Blood oozing

[Elamarna]

The pressure will NORMALLY drop, but if asphyxiation is involved, something interesting happens. This is from a 1940:s text by O A Trowell, the link being https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...01492-0078.pdf
When an animal dies from anoxia (or asphyxia) vacuoles rapidly develop during the first 5-15min. post-mortem, provided the animal is not bled out. In such an animal the venous blood pressure rises considerably just before death and a positive venous pressure persists for some time after death."

With all due respect I do not think you have understood that paper, it talks about venous pressure in the liver, not system wide arterial pressure.

It also makes it clear that there must be a time gap after asphyxiation without any blood letting for this to occur.
This is of course as far as we know not the case with Nichols.

I looked into this years ago, but cannot find my original source. But this speaks of the same matter - blood pressure getting boosted by asphyxiation and remaining there for some time after death.

Venous pressure not arterial as Paul points out.


Steve

[Elamarna]

It has to do with the size of the pool, and is not "strange" in any manner at all. The pool was seen by Neil and Mizen and was therefore not hidden under the body, the blood was running from the wound in the neck into the pool, ergo it was under the neck,

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

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.

and it could not have stretched in under her body with the size given - it can have stretched an inch or two in under her, something like that, but it will not have reached any further down that so, meaning that it did not reach anwhere near the waist - where there was no blood on the clothing anyhow, as per the investigation made by the police.

Back to the clothing again I see, no need to repeat what was said previously as you are so concerned with Bandwidth.

Well, believe it or not, but the body involves the head and the neck too, and the pool was apparently under the neck. What I am saying is that the pool will not have stretched in under her torso to any significant degree.

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

I have never suggested anything at all different from the notion that the pool under the neck was the one seen by Thain. If you try to twist that beyond recognition, you are in an uphill race.

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

Maybe you just worded yourself poorly, Steve, in which case I´m fine with your stance that there was just the one pool - which is completely true, by the way. However, this was what you posted:

“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.."

So clearly you speak of "the pool" which is "an extension of the pool by the neck", and to me that means that there were TWO pools, one of which was an extension of the first one. Becasue that is what you wrote.

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.

If you had written that the blood Thain spoke of was part of the pool under the neck, I would have had a lot easier task to decioher what you meant, and you would have not been left with an urge to claim that I preposterously misquoted you.

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

Now, there was just the one pool, it was around 15 centimeters (or 6 inches) in diameter, it was under her neck, and the westernmost part of it may have been soaked in at the upper part of the dress, by the collar. There was however no pool hidden under the body - the pool there was, was seen and recognized by Neil as well as by Mizen.Maybe we can agree on that?

I am afraid not.



Steve

[Pierre]

With all due respect I do not think you have understood that paper, it talks about venous pressure in the liver, not system wide arterial pressure.

It also makes it clear that there must be a time gap after asphyxiation without any blood letting for this to occur.

This is of course as far as we know not the case with Nichols.

Venous pressure not arterial as Paul points out.

Steve

Bravo, Steve.

Pierre

[kjab3112]

If you translate that into common language, does that tell us that if the heart had indeed stopped before Nichols was cut, there would be no bloodspray? I believe I have read somewhere that there can be spraying in such cases too for some short time, due to a remaining pressure in the vessels.

I have also read that the heart can go on beating for an astonishing amount of time even after decapitation; can you comment on that?

On the whole, I think a case can be made for all the other C5 murders involving possible bloodspray, with Nichols as the only exception; it was there in Chapmans case (on the fence), in Kelly´s case (on the wall), it may have been covered by the extensive pools of blood around the neck of Eddowes (who had the neck cut BEFORE the abdominal cutting and hey presto - look what happened!) and in Stride´s case, her left side of the neck was resting over the blood running out of her, and that was the damaged side, so it may be that the killer cut her in the position she was lying in, and the bloodspray was directed to the ground and thereafter hidden by the oncoming bloodflow.
Only in the Nichols case can we say with some certainty that there was never any bloodspray.

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

[John G]

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.

[David Orsam]

A reminder to Fisherman that this question, in the form I asked it, remains unanswered. So for, I think, the fourth time of asking:

"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?"

[Pierre]

A reminder to Fisherman that this question, in the form I asked it, remains unanswered. So for, I think, the fourth time of asking:

"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?"

If oozing was resultative, she could.

It is like a painting in your living room. It hangs there and shows a murdered woman with blood oozing from the throat. But there is no blood on your floor.

That is the original issue of this thread.

So it doesn´t matter what Fisherman says.

[Fisherman]

A reminder to Fisherman that this question, in the form I asked it, remains unanswered. So for, I think, the fourth time of asking:

"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?"

I have already answered it. It needed qualifying, and if I want to qualify an answer, I do so.

[Fisherman]

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.

You don´t know if Neil did use the word profusely, I´m afraid. The articles indicate that he may well have.

So you can gauge "oozing"? Then tell me the exact volume of blood per second that it refers to with a woman with a cut neck. What is too much, what is too little? You CAN gauge it, remember.

[David Orsam]

I have already answered it. It needed qualifying, and if I want to qualify an answer, I do so.

You didn't qualify my question you changed it.

[Fisherman]

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.

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 won´t object to me doing the same for you?

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

[Fisherman]

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.

Then you DO have limited gifts of understanding, and I really should not mock you for that. It would be like mocking somebody for a large nose or an obese disposition, and that is so not fair.

Sorry.

[David Orsam]

You don´t know if Neil did use the word profusely, I´m afraid. The articles indicate that he may well have.

No, the articles don't indicate anything of the sort. Neil is not quoted at all, nor is anything in the article sourced to Neil.

Neil could have used any word in the English language, of course, but he is never quoted at any time ever as using the word "profusely" whereas we know for a fact that at the inquest he used the word "oozing", so why don't you accept it?

So you can gauge "oozing"? Then tell me the exact volume of blood per second that it refers to with a woman with a cut neck. What is too much, what is too little? You CAN gauge it, remember.

Don't be silly Fisherman. What we know about oozing is that it means that there was a gentle flow of blood, a trickle. That is all we need to gauge. Because we know from Dr Biggs that such oozing can easily last for 20 minutes.

[David Orsam]

Then you DO have limited gifts of understanding, and I really should not mock you for that. It would be like mocking somebody for a large nose or an obese disposition, and that is so not fair.

What I do know is that by asking why Mizen did not use the word "oozing" you must be doubting that the blood WAS oozing.

I note that you have not offered any alternative explanation.

[Fisherman]

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.


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.).



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.



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?




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



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





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.




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

So...? Lets see here, what are you arguing? Ah, yes - we should absolutely not say that the pool was 15 centimers in diameter. I mean, it WAS, and you recognize that - but we should NOT say it.

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.

I see.

Next!