Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

[Fisherman]

This abdominal injuries were not spotted by him at the crime scene. His inquest testimony reads " Witness gave the police directions to take the body to the mortuary, where he would make another examination" That suggests that would be later that day. Then he says "about an hour afterwards he was sent for by the Inspector to see the other injuries(abdominal) he (the inspector) had discovered on the body"

So he missed seeing the abdominal injuries and they were later pointed out to him when the body was stripped at the mortuary and he was sent for then to view them.

He missed them at the crime scene and he didn't go to the mortuary with the body does that make him incompetent ? Its as Dr Biggs says his evidence should be taken with a pinch of salt.

So Christer at the end of the day you have a theory, which is just that, all the flaws have been highlighted yet you still remain adamant that Lechmere was the killer, but being adamant is not enough to convince people that Lechmere is a viable suspect for the murder of Nichols, and that he was the killer known as Jack the Ripper.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you dare not stand by what you lead on, Iīm as fine with that as Iīm used to it.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, I have sent a bit of time now looking at the evidence, and there appears nothing which suggests the major vessels the Aorta and the Vena Cava were damaged.


The coroner does mention several arteries were cut, but that they appeared to bleed little.
He does not say which, and these could be the arteries to the intestines, which if cut would certainly cause death eventually, but this would be relatively slowly compared to cutting of the Aorta or indeed the neck vessels.

The Coroner also says there was less bleeding from the abdominal wounds than the neck.

coroner:
"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck."



Dr Llewellyn is certainly of the opinion that the cause of death was the attack on the abdomen.
However his testimony at the inquest on first sight appears to be less than fully informative about these wounds.


"No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes. There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards."


There is no measurement for depth of the cut, and while he says the "tissues were cut through" he does not say which, so actually unhelpful.

His description of the area of the cuts does not really help with identifying which arteries had been damaged. other than they appear not be those supplying either the liver or kidneys.


Are you aware of any sources which are more informative?

Steve

Inspector Helson yesterday evening said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither blood stains not wheel marks found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn.
At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming.
It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter. The inquest is to be resumed today. The deceased, it is understood, will be buried tomorrow.
(Pall Mall Gazette 3 Sept)

This is the starting point you need. Here, we see that Llewellyn had found that the blood had leaked into the abdominal cavity. And, interestingly, we also see that Helson actually claims that Llewellyn had changed hos mind about the abdominal wounds coming first. It seems the police did not want to accept that view. This is reflected in Baxters words at the summing up of the inquest:

Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards.

Here we can see that in spite of Helsons efforts, Llewellyn remaind where he always had been - the abdominal wounds came first. Baxter cannot even bring himself to say that this was Llewllyns stance, he only says that the doctor "seems to incline" this. Sour grapes, apparently! And then he suggests himself that the neck came first, as if he would know that better!
And how does he justify his intrusion into the medical domains of which he had no training? Well, he seems to admit that several arteries were cut, but there was no staining on the upper surface! Ergo, Baxter wanted the blood to go UP instead of down! He also says that there was "very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck", which would mean that there was close to no bleeding from the abdomen, taking into account the very smallish bleeding from the neck. I think that what Baxter is speaking of here is that there was almost no blood on the ground under the abdomen. Which is understandable, since it had gone into the abdominal cavity!

Taking Baxters words as gospel would be disatrous, given how he very clearly shows his agenda - the neck must have come first. Helson was of that meaning, and he was even prepared to lie about Llewellyns stance about it, it would seem. It is more than apparent that this issue was a bone of contention. One needs to realize that when assessing the business.

If we move back in time, we find this passage, from the Echo of the 1:st:

Dr. Ralph Llewellyn made a post mortem examination of the body this morning, the injuries are even more extensive than he at first supposed. It is his impression that she was not murdered at the spot where her body was found, but that her throat was cut, the dreadful abdominal injuries then inflicted, and that the body was then carried, enveloped in her large, heavy cloak, and thrown outside the gateway at Essex Wharf. Mr. Seccombe, Dr. Llewellyn's assistant, is of the same opinions, especially, he says, as there was comparatively little blood where the deceased lay.

So even after Llewellyn had seen the abdominal wounds, he still thought that the body had been carried to where it lay. And that was on account of the lack of visible blood on the murder spot.
At this early stage of the events, this idea prevailed with everybody, medicos, police and press alike.

Two days later, the Echo confesses to a fresh new view:

For some reason the police have abandoned the theory that the deceased was murdered in a house and carried to the spot. They now believe she was killed at the place where she was discovered by the constable. The blood from the wounds was, it is thought, absorbed by the woman's ulster and long dress, and would thus account for such a small quantity being noticed underneath the body.

Note how they say that the theory has been abandoned "for some reason". That reason was later given as a lack of any blood in the vicinity of the spot where the body was found.
However, the body could of course have been transported there in a vehicle, in which case there would not be any such blood found - it would be inside the vanished vehicle.
So what else could it be that swayed the police? Well, one such thing would be of they found where the blood had gone. And it was said that it had been soaked up by the ulster.
But the blood did not run into the ulster when Neil arrived. It ran downwards, into the pool underneath the neck. And from there, it ran down into the gutter. Why would it make a u-turn and climb up into the ulster?

My suggestion is that one major reason for accepting that the body was found where Nichols was slain, is that Llewellyn found the blood at the autopsy, inside the abdminal cavity, as stated in the papers. That solved the riddle. And the blood in the ulster will predominantly have ended up there when the neck wound was still covered by Nicholsī clothes. The clothing then came down when Paul pulled on the dress, and instead of seeping into the ulster, the blood now started to run down and form a small pool under the neck., thereafter forming a small stream into the gutter as the pool was filled to the brim.
And who is the man who says there was such a stream? Correct: Mizen, who saw the body last. Neil says nothing about that stream.

This is why Paul never saw the wound in the neck - it was covered.

This is why he saw no pool of blood under the neck - the blood was at that stage seeping into the covering ulster.

Can I prove it? No. Does it fit and explain what happened? Yes.

[GUT]

And these are their short posts.

[Fisherman]

And these are their short posts.

Yes, it must all seem very complex.

[Jon Guy]

But the blood did not run into the ulster when Neil arrived. It ran downwards, into the pool underneath the neck. And from there, it ran down into the gutter. Why would it make a u-turn and climb up into the ulster?

Hi Christer

Do we know if the ground in front of Brown`s stables was on an incline or flat ground?

Do we know that Nichols was lying exactly east to west ?

Do we know if Nichols was lying on cobblestones or flat ground ?

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Do we know if the ground in front of Brown`s stables was on an incline or flat ground?

Do we know that Nichols was lying exactly east to west ?

Do we know if Nichols was lying on cobblestones or flat ground ?

I believe I have read about how the ground sloped towards the street - but I do not know where I read it. And of course, since we know that the blood flowed into the gutter, it is kind of proven that this was so.

I think we can work from the assumption that Nichols was not lying EXACTLY east to west. There will in all probability have been some little deviation. But we do know justaboutish how she lay. Condensing it as per Neil: Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate.... She was lying on her back."

Cobblestones or flat ground? It was not entirely flat, since a pool was formed, a pool where the blood subsequently rose over the brim, sending a stream into/towards the gutter.

So are there uncertainties, the way your questions lead on? Yes. I am not contesting that, I am stating what I believe happened.

[Jon Guy]

I believe I have read about how the ground sloped towards the street - but I do not know where. And of course, since we know that the blood flowed into the gutter, it is kind of proven that this was so.

I think we can work from the assumption that Nichols was not lying EXACTLY east to west. There will in all probability have been some little deviation. But we do know justaboutish how she lay. Condensing it as per Neil: Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate.... She was lying on her back."

Cobblestones or flat ground? It was not entirely flat, since a pool was formed, a pool where the blood subsequently rose over the brim, sending a stream into/towards the gutter.

So are there uncertainties, the way your questions lead on? Yes. I am not contesting that, I am stating what I believe happened.

Thanks Christer, I was just making sure I was aware of the actual details, as you may have already proven what the ground was like.

But, yes there are uncertainties in the details of the ground, which would affect where the blood went.
For example, her head and shoulders only to need be pointing in a slight south easterly direction to completely alter the flow of blood.

This seems to be a reliable illustration of what it was like, flat ground and on a incline

[Fisherman]

Thanks Christer, I was just making sure I was aware of the actual details, as you may have already proven what the ground was like.

But, yes there are uncertainties in the details of the ground, which would affect where the blood went.
For example, her head and shoulders only to need be pointing in a slight south easterly direction to completely alter the flow of blood.

This seems to be a reliable illustration of what it was like, flat ground and on a incline

Until you see this one, yes:

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=10

As for altering the blood flow, Iīm not sure what you are fishing for. She lay with her head to the east, and the blood flowed down into the gutter and reasonably that must be what we have to go on.

[Jon Guy]

Until you see this one, yes:
http://photos.casebook.org/displayim...album=1&pos=10

True, but the standing observer on my illustration gives it more credence, as a very contemporary sketch.

As for altering the blood flow, Iīm not sure what you are fishing for. She lay with her head to the east, and the blood flowed down into the gutter and reasonably that must be what we have to go on.

Yes, but people have argued for the case that the lack of blood around her neck proves her abdomen was attacked first and that some of the blood from her neck could not have flowed into the back of ulster because the blood would not have run in a north westerly direction.

Just fishing for the facts, Christer ;-)

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: True, but the standing observer on my illustration gives it more credence, as a very contemporary sketch.

"My" sketch is dated 31 of August 1888. Thatīs contemporary enough too. However, I donīt think that the Boston Globe drawer would have added the incline just for jolly, so it seems a fair enough representation.

Yes, but people have argued for the case that the lack of blood around her neck proves her abdomen was attacked first and that some of the blood from her neck could not have flowed into the back of ulster because the blood would not have run in a north westerly direction.

Thereīs that ugly word again: "proves". Brrrr! Personally, Iīve learnt the hard way that being a bit more careful with the wordings is always recommendable!
Overall, if the blood has an escape route where it can flow freely, it will choose that route to the alternative of letting itself be soaked into cloth. However, both things can easily happen simultaneously - pour a litre of water over your trouser leg and itīs point proven.
What I am saying is basically that I find it hard to believe that the blood would to the larger degree end up in the ulster when it had an option of flowing freely over the ground and into the gutter. It seems a very far-fetched suggestion, as I believe any experiment would show.
To begin with, it says nowhere that the cloth was in contact with the wound in the neck or with the pool underneath it. It would have to be either or both for the blood to pasas from the neck into the ulster. Plus no cloth has a suction power big enough to make it compete with the opportunity of free flowing.
So I am having a hard time accepting that the free flowing opportunity was always there. However, if the ulster was pulled up over the wound in the neck, and if Paul subsequently pulled it down from over the wound, then the scenario makes all the sense in the world. Then the blood can well have soaked into the ulster to a significant degree, and the blood can have been hindered to run out into that pool for the initial minutes, when there would have been a larger bloodshed.
Take a piece of wollen cloth, Jon, and put a bowl of water into your kitchen sink, right underneath the tap. Then let a smallish stream of water start to fill up the bowl. When it reaches the brim, and starts to flow over, stick the woolen cloth into the bowl and let it suck up water.
Will it stop the water from flowing over the brim? How much cloth must be sunk into the water before it has a large impact? How much water can it absorb? How far along the cloth will the water travel?
Somewhere in those questions lies the answer to the question about what happened to the blood coming from the neck of Nichols.

Just fishing for the facts, Christer ;-)

Hey! Iīm the fisherman out here!

[Elamarna]

Inspector Helson yesterday evening said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither blood stains not wheel marks found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn.
At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming.
It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter. The inquest is to be resumed today. The deceased, it is understood, will be buried tomorrow.
(Pall Mall Gazette 3 Sept)

This is the starting point you need. Here, we see that Llewellyn had found that the blood had leaked into the abdominal cavity. And, interestingly, we also see that Helson actually claims that Llewellyn had changed hos mind about the abdominal wounds coming first. It seems the police did not want to accept that view. This is reflected in Baxters words at the summing up of the inquest:

Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards.

Here we can see that in spite of Helsons efforts, Llewellyn remaind where he always had been - the abdominal wounds came first. Baxter cannot even bring himself to say that this was Llewllyns stance, he only says that the doctor "seems to incline" this. Sour grapes, apparently! And then he suggests himself that the neck came first, as if he would know that better!
And how does he justify his intrusion into the medical domains of which he had no training? Well, he seems to admit that several arteries were cut, but there was no staining on the upper surface! Ergo, Baxter wanted the blood to go UP instead of down! He also says that there was "very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck", which would mean that there was close to no bleeding from the abdomen, taking into account the very smallish bleeding from the neck. I think that what Baxter is speaking of here is that there was almost no blood on the ground under the abdomen. Which is understandable, since it had gone into the abdominal cavity!

Taking Baxters words as gospel would be disatrous, given how he very clearly shows his agenda - the neck must have come first. Helson was of that meaning, and he was even prepared to lie about Llewellyns stance about it, it would seem. It is more than apparent that this issue was a bone of contention. One needs to realize that when assessing the business.

If we move back in time, we find this passage, from the Echo of the 1:st:

Dr. Ralph Llewellyn made a post mortem examination of the body this morning, the injuries are even more extensive than he at first supposed. It is his impression that she was not murdered at the spot where her body was found, but that her throat was cut, the dreadful abdominal injuries then inflicted, and that the body was then carried, enveloped in her large, heavy cloak, and thrown outside the gateway at Essex Wharf. Mr. Seccombe, Dr. Llewellyn's assistant, is of the same opinions, especially, he says, as there was comparatively little blood where the deceased lay.

So even after Llewellyn had seen the abdominal wounds, he still thought that the body had been carried to where it lay. And that was on account of the lack of visible blood on the murder spot.
At this early stage of the events, this idea prevailed with everybody, medicos, police and press alike.

Two days later, the Echo confesses to a fresh new view:

For some reason the police have abandoned the theory that the deceased was murdered in a house and carried to the spot. They now believe she was killed at the place where she was discovered by the constable. The blood from the wounds was, it is thought, absorbed by the woman's ulster and long dress, and would thus account for such a small quantity being noticed underneath the body.

Note how they say that the theory has been abandoned "for some reason". That reason was later given as a lack of any blood in the vicinity of the spot where the body was found.
However, the body could of course have been transported there in a vehicle, in which case there would not be any such blood found - it would be inside the vanished vehicle.
So what else could it be that swayed the police? Well, one such thing would be of they found where the blood had gone. And it was said that it had been soaked up by the ulster.
But the blood did not run into the ulster when Neil arrived. It ran downwards, into the pool underneath the neck. And from there, it ran down into the gutter. Why would it make a u-turn and climb up into the ulster?

My suggestion is that one major reason for accepting that the body was found where Nichols was slain, is that Llewellyn found the blood at the autopsy, inside the abdminal cavity, as stated in the papers. That solved the riddle. And the blood in the ulster will predominantly have ended up there when the neck wound was still covered by Nicholsī clothes. The clothing then came down when Paul pulled on the dress, and instead of seeping into the ulster, the blood now started to run down and form a small pool under the neck., thereafter forming a small stream into the gutter as the pool was filled to the brim.
And who is the man who says there was such a stream? Correct: Mizen, who saw the body last. Neil says nothing about that stream.

This is why Paul never saw the wound in the neck - it was covered.

This is why he saw no pool of blood under the neck - the blood was at that stage seeping into the covering ulster.

Can I prove it? No. Does it fit and explain what happened? Yes.

Thanks you for the long reply, yes it is hard to make it short when you want to say something is it not.


I have found other sources overnight myself, and am preparing a serious considered reply. which may take some time.


It does appear there are they are some serious issues which cause problems for not only this suggestion, but much else.

Not meaning to sound secretive, but I have not yet completed my analysis of the data which is available.

Will posts much more fully ASAP


Steve

[Jon Guy]

What I am saying is basically that I find it hard to believe that the blood would to the larger degree end up in the ulster when it had an option of flowing freely over the ground and into the gutter.
It seems a very far-fetched suggestion, as I believe any experiment would show.
To begin with, it says nowhere that the cloth was in contact with the wound in the neck or with the pool underneath it. It would have to be either or both for the blood to pasas from the neck into the ulster. Plus no cloth has a suction power big enough to make it compete with the opportunity of free flowing.
So I am having a hard time accepting that the free flowing opportunity was always there. However, if the ulster was pulled up over the wound in the neck, and if Paul subsequently pulled it down from over the wound, then the scenario makes all the sense in the world. Then the blood can well have soaked into the ulster to a significant degree, and the blood can have been hindered to run out into that pool for the initial minutes, when there would have been a larger bloodshed.
Take a piece of wollen cloth, Jon, and put a bowl of water into your kitchen sink, right underneath the tap. Then let a smallish stream of water start to fill up the bowl. When it reaches the brim, and starts to flow over, stick the woolen cloth into the bowl and let it suck up water.
Will it stop the water from flowing over the brim? How much cloth must be sunk into the water before it has a large impact? How much water can it absorb? How far along the cloth will the water travel?
Somewhere in those questions lies the answer to the question about what happened to the blood coming from the neck of Nichols.
[/B]

Blood is a very different beast to water, Christer.

Just fishing for the facts, Christer ;-)
Hey! Iīm the fisherman out here!

Absolutely, which is why I am checking these things with you ;-)

[Trevor Marriott]

Inspector Helson yesterday evening said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither blood stains not wheel marks found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn.
At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming.
It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter. The inquest is to be resumed today. The deceased, it is understood, will be buried tomorrow.
(Pall Mall Gazette 3 Sept)

This is the starting point you need. Here, we see that Llewellyn had found that the blood had leaked into the abdominal cavity. And, interestingly, we also see that Helson actually claims that Llewellyn had changed hos mind about the abdominal wounds coming first. It seems the police did not want to accept that view. This is reflected in Baxters words at the summing up of the inquest:

Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards.

Here we can see that in spite of Helsons efforts, Llewellyn remaind where he always had been - the abdominal wounds came first. Baxter cannot even bring himself to say that this was Llewllyns stance, he only says that the doctor "seems to incline" this. Sour grapes, apparently! And then he suggests himself that the neck came first, as if he would know that better!
And how does he justify his intrusion into the medical domains of which he had no training? Well, he seems to admit that several arteries were cut, but there was no staining on the upper surface! Ergo, Baxter wanted the blood to go UP instead of down! He also says that there was "very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck", which would mean that there was close to no bleeding from the abdomen, taking into account the very smallish bleeding from the neck. I think that what Baxter is speaking of here is that there was almost no blood on the ground under the abdomen. Which is understandable, since it had gone into the abdominal cavity!

Taking Baxters words as gospel would be disatrous, given how he very clearly shows his agenda - the neck must have come first. Helson was of that meaning, and he was even prepared to lie about Llewellyns stance about it, it would seem. It is more than apparent that this issue was a bone of contention. One needs to realize that when assessing the business.

If we move back in time, we find this passage, from the Echo of the 1:st:

Dr. Ralph Llewellyn made a post mortem examination of the body this morning, the injuries are even more extensive than he at first supposed. It is his impression that she was not murdered at the spot where her body was found, but that her throat was cut, the dreadful abdominal injuries then inflicted, and that the body was then carried, enveloped in her large, heavy cloak, and thrown outside the gateway at Essex Wharf. Mr. Seccombe, Dr. Llewellyn's assistant, is of the same opinions, especially, he says, as there was comparatively little blood where the deceased lay.

So even after Llewellyn had seen the abdominal wounds, he still thought that the body had been carried to where it lay. And that was on account of the lack of visible blood on the murder spot.
At this early stage of the events, this idea prevailed with everybody, medicos, police and press alike.

Two days later, the Echo confesses to a fresh new view:

For some reason the police have abandoned the theory that the deceased was murdered in a house and carried to the spot. They now believe she was killed at the place where she was discovered by the constable. The blood from the wounds was, it is thought, absorbed by the woman's ulster and long dress, and would thus account for such a small quantity being noticed underneath the body.

Note how they say that the theory has been abandoned "for some reason". That reason was later given as a lack of any blood in the vicinity of the spot where the body was found.
However, the body could of course have been transported there in a vehicle, in which case there would not be any such blood found - it would be inside the vanished vehicle.
So what else could it be that swayed the police? Well, one such thing would be of they found where the blood had gone. And it was said that it had been soaked up by the ulster.
But the blood did not run into the ulster when Neil arrived. It ran downwards, into the pool underneath the neck. And from there, it ran down into the gutter. Why would it make a u-turn and climb up into the ulster?

My suggestion is that one major reason for accepting that the body was found where Nichols was slain, is that Llewellyn found the blood at the autopsy, inside the abdminal cavity, as stated in the papers. That solved the riddle. And the blood in the ulster will predominantly have ended up there when the neck wound was still covered by Nicholsī clothes. The clothing then came down when Paul pulled on the dress, and instead of seeping into the ulster, the blood now started to run down and form a small pool under the neck., thereafter forming a small stream into the gutter as the pool was filled to the brim.
And who is the man who says there was such a stream? Correct: Mizen, who saw the body last. Neil says nothing about that stream.

This is why Paul never saw the wound in the neck - it was covered.

This is why he saw no pool of blood under the neck - the blood was at that stage seeping into the covering ulster.

Can I prove it? No. Does it fit and explain what happened? Yes.

Another reminder for Dr Biggs

"Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially)"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: Blood is a very different beast to water, Christer.

And less inclined to seep into cloth in the speed water does, yes.

Absolutely, which is why I am checking these things with you ;-)

Ha! Didnīt you know that netfishing is more efficient...?

[Fisherman]

Another reminder for Dr Biggs

"Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially)"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The whole boards went into acute spasm when Lechmere was first presented.

However, Dr Biggs writes "usually", but Jason Payne-James was able to fix the full details - if both the internal and external carotid artery in the neck are severed, then there can be no vessel contraction. That is why you will never see a beheading where no blood exits the neck, Trevor.

Then again, you were just beheaded yourself with no blood present. Maybe that can be a comfort?