Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

So I may be less devious than you try to make me out.

Goodness, 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?

[David Orsam]

He would, Iīm sure, had said the same about eight or nine minutes

Well 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]."

[David Orsam]

So you got it all wrong. Again. I guess (!) thatīs some kind of new record.

No I didn't. See above.

[David Orsam]

Dead wrong again. Payne-James didnīt say that blood could flow for up to seven minutes, did he?

Er, 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.

[Fisherman]

So what is Fisherman up to?

Let's look at this question he asked of Payne-James:

"Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?"

Where have these random times of 3, 5 and 7 minutes come from?

Well let's have a think.

Paul said in evidence that he and Cross spent about 4 minutes with the body of Nichols. Paul must have spent about 1 minute before this walking up Bucks Row to reach the body of Nichols. Then there must have been at least 1 minute between him and Cross walking away to find Mizen and PC Neil walking into Bucks Row to discover the body of Nichols, when he saw blood oozing from her body.

So that's 6 minutes during which Nichols MUST have been dead.

Fisherman gets the answer from Payne-James that blood "may continue to flow" for UP TO 7 minutes. He has struck gold!

Neil saw the blood flowing. Blood can only flow for up to 7 minutes. QED Nichols was murdered only 7 minutes before Neil found the body.

Lo and behold, the person who murdered Nichols can ONLY be Lechmere because he was the only person who was "alone with" the body of Nichols 7 minutes earlier, literally seconds before Paul turned into Bucks Row!

If one just ignores the fact that PC Neil said the blood was oozing (not flowing) and the fact that Biggs said that blood can easily ooze for 20 minutes after death then Lechmere has been nicely framed for the murder.

Dead 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!

[Harry D]

Look, 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. And there were several escape routes the killer could've taken. Fisherman will argue that there's no need to invent another suspect when we already have one before us (Lechmere) but that is a disingenuous position and one subject to scrutiny. The fact another carman wasn't far behind Lechmere should prove that there was nothing untoward ipso facto about Lechmere finding the body in Buck's Row at that hour.

[John G]

Exactly! 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.

Yes, and I think there's certainly some confusion as to what Payne-James actually said. I mean, I can't believe he concluded that blood would be spraying put of the neck, under pressure, for seven minutes as that would imply the victim was still alive during that period despite the catastrophic nature of the injuries.

[Fisherman]

Fish

I know we've been here before, but can you please use the "Quote" button, and in general be a little more succinct? Not every sentence in a given post needs to be rebutted.

These colour-coded, bolded, italicised profuse oozings of text can be extremely difficult to follow.

Ah, I dare say youīll manage.

I donīt come easy, see.

[Sam Flynn]

Why would the reporters make up that the blood was running profusely? Why would the source NOT be Neil? Why should we favour the idea that is was make-believe over the idea that Neil simply said that the blood ran profusely?
They also said that the cut was from left to right - how would that be sexier than right to left? Maybe they were INFORMED that this was the general idea?


Because at no point doas the article say or indicate such is the case.

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?

Until evidence can be presented to dispell what the papers - and they were many - said about the blood running profusely, it has to stand as the best bid we have.

Would you care to name any which claim it is a quote?

It does not have to be a quote. A paper conducts it work by speaking to the relevant people and print the information they get. Some papers make up quoted, by the way, so there is never any guarantee - but if it is in the papers - and a large number of them - then our best guess is that it is relevant.

It is that simple, thatīs how it works. Itīs like the Alfred Long business - he has to be regarded as telling the truth until we can dispell what he said about the Goulston Street rag. Too much Ripperology is about people stating alternative views of their own as more reliable than views on different types of contemporary records.


Not at all in this case. There are papers reports of Llewellyn on the first these are given as quotes and that is clear. The question of the comments about blood are not presented in that way. So no one is attempting to give an alternative view. It's just how one reads it. Some obviously read it to help their own ideas.

Which different ways can it be read in: "There was a two inch gaping wound in the neck and the blood was flowing profusely". Are you suggesting that I should read it "There was a miniscule little hole in the thumb but it had stopped bleeding"?
Can you please explain to me how YOU read it? What does it seem to say to you? What message is contained within the words used?
You really should not fault me for how the evidence always fits the Lechmere theory. I didnīt write it, I did not testify, I didnīt express any view back then.

As for the pool business, there was a pool of blood under Nichols, end of story. Letīs not be carried away by misguided ingenuity, shall we?

No the article says lying in a pool giving a distinct impression. To try and write this off as misguided ingenuity is very interesting, if such is acceptable here, pray tell me why such is not so over the blood flowing issue?

There was a pool of blood under her, where she was lying. There was nothing at all said aboyt the size of the pool in your quote. Ergo, there is nothing at all strange about it. The police may have said "There was a pool of blood under her" and the reporters may have written that she was lying in a pool of blood. Big deal. Misguided ingenuity, Steve.

I will direct you to my post to David, since it involves my take on the business.

Already seen it, disagree with most of it. The full rebuttal will take those points into account. Means I need to add a few bits to the blood section to do that thank you so very much.

I can see how the kind of reasoning you employ about "lying in a pool of blood" may take you a long way down the garden path, so it makes sense that you may disagree. And whatīs with the "thank you so very much"? Are you trying to be ironic? If so, you need to learn to swim before you dive in, Steve.

Fish

I know we've been here before, but can you please use the "Quote" button, and in general be a little more succinct? Not every sentence in a given post needs to be rebutted.

These colour-coded, bolded, italicised profuse oozings of text can be extremely difficult to follow.

[David Orsam]

So what is Fisherman up to?

Let's look at this question he asked of Payne-James:

"Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?"

Where have these random times of 3, 5 and 7 minutes come from?

Well let's have a think.

Paul said in evidence that he and Cross spent about 4 minutes with the body of Nichols. Paul must have spent about 1 minute before this walking up Bucks Row to reach the body of Nichols. Then there must have been at least 1 minute between him and Cross walking away to find Mizen and PC Neil walking into Bucks Row to discover the body of Nichols, when he saw blood oozing from her body.

So that's 6 minutes during which Nichols MUST have been dead.

Fisherman gets the answer from Payne-James that blood "may continue to flow" for UP TO 7 minutes. He has struck gold!

Neil saw the blood flowing. Blood can only flow for up to 7 minutes. QED Nichols was murdered only 7 minutes before Neil found the body.

Lo and behold, the person who murdered Nichols can ONLY be Lechmere because he was the only person who was "alone with" the body of Nichols 7 minutes earlier, literally seconds before Paul turned into Bucks Row!

If one just ignores the fact that PC Neil said the blood was oozing (not flowing) and the fact that Biggs said that blood can easily ooze for 20 minutes after death then Lechmere has been nicely framed for the murder.

[Elamarna]

A/ Because there are faults in paper reports, it does not follow that we should treat them all as faulty. Furthermore, they can be reportings of what was told the reporters, and must not represent the reporters making things up. So when we have many concurring papers reporting the same thing, the best guess, was, is and remains that they are correct and reporting in good faith.

The 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.

B/I donīt take it as a fact that the blood was flowing profusely because that papers say so. You are making a puerile mistake on that point. I am taking it as a fact that the papers said that the blood was flwong profusely, and I am taking it as a fact, that going on how papers work, the suggestion is a viable one.

Semantics and , fooling no one.
The use of "puerile" is again not unexpected in tone.

C/ I wonīt list the papers that spoke of the blood flowing profusely - you will have to trust me on it when I say there were a significant number of them.

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?

D/ You donīt know what the papers were told on the 31:st, either by Neil or Llewellyn.

But we do not what the press claimed they said.

E/ David is funnier than you.

He may well be, what has our propensity to humour to do with this case pray tell me?


steve

[David Orsam]

But that's exactly what Dr Biggs is saying. Thus: "In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but that would rapidly subside (in a matter of seconds of the blood loss is particularly profuse) so the rate of flow would become considerably less soon after injury." ( Marriott, 2013)

He then adds that after circulation has stopped remaining blood loss would be down to gravity, which would eventually subside to a slow trickle.

There is no way that all the blood would be pumped out under pressure, In fact, he points out that some blood might remain trapped in the body, and factors such as "collapsing vessels" and "valve effects" would effect passive flow, not to mention the fact that there are "lots of corners" for blood to negotiate before it exits the body.

Exactly! 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.

[Fisherman]

From the same place the following reports came on the 1st one assumes, a little fact and lots of invention.:

East London Observer:

"he discovered lying on the pavement just outside the high brick wall which surrounds the Essex Wharf, the form of a woman"

Just a tad confused, wrong side of the road, but understandable mistake


"Constable Neale at once called for assistance, and with the help of some scavengers who were cleaning the roads at the time, managed to carry the body to the mortuary"

Where did that come from?


Evening Standard :

The wounds on the body are thought to have been committed before the injuries to the throat were inflicted, but the precise fact cannot be ascertained until the inquest, when the medical man will be examined. The first cut in the body was probably the earliest wound inflicted, and it is thought that the wretched victim started from her murderer, causing the knife to penetrate the groin and slip across the left hip. In all probability she then fell, when her assailant with one desperate cut upward opened the body from groin to breast bone. Then the wounds were inflicted in the throat.

A bit may have got from Llewellyn statement, but largely superposition and invention.


Weekly Herald 7th

"the hands are bruised, and bear evidence of there having been a severe struggle."

&

"The clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of
the ferocity with which the murder was committed."



This a week after the event, where do these facts originate?

And last but not least

Eastern Argus and Borough of Hackney Times :

"and most shocking to relate the victim's entrails were protruding to such an extent that they had to be adjusted before the body could
be removed."



Please tell us the many papers that say profusely? Excluding The Star, I can find it in the East London Advertiser 1st and the Weekly Herald 7th.
you have said a large number, how many? the Star and Advertiser appear to be using the same words, so maybe same author?

Still can't locate it in the Star, which edition is it in?




You misunderstand, you read it as a fact because the paper prints it. I see it as an article from a newspaper, not quoting specific sources, and therefore of questionable validity.





The point is the blood under her could not be seen, and neither Neil or Llewellyn make any comments which could be interpreted as such.
You suggest that the reporters may have taken what an unknown Police officer told them and extrapolated, reinterpreted and presented it to say "lying in a pool" the same is of course possibly also the case with the "profusely" comment. I note you ignore the question asked.



Certainly not being ironic, your reply to David helped highlight some major flaws with the thinking behind the theory.

Actually I don't swim, but the comment that I do not know enough is not an unheard of response to a theory under severe scrutiny.


All the best


Steve

A/ Because there are faults in paper reports, it does not follow that we should treat them all as faulty. Furthermore, they can be reportings of what was told the reporters, and must not represent the reporters making things up. So when we have many concurring papers reporting the same thing, the best guess, was, is and remains that they are correct and reporting in good faith.

B/I donīt take it as a fact that the blood was flowing profusely because that papers say so. You are making a puerile mistake on that point. I am taking it as a fact that the papers said that the blood was flwong profusely, and I am taking it as a fact, that going on how papers work, the suggestion is a viable one.

C/ I wonīt list the papers that spoke of the blood flowing profusely - you will have to trust me on it when I say there were a significant number of them.

D/ You donīt know what the papers were told on the 31:st, either by Neil or Llewellyn.

E/ David is funnier than you.

[John G]

David Orsam: Exactly, Fisherman, you asked the wrong question.

No, I did not. But no matter HOW I worded it, somebody out here would make that claim. Itīs disingenuous. And Payne-James and I exchanged a lot more than what I have published out here, so I am the one better suited to know what he meant.

As Steve has pointed out, Nichols could not possibly have bleed out all the blood in her body in 3 minutes could she?

To begin with, she would never do so in the first place. Some blood would stay in the body, owing to reasons of gravity and the position in which she lay.

The amount of blood that she WOULD bleed out, could well be gone in three or five minutes, however. A decapitated person may bleed out in less than a minute.

Payne-James has understood you to mean flowing and focussed on that.

No, he did not. That would predispose that he meant that the blood would "flow" for a certain amount of time and then start to...what? Trickle? Ooze? The suggestion is plain dumb. Sorry, but I am inclined to name it correctly.

He agrees with Biggs that there is unlikely to be a significant quantity of blood flowing after several minutes of death. But unlike Biggs he hasn't turned his attention to any subsequent trickling, dripping or oozing of blood.

When they speak of bloodflow, they speak of the process on the whole, surprise, surprise. They are not dividing it up in the gushing, the welling, the flowing, the trickling and the oozing stages.

That's because you didn't ask him, even though the witness used the word "oozing".

But you donīt KNOW what I asked him, do you? You are guessing, with every intention of trying to be the better informed person. It is touching. It is like a little boy, hoping for icecream.

Perhaps that's because you preferred the "evidence" of a newspaper reporter who wasn't at the scene of the crime and only had that in your mind?

I have it ALL in my mind, David. Itīs the way I do things. You - different story.
I honestly think that you could be a brilliant reseacher, if it was not for the ego thing. It brings you down on a steady basis, more predictable than Mondays turning into Tuesdays. Once/if you can rid yourself of that, you may achieve great things, instead of getting bogged down over and over again.
Descending into speaking about me cherrypicking, claiming that Neil could ONLY have meant what YOU think he meant, claiming that crouching is kneeling, stating that you cannot be with somebody you cannot reach physically ...
Poppycock. Balderdash. And so much standing in the way for the logical and rational you.
Itīs a bummer, but there you are.

But that's exactly what Dr Biggs is saying. Thus: "In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but that would rapidly subside (in a matter of seconds of the blood loss is particularly profuse) so the rate of flow would become considerably less soon after injury." ( Marriott, 2013)

He then adds that after circulation has stopped remaining blood loss would be down to gravity, which would eventually subside to a slow trickle.

There is no way that all the blood would be pumped out under pressure, In fact, he points out that some blood might remain trapped in the body, and factors such as "collapsing vessels" and "valve effects" would effect passive flow, not to mention the fact that there are "lots of corners" for blood to negotiate before it exits the body.

[Elamarna]

Why would the reporters make up that the blood was running profusely? Why would the source NOT be Neil? Why should we favour the idea that is was make-believe over the idea that Neil simply said that the blood ran profusely?
They also said that the cut was from left to right - how would that be sexier than right to left? Maybe they were INFORMED that this was the general idea?

Because at no point doas the article say or indicate such is the case.

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?

From the same place the following reports came on the 1st one assumes, a little fact and lots of invention.:

East London Observer:

"he discovered lying on the pavement just outside the high brick wall which surrounds the Essex Wharf, the form of a woman"

Just a tad confused, wrong side of the road, but understandable mistake


"Constable Neale at once called for assistance, and with the help of some scavengers who were cleaning the roads at the time, managed to carry the body to the mortuary"

Where did that come from?


Evening Standard :

The wounds on the body are thought to have been committed before the injuries to the throat were inflicted, but the precise fact cannot be ascertained until the inquest, when the medical man will be examined. The first cut in the body was probably the earliest wound inflicted, and it is thought that the wretched victim started from her murderer, causing the knife to penetrate the groin and slip across the left hip. In all probability she then fell, when her assailant with one desperate cut upward opened the body from groin to breast bone. Then the wounds were inflicted in the throat.

A bit may have got from Llewellyn statement, but largely superposition and invention.


Weekly Herald 7th

"the hands are bruised, and bear evidence of there having been a severe struggle."

&

"The clothes are torn and cut up in several places, bearing evidence of
the ferocity with which the murder was committed."



This a week after the event, where do these facts originate?

And last but not least

Eastern Argus and Borough of Hackney Times :

"and most shocking to relate the victim's entrails were protruding to such an extent that they had to be adjusted before the body could
be removed."

Until evidence can be presented to dispell what the papers - and they were many - said about the blood running profusely, it has to stand as the best bid we have.

Would you care to name any which claim it is a quote?

It does not have to be a quote. A paper conducts it work by speaking to the relevant people and print the information they get. Some papers make up quoted, by the way, so there is never any guarantee - but if it is in the papers - and a large number of them - then our best guess is that it is relevant.

Please tell us the many papers that say profusely? Excluding The Star, I can find it in the East London Advertiser 1st and the Weekly Herald 7th.
you have said a large number, how many? the Star and Advertiser appear to be using the same words, so maybe same author?

Still can't locate it in the Star, which edition is it in?

It is that simple, thatīs how it works. Itīs like the Alfred Long business - he has to be regarded as telling the truth until we can dispell what he said about the Goulston Street rag. Too much Ripperology is about people stating alternative views of their own as more reliable than views on different types of contemporary records.


Not at all in this case. There are papers reports of Llewellyn on the first these are given as quotes and that is clear. The question of the comments about blood are not presented in that way. So no one is attempting to give an alternative view. It's just how one reads it. Some obviously read it to help their own ideas.

Which different ways can it be read in: "There was a two inch gaping wound in the neck and the blood was flowing profusely". Are you suggesting that I should read it "There was a miniscule little hole in the thumb but it had stopped bleeding"?
Can you please explain to me how YOU read it? What does it seem to say to you? What message is contained within the words used?
You really should not fault me for how the evidence always fits the Lechmere theory. I didnīt write it, I did not testify, I didnīt express any view back then.

You misunderstand, you read it as a fact because the paper prints it. I see it as an article from a newspaper, not quoting specific sources, and therefore of questionable validity.

As for the pool business, there was a pool of blood under Nichols, end of story. Letīs not be carried away by misguided ingenuity, shall we?

No the article says lying in a pool giving a distinct impression. To try and write this off as misguided ingenuity is very interesting, if such is acceptable here, pray tell me why such is not so over the blood flowing issue?

There was a pool of blood under her, where she was lying. There was nothing at all said aboyt the size of the pool in your quote. Ergo, there is nothing at all strange about it. The police may have said "There was a pool of blood under her" and the reporters may have written that she was lying in a pool of blood. Big deal. Misguided ingenuity, Steve.

The point is the blood under her could not be seen, and neither Neil or Llewellyn make any comments which could be interpreted as such.
You suggest that the reporters may have taken what an unknown Police officer told them and extrapolated, reinterpreted and presented it to say "lying in a pool" the same is of course possibly also the case with the "profusely" comment. I note you ignore the question asked.

I will direct you to my post to David, since it involves my take on the business.

Already seen it, disagree with most of it. The full rebuttal will take those points into account. Means I need to add a few bits to the blood section to do that thank you so very much.

I can see how the kind of reasoning you employ about "lying in a pool of blood" may take you a long way down the garden path, so it makes sense that you may disagree. And whatīs with the "thank you so very much"? Are you trying to be ironic? If so, you need to learn to swim before you dive in, Steve.

Certainly not being ironic, your reply to David helped highlight some major flaws with the thinking behind the theory.

Actually I don't swim, but the comment that I do not know enough is not an unheard of response to a theory under severe scrutiny.


All the best


Steve