Blood oozing

[David Orsam]

Conjuring Trick

What does it do the to the question of the blood evidence? Does it establish Neils "oozing" as a description of a very small bloodflow? No, it does not. It still applies that the term "oozing profusely" was used back then as well as now, so oozing could involve a relatively large amount of blood exiting the body.
And we still have Mizen saying that as he saw the blood, it was still running into the pool under Nichols´ neck. The only logical deduction we can make is that there was not less bleeding going on when Neil saw her.

And we still have Payne-James opting for three or five minutes being a more realistic bleeding time than seven, meaning that he was uninclined to believe in longer bleeding times than so, although he was not categorically ruling them out.

Logically, we are therefore left with Lechmere being the realistic bid.

Now I love this Alice in Wonderland logic used by Fisherman which brings him to the exact conclusion he wants to get to, namely the framing of Lechmere for the murder of Nichols.

The witness evidence from PC Neil is very clear that the blood was "oozing".

Fisherman doesn't like that. He notes a few obscure references in books to blood "oozing profusely". So by his logic perhaps THAT is what Neil was saying even though he did not actually say it.

You couldn't make this kind of thing up.

So now we have the blood oozing profusely and Fisherman thinks that when Neil said "There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck" there must be some kind of special meaning to the word "running" which fits in with the blood "oozing profusely".

This is despite the fact that one's nose can be running and it can mean nothing more than running very slowly. It doesn't even need to mean that it was moving.

Let's also look at what Dr Llewellyn on the same day of the inquest:

"On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw."

"there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear"

"Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner."

"There were several incisions running across the abdomen"

"On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards."

PC Neil was describing a pool of blood at a point near where the neck was lying and he was saying that the blood was running from this point, Point A to Point B, the neck wound. It doesn't say anything about the speed or movement of the blood and certainly does not change the fact that he said nothing more than the fact that the blood was oozing.

But in Fisherman's head the blood is now running profusely. We can ditch the word "oozing". In fact, if it's running profusely, heck, it's also bleeding profusely!

He thinks has Dr Payne James on record saying that a wound will only bleed for up to 7 minutes after death. He actually used the word "flow" but that's okay because in Fisherman's mind bleeding and flowing are the same. So by this wonderful logic the wound was inflicted within or about 7 minutes prior to Neil's arrival on the scene.

Hey presto, as if by magic, Fisherman, the Great Illusionist, has now made the evidence point directly to Lechmere!!!

ROUND OF APPLAUSE

[David Orsam]

Where's the evidence that Nichols was strangled?

If you've been following the posts in this thread, Observer, you will know that Fisherman has told us that it is the belief of Dr Payne James that Nichols "was seemingly strangled or partially strangled before she was cut" (e.g. #101 & #152).

My point, in case you are missing it, is that when Fisherman asked his 3 questions of Payne-James about "bleeding" which were supposed to relate to the specific case of Nichols, he did not include anything about strangulation in the premise of the opening question.

[Observer]

If you've been following the posts in this thread, Observer, you will know that Fisherman has told us that it is the belief of Dr Payne James that Nichols "was seemingly strangled or partially strangled before she was cut" (e.g. #101 & #152).

My point, in case you are missing it, is that when Fisherman asked his 3 questions of Payne-James about "bleeding" which were supposed to relate to the specific case of Nichols, he did not include anything about strangulation in the premise of the opening question.

I'll admit I haven't been following the thread, therefore I'll aim my criticism at Dr Payne James. Dr Llewellyn did not mention strangulation in his inquest testimony. As far as I can see the injuries sustained around the head, and neck areas, are consistent with the killer forcing Nichols to the ground, and using the left hand to force the head back in order to cut the throat with the right hand.

[Elamarna]

There is no blood evidence that relates to Cadosh, Schwartz, Harvey, Mc Carthy, Lewis or Prater.
Diemschitz said that blood had run from the body towards the kitchen door, but nothing is said about that blood still flowing as he looked. Johnston said that the blood had all run away and was clotted as he saw Stride.

So these people are not relevant comparisons - as usual. With Lechmere, we know that the victim was bleeding many minutes after he left the body, and we know that Jason Payne-James says that he is more inclined to opt for a bleeding time of three or five than seven minutes.

When the comments of Payne-James are formulated to make a working hypothesis it becomes clear that the hypothesis itself fails. This is without actually even taking the various witness statements into account.

There is therefore no "blood evidence" which relates to Lechmere.


Steve

[David Orsam]

David Orsams way of trying to get past this was to invent a situation where Payne-James spoke about "flow" only, and that he therefore did not include running, trickling or oozing in his answer.

Leaving aside the fact that he was being asked about a victim who had suffered massive blood loss and leaving aside that he expressly used the word "flow" in his answer, my reason for thinking that Dr Payne-James could not have had oozing in his mind when he answered Fisherman's poorly worded question is because it would mean he would be at odds with Dr Biggs who expressly told us that it certainly is possible for blood to be oozing 20 minutes after death.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: But the only "circumstances of the Nichols case" included in your question to Payne-James was that she was flat on level ground (as assumption not, in fact, supported by any evidence of which I am aware) ...

To be perfectly fair, David, we DO have a number of sketches showing that the pavement was not very tilted (if at all) and we DO have descriptions and sketeches showing Nichols laying apparently flat or almost flat on the ground.
We CAN of course quibble over this too, but to what avail? To show all and sundry that there was never any estaboshed angle of the pavement and so she MAY have lain a little less that absolutely flat?

...and nothing was hindering the bloodflow. You didn't ask him anything about a victim who had been strangled or anything else specific to Nichols.

That was not involved in the passage quoted out here, no - but we certainly discussed the matter, and J P-J worked from the assumption that there had been a partial or full initial strangling. Plus we discussed the fact that Nichols was probably affected by alcohol und so weiter.
These are of course matters that I know of whereas you don´t - but I would prefer if you asked instead of working from the information that Payne-James was under- or misinformed. Not that I say you do - I say I don´t want you to.

Hence, it is simply not possible for you to say that the circumstances in the Nichols case "do NOT allow for a prolonged bleeding". We have nothing to say whether they do or do not.

Well, you don´t think I am qualified to have any idea, since it is medico-ish, do you? So instead I lean against J P-J, who certainly IS qualified. And as you know, he said that the bleeding was more likely to be completed and stop withing three or five minutes than in seven. That is not going to go away, as you may understand.

[Fisherman]

I'm hardly inventing a situation; that's exactly what happened.

You asked Payne James about "bleeding" and he changed the word to "flow". That's probably because dead bodies don't 'bleed' as such, a point made by Dr Biggs:

"I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life."

But what you are ignoring, Fisherman, is the most critical point which is that you were asking Payne-James about a situation where someone had already suffered a massive blood loss, i.e. desanguination. You introduced the concept of massive blood loss into the picture so what Payne James can only have been saying (or guessing) is that when a body suffers a massive blood loss upon the throat being cut, the blood will most likely stop flowing in 3-5 minutes but possibly up to 7 minutes.

He said precisely nothing about oozing under any circumstances.

Well, that idea of yours goes out the window when we look at the exact phrasing of the question J P-J answered:

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

... to which he answered:

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.

The total bloodflow involves all kinds of blood exiting, and Payne-James was clearly asked when the "bleeding" (not the flowing) would seize, not when it would go from "bleeding" to "oozing". And "oozing" is "bleeding".

So you are wrong. Quite simply. And that goes for the more exotic allegations involved too.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: There is as much "blood evidence" in their cases as there is in respect of Cross - each witness was in the right place and time to be in the vicinity of a victim who had shed, or would soon be shedding, a copious amount of blood.

But in no case is it recorded that there WAS a bloodflow as any of these witnesses was around. Which tell them all apart from Lechmere.
It´s time to abandon these antics.

PS: You forgot Diemschutz, who was demonstrably in closer proximity to a bleeding victim than Cross was when Paul arrived on the scene.

Did I? Where does it say that the victim was bleeding as Diemschitz looked at her? I´m not sure it does.

And, if you like, the "blood evidence" is even more damning in respect of Diemschutz than it is in respect of Cross. (Not that it's "damning" in either case.)

Is it now? Even if the blood was NOT running actively? And even though we have Mortimers evidence speaking for Diemschitz not being the cutter? And even though we have a situation where Diemschitz must have throqn the knife away, but where nothing hints at him doing so?
Just how does that work, Gareth?

Overall, what your post tells us is NOT that we should not care if a witness states - with no corroboration - that he was not the killer, albeit he was alone with the victim. In fact, Diemschitz MUST be given a long hard look, and when it is given to him, we can see that he is a very unlikely killer.

The same does NOT go for Lechmere, who may have had spades of time to kill, where the wounds on the victim were hidden, where the suspect gave an alternative name (in spite of never doings so otherwise with any authority we know of) and who disagreed with the police over what had been said on the murder night (and for some reason, the PC:s version speaks of something very much looking like a ruse on Lechmere´s behalf).

Lechmere is the better suspect by a country mile, therefore.

[Fisherman]

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

But I did not mean me - I meant Harry D. Didn´t you realize that? Oh, the ignorance.

[Fisherman]

Where's the evidence that Nichols was strangled?

There IS evidence, but not proof, in the bruising on the body. There is also a lacerated tongue to consider. On balance, the suggestion must be looked at as a viable one, methinks.

[Fisherman]

Now I love this Alice in Wonderland logic used by Fisherman which brings him to the exact conclusion he wants to get to, namely the framing of Lechmere for the murder of Nichols.

The witness evidence from PC Neil is very clear that the blood was "oozing".

Fisherman doesn't like that. He notes a few obscure references in books to blood "oozing profusely". So by his logic perhaps THAT is what Neil was saying even though he did not actually say it.

You couldn't make this kind of thing up.

So now we have the blood oozing profusely and Fisherman thinks that when Neil said "There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck" there must be some kind of special meaning to the word "running" which fits in with the blood "oozing profusely".

This is despite the fact that one's nose can be running and it can mean nothing more than running very slowly. It doesn't even need to mean that it was moving.

Let's also look at what Dr Llewellyn on the same day of the inquest:

"On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw."

"there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear"

"Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner."

"There were several incisions running across the abdomen"

"On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards."

PC Neil was describing a pool of blood at a point near where the neck was lying and he was saying that the blood was running from this point, Point A to Point B, the neck wound. It doesn't say anything about the speed or movement of the blood and certainly does not change the fact that he said nothing more than the fact that the blood was oozing.

But in Fisherman's head the blood is now running profusely. We can ditch the word "oozing". In fact, if it's running profusely, heck, it's also bleeding profusely!

He thinks has Dr Payne James on record saying that a wound will only bleed for up to 7 minutes after death. He actually used the word "flow" but that's okay because in Fisherman's mind bleeding and flowing are the same. So by this wonderful logic the wound was inflicted within or about 7 minutes prior to Neil's arrival on the scene.

Hey presto, as if by magic, Fisherman, the Great Illusionist, has now made the evidence point directly to Lechmere!!!

ROUND OF APPLAUSE

It takes more of an illusionist to go from oozing to running, as Mizen adds. In the end, it is uninteresting, since either form of bloodflow would seize in a matter of minutes, according to Payne-James.

[Fisherman]

When the comments of Payne-James are formulated to make a working hypothesis it becomes clear that the hypothesis itself fails. This is without actually even taking the various witness statements into account.

There is therefore no "blood evidence" which relates to Lechmere.


Steve

"And if you believe that, we´re gonna get along just fine."

Steve Earle, "Snake Oil"

[Fisherman]

Leaving aside the fact that he was being asked about a victim who had suffered massive blood loss and leaving aside that he expressly used the word "flow" in his answer, my reason for thinking that Dr Payne-James could not have had oozing in his mind when he answered Fisherman's poorly worded question is because it would mean he would be at odds with Dr Biggs who expressly told us that it certainly is possible for blood to be oozing 20 minutes after death.

The bloodflow on the whole contains all the different faces of bleeding. Payne-James answered my question about when the "bleeding" would seize.

End of story.

[Fisherman]

Now, let´s leave the stage to the naysayers for some (farcical) time.

Help, help - I am sooooo fleeing!

[Sam Flynn]

The bloodflow on the whole contains all the different faces of bleeding. Payne-James answered my question about when the "bleeding" would seize.

In which case he answered it wrongly. When you sustain wounds as catastrophic as those suffered by Polly Nichols, blood simply does not cease to exude from the body within a mere few minutes.