to the gut tend to be less resilient to reduced blood volume.

Hope answers your questions

Regards

Paul

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.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: It is extended under the upper body, therefore of course it can be partially hidden from Llewellyn.

You are fabulating, Steve - we donīt even know that it did extend under the upper body. The blood in the cloth could have come from above, from the wound itself.

No it need not be directly under, it could be to the side, the description does not give enough information to say where it actually was.

Ah - so the blood could have run not straight down, but to the side, when flowing from the neck?

I see your interpretation, no problem; but you really should say “I believe the pool will not,” rather than “the pool will not”.

Itīs not me saying it, itīs the police.

Not at all there was one pool, its exact location and how far it went in any direction are certainly not fixed by the sources

Not down to the millimeter, no - but it did not reach the waist, for example, by a long way. It may not even have stretched a single millimeter in under the body. The blood in the cloth could have soaked into it from above.

You have a very strange interpretation of the word extension my friend, to me it means, an extra part to the original but still part of the original, not a separate entity.
So that was not what I wrote, it was not poorly worded, you just have an odd view of the word extension.

You spoke of a second pool that was an extension of the first one. 1+1 makes 2. It came across as an idea that the first pool leaked into another pool.
If you cannot see and acknowledge that, I donīt really care - not all people recognize what they say, and some donīt want to. In the end, what metters is that we are agreed that there was just the one pool.

But you did Fish, I never mentioned two pools. But I accept you misunderstood.

I was misinformed. I understood what was said. But as I say, itīs two waters under the bridge.

I am afraid not.

No? So exactly what do you disagree with?