Blood oozing

[Elamarna]

So oozing is not bleeding? Aha.

And bleeding cannot take place after death? There can be no post-mortem bleeding, a term used by scores of specialists?

Somehow, I think you are making a bleeding fool of yourself.

David is attempting to differnicate between blood flowing under pressure ( while the heart is beating ) and that which leaves the body when the heart stops.

Your semantic games are open for all to see.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Well one can only assume from that reply that you have not bothered to actually read Dr Biggs"s replies to Trevor Marriott's questions.

He Is Specifically asked about Nichols. And he specifically provides answers on her.

... but the lines about how people can bleed for twenty minutes or more are NOT offered in response to the Nichols case specifically.

His replies are far more in depth than those of Payne-James and are avaible to see rather than is the case with Payne-James.

Yet you continually state that his opinions are not specific and are thus not of equal value to Payne-James.

That is demonstrably untrue. This refusal to acknowledge that Biggs is specifically talking about Nichols does nothing for crediabilty of the thoery.

Te quote offered over and over and over again, is not about Nichols specifically. So you have no point whatsoever.

And blood was clotting according to the police officers in Bucks Row, so your point is?

That a person with much less damage than Nichols had, may bleed out completely and have the blood congeal in a short time, quite possibly shorter than the one you claim Nichols would/could/should have bled.

The fact he does not mention it should not be seen as confirmation that it was or was not flowing/oozing. These types of argument based on ommisions really are very poor from an historical or scientific point.

I know a very poor argument when I see it, and I see it a lot out here. The fact that Neil and Mizen both mentioned the bloodflow points to how a PC may have been required to note such things as a help in enabling them to understand the timings of the case. Therefore, much as I cannot prove it, I think that Watkins would have looked for an active bleeding and that he would have stated it at the inquest if it was there.

These are not my own convictions they are scientific fact with regards to blood flow.

Oh good - then you should be able to present proof for them, plus show how they come into play in the Nichols case! Waiting, waiting, waiting...

[Fisherman]

Can you please stop saying that there was only blood on the collar and neck. That is not what Helston said.

The press reports have been shown to not say that; yet you ignore such as it does not fit your view.

To ask another for their views on a matter, based on the subjective information which is provided is not honest.

How anyone expects to arrive at the truth with this attitude is incredulous .





Steve

All you have to doi is to present the police report from after the event, where the police states that there was blood way down the clothing, Steve. That all - nothing more is required.
Until that happens, I will work from the assumption that there was blood up at the collar and shoulders. Incidentally, if it was all the way down the clothing, then why is it that we are told about the blood at the collar and shoulders? Why do you think this distinction was made?

[Elamarna]

Can you please stop saying that there was only blood on the collar and neck. That is not what Helston said.

The press reports have been shown to not say that; yet you ignore such as it does not fit your view.

To ask another for their views on a matter, based on the subjective information which is provided is not honest.

How anyone expects to arrive at the truth with this attitude is incredulous .


Steve

In case you feel I am being unfair on you let's just clarify a point or two.

The police reports are not "police reports" which can be viewed as referring to official reports published by the police. Rather these reports are more accurately described as press reports of what individual officers said at the inquest..

For the issue of the blood on the clothing that includes Helston, Spratling and Thain.

All agree there was no blood on her skirts, or on her coat below the waist.

However exactly where the blood was differs in most accounts.

There is a degree of difference in the reports some say it was over the collars and shoulders, some just say the general area of the upper back. Some say on the clothing under the coat. Thain says some reached her waist.

I can find NO report which says blood was ONLY on the collar, the closest one is from the Telegraph 4th:


He noticed blood on the hair, and on the collars of the dress and ulster, but not on the back of the skirts.


This specifically excuses the skirts; but not the upper part of the coat.

However in the same report Spratling says:


Inspector Spratling replied that he could not say for certain. There was blood on the upper part of the dress body, and also on the ulster,


So blood had got onto the upper part of the dress body. That must surely mean blood had soaked through her coat and is confirmation for another report which said the back of her bodice was soaked.

And of course he does not say just the collar of the Ulster.

Fisherman, you appear just to reject any argument which is not restricted to the collar. The weight of reports suggests this may not be the case and yet you continue to repeat your view as fact over and over again without any reference to the possible alternative views. Indeed you call them Police Reports to give them a degree of authority when they are nothing of the kind.


That is not the correct way to present information.



Steve

[Fisherman]

David is attempting to differnicate between blood flowing under pressure ( while the heart is beating ) and that which leaves the body when the heart stops.

Your semantic games are open for all to see.


Steve

David does not have to attempt anything of the sort, since we all know about there being a difference between pressurized and unpressurized bleeding.

What David is ACTUALLY trying to do, is to infer that Payne-James was misled and that there can be no bleeding after death, since that term is reserved for pre-death only.

THAT is what David is doing, and as for your wishes, yes, I really do hope that people can see exactly what I am saying and what the aim of my saying it is. I also hope that they can see what David is doing, plus I really hope that they are going to see right through you and your inability to tell black from white.

David even goes so far as to suggest that lies may be told in combination with my presentation of the case, if I am saying that Payne-James has suggested that nobody can ooze blood for twenty minutes - a completely flabbergasting suggestion, since Payne-James has never been even close to making such a generalized comment and would never do so, nor have I suggested any such thing or would ever do so. This I have declared very clearly, but that does not help - David apparently likes the idea of spreading the notion that my take on the case is somehoww connected to lying.

A truly charming approach to debating - and one which you wholeheartedly seem to support. Big surprise!

My dog gets ashamed for lesser things, and he is not a very easily shamed dog.

Now I really cannot waste any more time on this charade. I have got better things to do, and I will not be home for the next few days, so I leave the boards wide open to new, lofty suggestions on your behalf. I wonīt be able to defend myself, so donīt be shy now.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Well one can only assume from that reply that you have not bothered to actually read Dr Biggs"s replies to Trevor Marriott's questions.

He Is Specifically asked about Nichols. And he specifically provides answers on her.

... but the lines about how people can bleed for twenty minutes or more are NOT offered in response to the Nichols case specifically.

That is how you chose to read it. One cannot speak to a closed mind.

His replies are far more in depth than those of Payne-James and are avaible to see rather than is the case with Payne-James.

Yet you continually state that his opinions are not specific and are thus not of equal value to Payne-James.

That is demonstrably untrue. This refusal to acknowledge that Biggs is specifically talking about Nichols does nothing for crediabilty of the thoery.

Te quote offered over and over and over again, is not about Nichols specifically. So you have no point whatsoever.

Read the section. He is as specific as Payne-James.

Again a fixed view.

And blood was clotting according to the police officers in Bucks Row, so your point is?

That a person with much less damage than Nichols had, may bleed out completely and have the blood congeal in a short time, quite possibly shorter than the one you claim Nichols would/could/should have bled.

Not at all. You really have a problem with understanding this bled out thing.

The fact he does not mention it should not be seen as confirmation that it was or was not flowing/oozing. These types of argument based on ommisions really are very poor from an historical or scientific point.

I know a very poor argument when I see it, and I see it a lot out here. The fact that Neil and Mizen both mentioned the bloodflow points to how a PC may have been required to note such things as a help in enabling them to understand the timings of the case. Therefore, much as I cannot prove it, I think that Watkins would have looked for an active bleeding and that he would have stated it at the inquest if it was there

What's Watkins or Mizen said about bleeding is entirely dependent on what they were asked at the inquest.

As you say you cannot prove your idea. It is just that your idea.

These are not my own convictions they are scientific fact with regards to blood flow.

Oh good - then you should be able to present proof for them, plus show how they come into play in the Nichols case! Waiting, waiting, waiting...

And as I told you it will come. You will have to wait. I will not be rushed in posted a part or the work.


Steve

[Elamarna]

All you have to doi is to present the police report from after the event, where the police states that there was blood way down the clothing, Steve. That all - nothing more is required.
Until that happens, I will work from the assumption that there was blood up at the collar and shoulders. Incidentally, if it was all the way down the clothing, then why is it that we are told about the blood at the collar and shoulders? Why do you think this distinction was made?

In some reports it is mentioned . In some not. In some the officers give different views in the same report. There is nothing conclusive and so to give a view as being so is highly questionable.


Steve

[Elamarna]

David does not have to attempt anything of the sort, since we all know about there being a difference between pressurized and unpressurized bleeding.

What David is ACTUALLY trying to do, is to infer that Payne-James was misled and that there can be no bleeding after death, since that term is reserved for pre-death only.

THAT is what David is doing, and as for your wishes, yes, I really do hope that people can see exactly what I am saying and what the aim of my saying it is. I also hope that they can see what David is doing, plus I really hope that they are going to see right through you and your inability to tell black from white.

David even goes so far as to suggest that lies may be told in combination with my presentation of the case, if I am saying that Payne-James has suggested that nobody can ooze blood for twenty minutes - a completely flabbergasting suggestion, since Payne-James has never been even close to making such a generalized comment and would never do so, nor have I suggested any such thing or would ever do so. This I have declared very clearly, but that does not help - David apparently likes the idea of spreading the notion that my take on the case is somehoww connected to lying.

A truly charming approach to debating - and one which you wholeheartedly seem to support. Big surprise!

My dog gets ashamed for lesser things, and he is not a very easily shamed dog.

Now I really cannot waste any more time on this charade. I have got better things to do, and I will not be home for the next few days, so I leave the boards wide open to new, lofty suggestions on your behalf. I wonīt be able to defend myself, so donīt be shy now.

I will leave it for David to respond.

However it not you defending yourself, it's defending the arguments. The fact that you now see two as the same is very telling .


Steve

[David Orsam]

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

No, it wasn't Nichols you discussed. Absolutely not. You have clearly deluded yourself into thinking you were discussing Nichols with Payne-James but that was certainly not the case:

Your opening question to him was:

"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?"

Tell me, if you had specifically wanted to discuss Nichols (and you had also wanted to use your ridiculous term of "bleed out"), why did you just not simply ask him: "How quickly would Nichols have bled out?" ?

I'll tell you why. Because you knew he would not have wanted to answer in a specific case. So you asked him a more general question and he gave you a general answer which did not apply specifically to Nichols.

[David Orsam]

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?

You don't seem to have understood what Payne-James was saying in the documentary.

When he referred to blood dribbling or leaking or draining out over a period of minutes he was contrasting that to an immediate spurt of blood from a cut throat resulting in a massive blood loss which would have left the killer covered with blood. He was saying precisely that there might NOT have been a massive blood loss when the throat was cut if Nichols had been strangled. But there would, in that case, have been a slow dribbling or a leaking or draining from the wound over a period of time. He just said "minutes", as opposed to seconds, which can mean 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes or 30 minutes or whatever. He wasn't focussed then on the time of this dribbling or leaking or draining, only that there wouldn't be a lot of blood exiting the wound when the throat was cut THUS the killer need not have been covered in blood.

You can try and improve on his wording as much as you like by pretending that he said there would be "exsanguination in minutes only" but he said nothing of the sort. He just said there would be dribbling or leaking or draining of blood over a period of minutes. You could have asked him what time he would have expected this dribbling or leaking or draining to continue for but you didn't do that.

Instead you chose to ask him about a "total desanguination", a massive blood loss, within a few minutes of death and then to ask him how long THAT blood loss would take. In response he spoke of a "flow". Not a dribble, or a leak or a draining.

You hadn't asked him to assume there had been strangulation so he appears to have been responding about a case where a woman with damage like Nichols was NOT strangled but there was a massive spurting, gushing or flowing of blood immediately after death, causing a massive blood loss, as one would normally expect when the arteries of a neck were cut with a knife.

In other words, you asked completely the wrong question. And the answer he gave you was inconsistent with the dribbling he spoke of, or leaking/draining if you prefer.

[David Orsam]

Payne-James spoke of bleeding out, and the normal term there is exsanguination.

Fisherman you are deluding yourself once again. Payne-James did not speak of "bleeding out". He never used that silly expression. It was YOU who used that term, remember?

What he agreed and ALL he agreed was that there could be "total desanguination" in a few minutes.

And if the "normal term" is exsanguination please tell me why you asked him about desanguination?

[David Orsam]

Exsanguination is not the total emptying of blood - it is the process of loosing blood up til the point of death. But I also asked about how long it would take for the bleeding to stop, so although Iīm sure you may want to go on about this in eternity, you have nothing to show for your strange ideas.

Is that your way of admitting that you used the wrong word?

In any event, you did NOT ask him how long it would take for "the bleeding to stop". You asked him if it was "possible" for a person to "bleed out completely and stop bleeding" in 3, 5 or 7 minutes. It was in response to this poorly worded multiple part, multiple choice question, in the context of total desanguination, that he answered a slightly different question, and said that blood may continue to flow for up to 7 minutes. He said nothing about any oozing.

[David Orsam]

Not in this case, no, since I specifically asked how long the bleeding will go on.

But Payne-James did not use the word "bleeding" in his answer (which was not, in fact to a question, "how long will the bleeding go on?") telling you only that blood could continue to flow for up to 7 minutes.

[David Orsam]

And Payne-James worked, as you know, from the assumption that Nichols was dead by strangulation. The suggestion that he was misinformed and did not know what he was answering is beyond absurd. Par for the course for you, therefore.

But you didn't ask him about Nichols did you? You asked him about a person who suffered the type of damage suffered by Nichols with there being total desanguination in a few minutes. Nothing was said about strangulation.

And I really do not know what assumptions Payne-James was working from about Nichols. He is not heard to utter the words "strangled" or "strangulation" in the documentary. The voiceover tells us what his view was but that voiceover is far from reliable. I assume that one possibility he considered was that she had been strangled but I really do not know if he believed this to have been a certainty by any means.

[David Orsam]

Have you ever seen the expression "post-mortem bleeding", David? According to you, such a thing cannot exist. And nevertheless, it is used in medical terminology in example after example out on the net.
Odd, that. Why didnīt these medicos consult you before they got it so wrong?

But neither you nor Payne-James used the expression "post-mortem bleeding". You referred to "bleeding" and he said "flow[ing]". The point I am making is that Payne-James cannot properly be interpreted as saying that blood is not likely to ooze out of a wound (similar to that inflicted upon Nichols) for more than 7 minutes after death. He never said it, he was never asked about it and I suggest that such a interpretation of his words would be utterly absurd.