Blood oozing

[Elamarna]

And all the whole you know that I can answer any question you can put to me. The fact that I wonīt always do that nevertheless boils down to me safeguarding my sense of integrity. I make whatever calls I want to, and thatīs just something you will have to live with. It helps me keep my nose over the sewer pool, so it is not likely to change any time soon.

I seriously do not think you can answer any question.

It is clear from your replies that you do not fully understand the scientific/medical matters. Thus you make such incorrect deductions and comments that bleeding can stop in 3, 5 or seven minutes.
Do you actually understand the mechanisms involved in blood loss stopping ?

It appears your comments based on misunderstanding the information supplied to you by one "expert". An expert you appear to hold as THE authority on blood loss while disregarding the comments of other similar experts.

And finally the response you have given has nothing to do with the post you appear to be replying to.
However I note that still does not prevent you from the normal level of name calling you resort to when others disagree with you.

Bye for now


Steve

[David Orsam]

I did not have to ask him to assume massive bloodloss, david - I think he figured that out for himself. The context of the question had nothing to do with massive bloodloss other than in the sense that we all know that there was massive bloodloss in Nicholsī case.

But how do we all know that there was massive blood loss in Nichols case in a very few minutes?

Because that is what you asked him to assume:

"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?"

Then, "Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes?"

[David Orsam]

Are you trying to infer that the oozing is not part of the bleeding?

Yes, because bleeding is the wrong word.

You asked the expert to assume a massive blood loss in a few minutes, implying a fast flow of blood immediately after death, and then tried to pin him down as to when that massive blood loss would stop.

But you didn't ask him whether the blood could continue to slowly ooze out of the wound after the initial flow of blood has stopped nor how long such oozing could last for.

As to that, we already have an answer from Dr Biggs.

[David Orsam]

But if you can prove that blood will always ooze for at least seven minutes in any case of exsanguination, while alive or post mortem, then feel free to do so!

I'm not saying that blood will "always" do anything. Based on the clear information provided by Dr Biggs, which has never been contradicted by Payne-James, I'm saying that it is certainly possible that blood can ooze for 20 minutes after death.

You do understand that right?

[David Orsam]

He said not a iot about oozing. You know exactly what he said and you know exactly what he responded to, since I have posted that material.

You are perfectly welcome to accuse me of lying, but not on the basis of my telling you what I asked and the answer I got. It has been given in exact wording out here. So what I would have lied about is something I find hard to understand. That, apparently, goes for you too.
It is Jason Payne-James you are accusing of lying, if you are saying that it is impossible to bleed out and stop bleeding in a matter of few minutes only.

I'm not challenging the notion that it is possible to "stop bleeding" (to use your expression) in a few minutes after death. What I am challenging is YOUR claim (not the claim of Payne-James) that it would be in any way surprising for oozing to go on for 20 minutes after death.

If you were to claim that Payne James has ever said that oozing is unlikely to go on for 20 minutes after death then that would be a lie.

[David Orsam]

So sayeth the master of misunderstanding, misinformating and misleading.

I said three things in the post to which you were responding:

1. Payne-James changed your word "bleeding" to "flow[ing]" and did so in the context of having been asked to assume a massive blood loss when the throat was cut.

2. Payne-James said precisely nothing about blood oozing from the wound thereafter or at any time.

3.Dr Biggs has told us that blood can very possibly continue to ooze for 20 minutes and Dr Payne-James has never contradicted this.

Now which of these three things am I misunderstanding, misinformating and misleading?

[David Orsam]

Later, David, later.

Perhaps.

I can give you a smallish hint, though - the reason you do not elevate from your bed at night is because gravity is in play.

What has elevation got to do with flow of liquid?

[Pierre]

I'm not saying that blood will "always" do anything. Based on the clear information provided by Dr Biggs, which has never been contradicted by Payne-James, I'm saying that it is certainly possible that blood can ooze for 20 minutes after death.

You do understand that right?

Iīm so happy. I donīt understand Biggs. I donīt understand P-J. I am not stuck in Buckīs Row. I am not trying to construct or deconstruct Minutiae in Buckīs Row by trying to count minutes through newspaper articles. Hooray!

[Elamarna]

Iīm so happy. I donīt understand Biggs. I donīt understand P-J. I am not stuck in Buckīs Row. I am not trying to construct or deconstruct Minutiae in Buckīs Row by trying to count minutes through newspaper articles. Hooray!

I am sure you do understand them, you are just not interested because it does not have any bearing on your theory, glad for you.

Yes it is tideous and boring I agree.

Maybe when you are ready we can have a good debate over your theory.


Steve

[kjab3112]

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.

Hi Fisherman

Certainly suggestive, but if Llewellyn did perform his autopsy corresctly, that and the bruising were his only suggestions of strangulation. More suggestive to me of strangulation to unconsciousness (about ten seconds), cut throat (stay unconscious after ten seconds i.e. not wake back up), bleeding from throat providing most of the 2.5 litres of blood loss prior to the heart failing, with limited arterial loss from the abdomen (but enough to be apparent).

Please remind me, was it your programme that included the reconstruction of the time these manoeuvres could be performed in? (I'm probably wrong).

PS Forgot the absence of defence wounds to the knife attack in evidence for proposed timeline.

Regards

Paul

[John G]

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.

But wasn't the tongue only slightly lacerated?

[Fisherman]

As I've said before, don't be so hard on yourself.

Sorry Gareth, but now you are misunderstanding, misinforming and misleading.

[Fisherman]

But wasn't the tongue only slightly lacerated?

Yes, so it was said. But that is nevertheless consistent with strangulation.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Yes, a person like Nichols, so not necessarily Nichols herself and one who had suffered from "total desanguination", i.e. massive blood loss, in "very few minutes".

Donīt be daft. It was Nichols and nobody else we discussed.

Tell me how this massive blood loss is consistent with Payne-James' theory that the blood could simply have dribbled out from the neck wound of Nichols if she had been strangled.

The neck was not the only cut area, was it? If the first cuts were made in the abdominal area, and if Nichols had no heartbeat, then since most of the blood may have seeped into the abdominal cavity and since there would have been no blood pressure left, the blood from the neck wound would have been to a smaller or larger degree bound to run/dribble more slowly than if there were no other wounds.
Pretty consistent with Payne-James wording, would you not say? And of course, you just use "dribble" whereas Payne-James said that the blood would "leak, dribble or drain" out around the contours of the neck OVER A PERIOD OF MINUTES. What Payne-James implicates is that the blood will not spurt out, but instead run out over "the brim" of the wound, so to speak, and it will do that in amounts that will make for an exsanguination in minutes only.
It seems you forgot half of the message delivered?

[Fisherman]

It's not just about gravity, besides - as has already been observed - the pavements/roads in Victorian Whitechapel, even modern-day Whitechapel, aren't exactly spirit-level flat.

Did I say that it is just about gravity?

Did I infer that the pavement under Nichols must have been absolutely flat?