Blood oozing

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

In one report the wound was said to be "deep and wide" in Alice's case. Add to that fact, her head was turned "sharply" to the right which would open up the wound for a more unrestricted blood flow. In other words, if her head were turned the other way (to the left) it would have pinched the wound closed.

Point taken Jerry.

However it would appear to be far less severe a wound than Nichols.
And thats the issue, resulting in a longer time to bleed out.

However I must be getting old and past my bedtime as my choice of words over the last hour or so as not been great.

Cheers

Steve

[John G]

Hi Steve,

In one report the wound was said to be "deep and wide" in Alice's case. Add to that fact, her head was turned "sharply" to the right which would open up the wound for a more unrestricted blood flow. In other words, if her head were turned the other way (to the left) it would have pinched the wound closed.

I'm not sure where that report comes from. The largest neck wound was "about 3 inches" according to Dr Bond and "about 4 inches" according to Dr Phillips. Of course, everything is relative, however, the neck wounds appear to be no where near as extensive as those inflicted on Nichols, who appeared to have been nearly decapitated.

[John G]

Where does the word "instantaneous" come from?

Are "almost immediately" and "instantaneous" synonyms then?

Isn't "almost immediately", like "almost exactly" an oxymoron? Surely something is either immediate or it is not immediate.

[jerryd]

I'm not sure where that report comes from. The largest neck wound was "about 3 inches" according to Dr Bond and "about 4 inches" according to Dr Phillips. Of course, everything is relative, however, the neck wounds appear to be no where near as extensive as those inflicted on Nichols, who appeared to have been nearly decapitated.

I agree, John. My argument wasn't with the damage comparison between the two women. I was suggesting that McKenzie, in my opinion, was killed later than 12:40 so maybe the blood wasn't flowing as long as a half hour as David suggested. When Dr. Phillips arrived, even though he used the expression blood poured out from her neck, he also stated the blood was beginning to clot at that point in time which to me suggests he meant the blood poured out in the past tense.

[Elamarna]

I agree, John. My argument wasn't with the damage comparison between the two women. I was suggesting that McKenzie, in my opinion, was killed later than 12:40 so maybe the blood wasn't flowing as long as a half hour as David suggested. When Dr. Phillips arrived, even though he used the expression blood poured out from her neck, he also stated the blood was beginning to clot at that point in time which to me suggests he meant the blood poured out in the past tense.

I think thats the point Pierre made back at the start of this thread. That the medics often spoke in the past tense, when describing wounds.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

I think thats the point Pierre made back at the start of this thread. That the medics often spoke in the past tense, when describing wounds.

Steve

I think researchers are trying to go to deep into this issue of bleeding from victims wounds perhaps in an attempt to prop up their own theory? There is little or no tangible evidence to work with which can be totally relied on.

Another quote from Dr Biggs re the Victorian doctors statements which many are still seeking to rely heavily on

"Much of what is ‘known’ appears to be little more than subjective opinion / assumption / guesswork. Even if we can accept all of the ‘objective’ record as fact, there is so little of this available now that it becomes difficult to draw any firm conclusions this far down the line"

For those who have not already read Dr Biggs lengthy assessment and evaluation of all the medical facts surrounding the murders including The Thames Torso murders then they should read "Jack the Ripper-The real truth"

http://amzn.to/2qUOafB

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I think researchers are trying to go to deep into this issue of bleeding from victims wounds perhaps in an attempt to prop up their own theory? There is little or no tangible evidence to work with which can be totally relied on.

Another quote from Dr Biggs re the Victorian doctors statements which many are still seeking to rely heavily on

"Much of what is ‘known’ appears to be little more than subjective opinion / assumption / guesswork. Even if we can accept all of the ‘objective’ record as fact, there is so little of this available now that it becomes difficult to draw any firm conclusions this far down the line"

For those who have not already read Dr Biggs lengthy assessment and evaluation of all the medical facts surrounding the murders including The Thames Torso murders then they should read "Jack the Ripper-The real truth"

http://amzn.to/2qUOafB

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

I agree with much of your post. The information you got from Biggs is very clear.

The actual evidence is very sparse as you say and differs between some reports.
So we have to look at the medical science which is relavent to the case.

The argument I have been and continue to make is that the idea that Lechmere can be tied to the "eye of the storm" is not accurate.


Steve

[David Orsam]

the neck wounds appear to be no where near as extensive as those inflicted on Nichols, who appeared to have been nearly decapitated.

No two murders are ever going to be exactly the same, of course, but the evidence of Dr Phillips at the inquest indicates it was a severe neck wound as follows:

"There was a wound in the neck reaching from the left ear to the front part of the neck. Taking the wound as made, it must have taken a somewhat upward direction, and judging by smaller wounds the worst incision seems to have been interrupted by the prominence of the lower jaw. A second incision joined the former incision in its deepest part, which was immediately over the carotid vessels which were entirely severed down to the vertebrae of the spinal column." (East London Advertiser, 20 July 1889).

[David Orsam]

Isn't "almost immediately", like "almost exactly" an oxymoron? Surely something is either immediate or it is not immediate.

If we follow that logic to it's natural conclusion, though, John, then the word "almost" can be obliterated from the English language because something either is or is not.

The phrase "almost immediately" is very common and easily understood. The word "almost" is qualifying the word "immediately". So it's not immediate (or instantaneous) but it's not a long way from it.

It doesn't seem difficult to me.

And it's not an oxymoron.

[David Orsam]

I was suggesting that McKenzie, in my opinion, was killed later than 12:40

Jerry, I see you posted on JtR Forums on 2 February 2015:

"I believe Alice was murdered between 12:25 a.m and 12:45 a.m."

I'm happy to accept that in the sense that it seems obvious that it must have been somewhere between 12.35 and 12.45.

[David Orsam]

I think thats the point Pierre made back at the start of this thread. That the medics often spoke in the past tense, when describing wounds.

I suppose it's good that we get back round to the OP's point.

And it was a dreadful point!

It was based on the flawed assumption that there is a narrow limit to the time of oozing despite Dr Biggs haveing made it perfectly clear from his personal experience that it can continue for about 24 hours.

Thus: "I did an autopsy last week, where the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary and death had occurred almost 24 hours prior to my examination… and yet the injuries continued to ‘bleed’ relatively profusely for quite some time. So much so that we struggled to get a ‘clean’ photograph as the blood flooded back as quickly as we could wipe it away! This is why I have been so cautious about commenting on ‘maximum’ timings and quantities of blood loss."

There was no ambiguity in the three newspaper reports posted by Pierre in the OP:

1."there was blood oozing from the left ear" means that the doctor saw the blood oozing even though the body was cold.

2. "there was a little blood oozing from the mouth and ear" means that the observer saw the oozing in the morning even though the suffocation had occurred during the night

3. "I could see blood oozing from a hole at the back of his coat…Blood was also flowing from his mouth" means that the doctor observed this even though the murder had occurred about an hour or two earlier.

The point I am making here, of course, is not a new one and was made by TJI in #24 and not responded to by Pierre. Also, I think, by John G in #25 with no sensible response forthcoming.

[jerryd]

Jerry, I see you posted on JtR Forums on 2 February 2015:

"I believe Alice was murdered between 12:25 a.m and 12:45 a.m."

I'm happy to accept that in the sense that it seems obvious that it must have been somewhere between 12.35 and 12.45.

Thanks David,

That thread was before I started to dig a little more into Alice's death. In a thread in October of 2015 (Was Alice McKenzie technically Alive?) I came to some different conclusions. In the first thread, the one you quoted me from, I had not done much research at all into the McKenzie murder at that point but felt something as far as the time frames didn't add up in my mind. Both of those threads were a progression of my thoughts. In other words, the threads were a "real time" recording of my research. Subsequently, I was able to find more press reports on the inquest and additional relevant news clippings that pieced it together a little better in my mind.

[Elamarna]

I suppose it's good that we get back round to the OP's point.

And it was a dreadful point!

It was based on the flawed assumption that there is a narrow limit to the time of oozing despite Dr Biggs haveing made it perfectly clear from his personal experience that it can continue for about 24 hours.

Thus: "I did an autopsy last week, where the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary and death had occurred almost 24 hours prior to my examination… and yet the injuries continued to ‘bleed’ relatively profusely for quite some time. So much so that we struggled to get a ‘clean’ photograph as the blood flooded back as quickly as we could wipe it away! This is why I have been so cautious about commenting on ‘maximum’ timings and quantities of blood loss."

There was no ambiguity in the three newspaper reports posted by Pierre in the OP:

1."there was blood oozing from the left ear" means that the doctor saw the blood oozing even though the body was cold.

2. "there was a little blood oozing from the mouth and ear" means that the observer saw the oozing in the morning even though the suffocation had occurred during the night

3. "I could see blood oozing from a hole at the back of his coat…Blood was also flowing from his mouth" means that the doctor observed this even though the murder had occurred about an hour or two earlier.

The point I am making here, of course, is not a new one and was made by TJI in #24 and not responded to by Pierre. Also, I think, by John G in #25 with no sensible response forthcoming.

That may well be,
however Jerry's point did take us full circle.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Subsequently, I was able to find more press reports on the inquest and additional relevant news clippings that pieced it together a little better in my mind.

Would it be fair to say that your current belief as to a later time of death is based on the notion that some of the police witnesses provided false testimony at the inquest?

[jerryd]

Would it be fair to say that your current belief as to a later time of death is based on the notion that some of the police witnesses provided false testimony at the inquest?

I believe at least one witness did get his story mixed up at the inquest (PC Andrews). But, my current belief is based more on what Isaac Lewis Jacobs says he witnessed in addition to PC Andrews' testimony and all the other witnesses for that matter.