Originally posted by Elamarna
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Blood oozing
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostYawn. He clearly says that ALL these timings could be possible, but that seven minutes to his mind is less likely than three or five. His idea was there not that the bleeding would "stop in about seven minutes" - it was very clearly that it would do so in three or five minutes.
Itīs all a question of reading and understanding fairly basic things.
Steve
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Elamarna View PostWhat a tiresome reply. Not addressing the points as usual.
Again just how many reports is profusely in?
If you don't know be honest and say so; if you do, there is no reason not to give that information as a large part of your theory appears to be based on it.
You claim it is in the Star, unfortunately I cannot find it. Can you please say which edition it is in, so one can check it against the other example found.
No it not weak to protest against and idea when the sources for evidence for it are not revealed despite those sources being in the public domain.
The days of just taking someone's word without any supporting evidence are TRULY over.
Steve
Here you are:
The Star. The 31:st of August.
But Iīll be damned if I look up all the rest, you will have to do that yourself. Try not to miss it this time.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostOnce more, profusely MAY be wrong, but since it is in the reports, it is more likely not. End of story.
The mere idea of protesting that fact is TRULY weak.
Again just how many reports is profusely in?
If you don't know be honest and say so; if you do, there is no reason not to give that information as a large part of your theory appears to be based on it.
You claim it is in the Star, unfortunately I cannot find it. Can you please say which edition it is in, so one can check it against the other example found.
No it not weak to protest against and idea when the sources for evidence for it are not revealed despite those sources being in the public domain.
The days of just taking someone's word without any supporting evidence are TRULY over.
Steve
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Elamarna View PostWell that not exactly what you have posted in the past
The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" post#1054
"It is part of a e-mail exchange where I have asked Jason Payne-James if I could quote him, and he has given his consent. Here it is, my questions in red, his answers in blue:
Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case?
Yes
Do you know of any examples?
No
Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?
I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic."
So he said a total bleed out can occur in a few minutes in a situation similar to Nichols; but he knew of no examples, so he is to an extent guessing is he not if he has no examples to quote.
Please tell me how he is not saying bleeding will probably stop in about seven minutes. he infers that 7 is unrealistic compared to 3 and 5.
steve
Itīs all a question of reading and understanding fairly basic things.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostGoodness, Fisherman, I wouldn't like to mischaracterise your level of deviousness.
Perhaps you are less devious than I think but, if so, you need to answer this question:
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?
What use would it be for me to answer it?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostWell there we are, very interesting, because you didn't ask him about eight or nine minutes did you?
You asked him a leading question and he gave the answer he did:
"I guess blood may continue to flow for up to [seven minutes]."
For your information, he is not a complete idiot.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Harry D View PostLook, was there sufficient time for another person to murder & mutilate Nichols before Lechmere arrived on the scene? It's as simple as that. The answer must be yes, otherwise this case would be open and shut.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostExactly! What I've noticed about Fisherman's responses is that he doesn't mention Biggs at all. I think he mentioned him once when he dismissed everything he has said as "general observations".
Instead, he has taken upon himself the role of expert in post-mortem bleeding to tell us what could or could not have happened, while ignoring everything Biggs has said.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Elamarna View PostThe replies are getting weaker Christer,
"faults in the paper reports, it does not follw that we should treat them all as faulty"
I quoted just a few examples, most of the reports on the 1st have faults, some major and some minor, sure it does not mean we dismiss all publish, but it must be treated very carefully.
And the point was this was a reply to your question:
"
So where do you propose the information from? From Neil or from the police, quoting Neil, or was it a figment of their imagination? Given that they knew not for how long she had been dead, how would they know that she bled at all?"
I asked the same about these examples, which you cannot answer without accepting that the statement about profusely may be equally faulty.
Semantics and , fooling no one.
The use of "puerile" is again not unexpected in tone.
Sorry that will not do, you claimed "a large number" now it is reduced to significant. which papers, how many come on I can find two, plus your use of the Star, and those words i cannot locate in that paper on the first in that publication. maybe i have the wrong edition?
But we do not what the press claimed they said.
He may well be, what has our propensity to humour to do with this case pray tell me?
steve
The mere idea of protesting that fact is TRULY weak.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostEr, yes he did:
Q. Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?
A. I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.
"this amount of time" must be seven minutes otherwise "the shorter periods" makes no sense.
Once more, I spoke to J P-J. I know quite well that he would not call a halt after seven minutes.
You, on the other hand, did NOT speak to him, leaving you to speculate wildly and wrongly.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostDead wrong again. Payne-James didnīt say that blood could flow for up to seven minutes, did he?
Did I claim that he did? No.
So you got it all wrong. Again. I guess (!) thatīs some kind of new record.
Payne-James would NOT state a time that was some sort of stoppage time, when there could not be any more bleeding. He said that he found seven minutes less likely than three or five, but not impossible. He would, Iīm sure, had said the same about eight or nine minutes - not impossible, but given what we know, even less likely. And with every added minute, the likelihood is diminshed, meaning that Lechmere fits the evidence nicely, whereas the Phantom killer fits it less well.
But that did not exclude the Phantom killer in Payne-Jamesī eyes - I know, since I asked (probably wording myself wrongfully in your eyes, but never mind).
So I may be less devious than you try to make me out. And you make your effort on faulty grounds, since Payne-James never said what you conjured up for him.
Now, can you please go away? No? Dear me, maybe I will have to run from this mastermind again, with all his misconceptions and conjured up "facts". Yes, I do think I need to do that.
Off we go!
Well that not exactly what you have posted in the past
The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" post#1054
"It is part of a e-mail exchange where I have asked Jason Payne-James if I could quote him, and he has given his consent. Here it is, my questions in red, his answers in blue:
Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case?
Yes
Do you know of any examples?
No
Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?
I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic."
So he said a total bleed out can occur in a few minutes in a situation similar to Nichols; but he knew of no examples, so he is to an extent guessing is he not if he has no examples to quote.
Please tell me how he is not saying bleeding will probably stop in about seven minutes. he infers that 7 is unrealistic compared to 3 and 5.
steve
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: