Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

It´s that flowing - running - trickling - oozing canard all over again, right?

No, not really. It's you misunderstanding a question which you had already answered.

[David Orsam]

Payne-James did not comment on times longer than seven minutes. In the exact same way, my analogy left out that kind of question, so the analogy is a perfect one. The kind you so dislike.

Payne James said that blood can flow for up to 7 minutes. That's it.

He did not say a iot about whether it could flow BEYOND seven minutes, and it´s time you realized that.

Well the ordinary meaning of a statement that blood can flow for up to seven minutes is that seven minutes is the upper limit of time that blood can flow.

Otherwise, if that's not what he's saying, who knows what the upper limit is? 10 minutes? 15 minutes? 20 minutes? Half an hour?

And if we don't know his answer to that question, the answer he did give is worthless.

[David Orsam]

You are trying to misrepresent me, and you are trying to create the impression that I am a devious person who consciously misled Payne-James.

Well I certainly do believe you misled and/or confused Payne James but you probably did it because you were not quite clever enough to ask the correct question (or, rather, you were trying to be too clever) and thus misled him accidentally.

But, having done so, you are now deliberately and wilfully replacing the correct word of "ooze" with "bleed", "flow" or "run" in ALL your posts in order to try and limit the amount of time that Nichols could have lain dead before being seen by Neil, consistent with the answer you extracted from Payne-James, thus attempting to pin the blame for the murder on Lechmere, and you will have to explain to me why this should not be considered devious.

[David Orsam]

But what does desanguinated mean in this context?

Chew on it. It will come to you, I´m sure.

Another evasive answer I see.

Well, I understand it to mean a massive loss of blood.

You?

[David Orsam]

So why didn't he say so at the inquest?

He said the blood was running, and not only that it was oozing.

Sorry, Fisherman, that doesn't even begin to answer the question I asked you which is why Neil didn't say anything about blood flowing profusely at the inquest. Do you actually have a sensible answer to my question?

[David Orsam]

He said the blood was running, and not only that it was oozing. And it was running minutes after too, as Mizen arrived. That paints a pretty clear picture.

I suppose if you ignore everything I said about the fact that it was the pool of blood that was running to the neck wound, and everything I said about Dr Lewellyn referring to a bruise running across the face, then you can end up thinking that there is "a pretty clear picture" that the blood was "running".

And if you ignore the fact that Mizen did not say that the blood was running when he arrived then you could think the blood was running when he arrived, as opposed to, say, when the body was moved onto an ambulance.

And, most importantly, if you ignore the fact that oozing blood is also running, but the word "oozing" allows us to be more specific as to the rate it is running, then you can replace an unambiguous word that a witness expressly used to describe the rate of blood flow with a more ambiguous word to make it seem like there was more blood flow than there really was in order to frame an innocent person for murder.

Well done.

[David Orsam]

Yes, that´s possible. But it is nevertheless the only source we have, and so it remains our best guess that the term was used.

Erm, no it isn't - and your statement is laughable. We have a source directly from PC Neil on oath in the witness box during the inquest. That source clearly and unambiguously tells us the blood was oozing.

It's a fantastic source but one which you seem utterly determined to ignore. And the fact you claim that an unattributed newspaper article is "the only source", proves that you are deluding yourself here.

[David Orsam]

The problem is that we cannot establish what it took for Neil to use the term profusely. It may have been enough that the blood was steadly running into the pool, which is what I think happened. There was never any torrent of blood, as I said before.

No, the problem for you is that Neil never used the term profusely. He never even said it was "steadily running into the pool". He said the blood was oozing, remember?

[David Orsam]

Ehrm - to "rely" on it would mean that I discarded alternative suggestion. Do you see me doing that, or do you see me saying that "profusely" is the only and therefore also the best source there is?

Fisherman, are there two people engaged in writing your posts who each don't know what the other is saying? For in the very same post you wrote of the newspaper article: "But it is nevertheless the only source we have". As I said, it is not the only source we have. We have a much better and verified source which tells us the blood was oozing. Full stop.

[David Orsam]

But that is not true, is it? He used BOTH oozed and running. Why is it so important for you to leave that out?.

Fisherman, I have already made it clear that it was the pool of blood that was running from the neck wound (i.e. not the blood from the wound) and, just as the doctor saw a bruise running across Nichols face, the word "running" does not necessarily mean movement of any kind.

But even if it did, why would I use a vague and ambiguous word which could mean either running very quickly or running very slowly (i.e. oozing), or something in between, when I could use a clear, specific and unambiguous word which tells us, within its very meaning, how slowly the blood was running?

When you have the specific word of "oozing", the word "running" becomes useless and redundant. It does not contradict the fact that the blood was "oozing" but it adds absolutely nothing to it either. So the only sensible word to use here is "oozing", especially as this was the word used by Neil to describe the blood coming from the neck as opposed to the pool of blood on the ground.

The real question is why do you keep replacing the word "oozing" with other, ambiguous words such as "bleeding", "flowing" or "running"?

[David Orsam]

And just as it is impossible for us to establish what he would have meant by "profusely", it is equally impossible to gauge "oozing".

He didn't use the word "profusely" so we don't need to trouble ourselves with that.

"Oozing" is a word found in any dictionary and only has one essential meaning so it is not "impossible" to gauge it as you bizarrely claim. It is a very simple matter.

[David Orsam]

Just how logical is it that it went from oozing to running, David?

But there is not necessarily any difference.

Blood that is oozing is, of course, flowing (gently) which means it is running by definition.

Whereas blood that is running is not necessarily oozing, it could be fast flowing.

So oozing blood is also running blood whereas running blood is not necessarily oozing blood.

Do you actually understand that? It's very simple for anyone who speaks English.

[David Orsam]

Why did not Mizen use "oozing" if that was what he saw?

Oh my goodness!

So, the truth emerges: You really DO doubt that PC Neil saw blood oozing from the wound?

Is that right?

Because I can't think of any other purpose in you asking that question.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna:
Did I EVER say there was no blood under her? Did I not always say that there was a pool of blood under her, containing around half a pint of blood?

Well you certainly appeared to in post #290
“I don´t think any such pool was ever mentioned in any source at all. Maybe you know better?”
However you have subsequently said that you consider the pool to have been under the neck only, not under the back as well.

And THAT, my friend, is the pool under the neck that is described. It was a mere fifteen centimeters in diameter, and the blood from it had run towards the gutter, as per Mizen.

It was never described as being 15 centimeters, it was described as 6 inches in the sources and that is what we should work with (the fact that 15centermeters is almost equal to 6 inches is actually irrelevant.).

Are you rooting for the idea that there was suddenly TWO pools of blood, both of them the same size and both of then running towards the gutter? Can you find any report at all mentioning TWO pools of blood?

Don’t think so, you were obviously confused I posted in post #296 :
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.
An extension is just that a continuation of the original, not a total separate object.

But where, oh where, was that blood when the police checked the clothing for it at the morgue? You see, they could not find any blood but for in the upper part of the clothing, around neck and shoulders.

Well that is a matter of opinion is it not? I see that you fully ignore the points raised many times about this in favour of your own interpretation.

I pointed to the thread “Polly’s wounds what were they like” posts #174, and #179 yesterday. Has you appear to not want to consider those at all one feels the data must be presented again.

Let just refresh ourselves with Thain’s comment:

“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.”

You say the Police could find no blood apart from neck and shoulders.

A look at the press articles in detail gives slightly a different story:
Firstly as reported on this site from the inquest:
“He noticed blood on the hair, and on the collars of the dress and ulster, but not on the back of the skirts.

ECHO 3RD
INSPECTOR HELSON,
There was no blood on the seat of the ulster or petticoats. The back of the bodice of the dress was saturated with blood near the neck. There was a discoloration as of a bruise, under the jawbone.


Manchester guardian 4th
“Inspector Helson, J division, gave a description of the deceased's clothing. The back of the bodice of the dress, he said, had absorbed a large quantity of blood, but there was none upon the petticoats. .


The Star 3rd
INSPECTOR HELSTON
“ No blood had soaked through the petticoats or the lower part of the ulster, but the back of the bodice had absorbed a good deal which had apparently come from the neck, and so had the corresponding part of the ulster.”


And just to be fair, we have another report first published in the East London Observer of Sept. 1st, 1888, it provides some further information

“Contrary to anticipation, beyond the flannel petticoat, and with the exception of a few bloodstains on the cloak, the other clothing was scarcely marked. The petticoat, however, was completely saturated with blood, and altogether presented a sickening spectacle.”

This last report is contrary to all the preceding ones, claiming the lower clothing is marked and the upper is not. Odd report.


From those it is clear there was NO blood on her skirts or the Seat(backside) of her coat. But Nowhere does it say the blood is only in the areas you say it is, that is personal interpretation of the sources.

Maybe you are right, maybe I am, but it's certainly not definitive.

None of them actual contradict what Thain said do they?

So you are seriously suggesting that Llewellyn took it upon himself to comment on the scarcity of blood, failing to realize that there may have been blood under the body? Here´s Neil from the inquest:

Yes, why not he seems to have had a bad day.

"I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and seeing another constable in Baker's row I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. I had, in the meantime, rung the bell at Essex Wharf, and asked if any disturbance had been heard. The reply was "No." Sergeant Kirby came after, and he knocked. The doctor looked at the woman, and then said, "Move the woman to the mortuary. She is dead, and I will make a further examination of her." We then placed her on the ambulance, and moved her there.

Which does not show Llewellyn carried out any comprehensive examination of the scene

So we can see that Neil was around as the body was removed and wheeled away. Now, let´s see how the questioning proceeds:

The Coroner - Did you notice any blood where she was found?

Witness - There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck.

So Neil was asked, after he had told the coroner that he saw the body wheeled off, if there was any blood where Nichols had been found, and Neil says that there was "a pool". Not two pools. A pool.

No one has suggested two pools.

So this comment by Neil refers to what he saw when the body was removed?, Therefore is wording “running from the neck” also refering to this period? any if not what definitive information in the source leads you to that conclusion.

And what about Helson, who said "He noticed blood on the hair, and on the collars of the dress and ulster, but not on the back of the skirts" ?
If she was lying in a pool of blood, how come none of it was set off on the clothes? Is that not rather remarkable?

No see above, he does not mention there is no blood on her back, just none on her skirts, Thain said to the waist, not below.



steve

[Elamarna]

[B]No, it is based on a combonation of Llewellyn telling us that the buk of the blood went into the abdominal cavity, AND the fact that highly absorbing cloth will be soaked through in large areas due to capillary power. Didn´t happen here, though.

He does not, he talks of blood from vessels he sees in the abdominal area, you infer he means all the body, but he does not say that.
Second point, from looking at the reports of the clothing it seems it did to some extent, its how one looks at it.


steve