Blood oozing

[Fisherman]

Or maybe he just said there was lots of blood and the reporter translated that to newspaper speak.

Yes, that´s a possibility - but as it says that the blood ran profusely in the articles, that remains the better suggestion. Al the rest of the suggestions are second level ones, possible, but significantly less likely.

As an aside, I think we may run the risk of misunderstanding thingsö owing to the extent of the damage done to Nichols´ neck. There is the risk that we reason that blood flowing profusely from such a wound must be a bucketload of the stuff.

However, I think that is surmising too much. Think, if you will, of somebody who receives a blow on the nose and begins to bleed from it. Normally, a nosebleed will trickle out of one of the nostrils, and run down the upper lip rather placidly. But sometimes, a nosebleed will be more powerful, and blood will actually run , as if from a tap, onto the ground.

In such a case, most would say that the noseblood was a profuse one.

My guess is that the blood coming out of Nichols´ neck was something along those lines when Neil and Mizen saw her, a bit more in Neil´s case, a bit less in Mizen´s.

I think that could well have sufficed for Neil to say that the blood flowed profusely. Or he said that there was a constant stream of blood coming from the wound, and the papers wrote that it bled profusely - once again the former sugestion being the better one, but the second one being viable nevertheless.

[David Orsam]

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?

Or maybe he just said there was lots of blood and the reporter translated that to newspaper speak.

[David Orsam]

That was what I asked for - how long would it take for her to bleed out and for the blood to stop flowing.

Exactly, Fisherman, you asked the wrong question.

As Steve has pointed out, Nichols could not possibly have bleed out all the blood in her body in 3 minutes could she? Payne-James has understood you to mean flowing and focussed on that. 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. That's because you didn't ask him, even though the witness used the word "oozing". 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?

[David Orsam]

"The ordinary and accepted meaning". I like that phrase, beacuse it clearly concedes that there are OTHER meanings than "the ordinary" one to consider.

To begion with, let´s clear away your childish idea that this ordinary meaning "simply must" be the one Neil employed - why on earth "must" this be so? Because you prefer it? Hello? Wake up! Of course it "must" not be so, there is no certainty at all involved on that point.

What utter nonsense. Of course the phrase "ordinary and accepted meaning" does not suggest there are other meanings to consider. I could equally have said the dictionary meaning. I'm only aware of one meaning of the word oozed. You can look it up in a dictionary. I note you don't suggest any alternative meaning yourself.

All you have done is tacked on the word "profusely" to the word "oozing" but the witness did not say "oozing profusely" so it's ridiculous. All I can think the phrase "oozing profusely" means is that there was a lot of oozing. But PC Neil did not use this expression so what's the point of wondering what someone meant when they used it in the 18th century?

When PC Neil said he saw the blood oozing he must have meant: "To emit or give out (liquid or moisture) slowly or gradually" or "to proceed by or as by oozing; to move gradually or imperceptibly", Oxford English Dictionary.

[Elamarna]

Fisherman, I did indeed say that I would come back on most of your points at a later date date but I feel at least one issue needs to be addressed quicker.

There is also the fact that the initial reporting from the crime scene involves a large number of papers saying that the blood was running profusely as Neil sat the body. The Star, for example, points out that there was a two inch wide, gaping wound in the neck and that the blood was running profusely.

Could perhaps name the papers and editions. Apart from The Star, which unfortunately I cannot trace the comment in, which edition are you using? The only others I have found it in are the East London Adveriser of the 1st and that appears to use the same words as you quote so was probably from a common source and The Weekly Hearald of the 7th.



Steve