The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[drstrange169]

>>So this, Steve, is your answer to how Dusty tells you that the wording used does not necessarily mean that the blood was STILL running.

The Morning Advertiser:

"The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman." <<


Christer's editing of quotes is already infamous, so it's worth showing the actual quote in context as the Morning Advertiser wrote it,

"He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

Oh dear yet again;-)

[drstrange169]

On the otherhand, reading through the posts, I noticed you did not "go near" any of my other posts. Something, unlike your claim, that can be confirmed as a verifiable fact.

That hole you are digging for yourself just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

[drstrange169]

>>I notice, Dust, that in your multitude of posts, you do not go near the fact that you had the question you claimed I was running from extensively answered?
Maybe there is more coming from your printing press, though. Let´s see.<<


Oh dear, oh dear ... didn't go near?

Here's what I wrote,

"Since David Orsam has already pointed out the errors in your attempt to squirm away from my point (Posts 876 to 880), I need not elaborate, unless of course, you want me too."

Sometimes it's like trying to talk to an alien. Still at least you are consistent, a 100% failure record in your posts.

[Abby Normal]

There is another, in my view more probable, alternative, namely that Nichols appeared to bleed for a longer period of time. In the same way, Liz Stride appeared to bleed for perhaps 30 minutes after her death. In both cases, of course, this "appearance" of bleeding is almost certainly nothing more than uncongealed blood and liquid serum continuing to flow due to the combined effects of capillary action and gravity.

I would tend to agree with this.

[Abby Normal]

My final word: the question I asked, and the one he answered was "Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?"

As I said, I am not surprised that the interpretation committee has gone to work. It was to be expected. From private conversation with Jason Payne-James, I know that he was of the meaning that the would would probably have bled out and stopped bleeding in a number of minutes, more likely three or five than seven.

But that is the real world. This is the parallel universe, with a number of people hellbent on other things than reality.

I will leave the boards to them now.

Hey fish
Did Jason know that pollys abdoman had been ripped open? I would imagine that would lead to a quicker bleeding stoppage from the neck.

[Elamarna]

There is another, in my view more probable, alternative, namely that Nichols appeared to bleed for a longer period of time. In the same way, Liz Stride appeared to bleed for perhaps 30 minutes after her death. In both cases, of course, this "appearance" of bleeding is almost certainly nothing more than uncongealed blood and liquid serum continuing to flow due to the combined effects of capillary action and gravity.

Yes that is very possible, indeed quite probably.
that four possible alternatives, none of those it would appear allow the death cut, be it neck or abdomen to be pinpointed.

Steve

[Elamarna]

My final word: the question I asked, and the one he answered was "Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?"

As I said, I am not surprised that the interpretation committee has gone to work. It was to be expected. From private conversation with Jason Payne-James, I know that he was of the meaning that the would would probably have bled out and stopped bleeding in a number of minutes, more likely three or five than seven.

But that is the real world. This is the parallel universe, with a number of people hellbent on other things than reality.

I will leave the boards to them now.

Unfortunately Fish, private conversations mean absolutely nothing, and of course nothing in your post counters the issues I raised.

Of course no attempt to address the serious problem that exists with Mizen's statement.

Another reply which is full of, disparaging remarks about those who disagree, rather than one which debates the issues.

And the main issue he is Mizen, even if one accepts everything you say Payne-James says, the time line which allows him to see flowing blood is way beyond what Payne-James suggests is realistic.

However has David points out there really is no maximum mentioned and without such how can this evidence which on the surface looks very promising give any indication of the time a cut took place.



Cheers


Steve

[David Orsam]

My final word: the question I asked, and the one he answered was "Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?"

And the answer is gave is that yes, all three times were possible.

What did it prove?

[Sam Flynn]

Either Nichols bleeds for much longer than Payne-James suggests is possible... Or if Payne-James is correct, than the attack must have taken place after Lechmere and Paul left.

There is another, in my view more probable, alternative, namely that Nichols appeared to bleed for a longer period of time. In the same way, Liz Stride appeared to bleed for perhaps 30 minutes after her death. In both cases, of course, this "appearance" of bleeding is almost certainly nothing more than uncongealed blood and liquid serum continuing to flow due to the combined effects of capillary action and gravity.

[Fisherman]

Many thanks Fish, ,

that is highly informative and answers much of what is needed.






An expert gives his opinion. That is fine, one mans opinion no matter how expert he may be. is just that, it needs supporting evidence to turn it from an opinion into a fact.








Ah, there are no examples he is aware of.

So it is no more than his opinion, agreed a professional educated one, but still just an opinion.

I must say I am surprised that he is not aware of any examples.




Very interesting reply, although you asked about bleeding out, he is talking about blood flow, and obviously as a professional he hedges his bets.









Actually it very clear that you have indeed interpreted it the way you wished.
You have an opinion given by an expert which is not backed by any documentation or reference and thus is no more than a personal opinion.

in addition although you asked the correct questions, the answers are less than precise, I would personally expect more than one word answers.

When asked if one could bleed out in 3 minutes, he does not say yes, but talks about blood may still flow for the longer times you propose, but that the shorter times are more realistic, that does not really answer your question does it?


She does not need to bleed for hours, in fact most of this debate is that the blood flow does not continue until the police arrive.
In fact the evidence strongly suggests that by the time Mizen arrived she should according to Payne-James have stopped bleeding.




Of course you are out, it is seems clear that Mizen's statement cannot place Lechmere at the scene at the time of the fatal cut.

Either Nichols bleeds for much longer than Payne-James suggests is possible, which must raise questions about such as a method of determining the time the death cut was made, and thus if Lechmere was there or not.

Or if Payne-James is correct, than the attack must have taken place after Lechmere and Paul left. I know some have suggested that, but I don’t think either of us believe that do we?

Another option we are left with is that the blood flow had ceased and so once again Mizen's statement cannot be used to pinpoint a time for the death cut



Sorry you are off


Steve

My final word: the question I asked, and the one he answered was "Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?"

As I said, I am not surprised that the interpretation committee has gone to work. It was to be expected. From private conversation with Jason Payne-James, I know that he was of the meaning that the would would probably have bled out and stopped bleeding in a number of minutes, more likely three or five than seven.

But that is the real world. This is the parallel universe, with a number of people hellbent on other things than reality.

I will leave the boards to them now.

[Elamarna]

Many thanks Fish, ,

that is highly informative and answers much of what is needed.

It is part of a e-mail exchange where I have asked Jason Payne-James if I could quote him, and he has given his consent. Here it is, my questions in red, his answers in blue:

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?

Yes

An expert gives his opinion. That is fine, one mans opinion no matter how expert he may be. is just that, it needs supporting evidence to turn it from an opinion into a fact.

Do you know of any examples?

No

Ah, there are no examples he is aware of.

So it is no more than his opinion, agreed a professional educated one, but still just an opinion.

I must say I am surprised that he is not aware of any examples.

Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?

I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.

Very interesting reply, although you asked about bleeding out, he is talking about blood flow, and obviously as a professional he hedges his bets.

I think it is hard to say that I have misinterpreted Jason Payne-James on this matter - to me, it seems pretty clear. But I have every hope that you - or somebody else out here - may find a way to reinterpret it as acknowledging that Nichols can have bled for hours on end.

Actually it very clear that you have indeed interpreted it the way you wished.
You have an opinion given by an expert which is not backed by any documentation or reference and thus is no more than a personal opinion.

in addition although you asked the correct questions, the answers are less than precise, I would personally expect more than one word answers.

When asked if one could bleed out in 3 minutes, he does not say yes, but talks about blood may still flow for the longer times you propose, but that the shorter times are more realistic, that does not really answer your question does it?


She does not need to bleed for hours, in fact most of this debate is that the blood flow does not continue until the police arrive.
In fact the evidence strongly suggests that by the time Mizen arrived she should according to Payne-James have stopped bleeding.

I´m out of this discussion now, Steve. I could have said more, but I have lost the will to do so

Of course you are out, it is seems clear that Mizen's statement cannot place Lechmere at the scene at the time of the fatal cut.

Either Nichols bleeds for much longer than Payne-James suggests is possible, which must raise questions about such as a method of determining the time the death cut was made, and thus if Lechmere was there or not.

Or if Payne-James is correct, than the attack must have taken place after Lechmere and Paul left. I know some have suggested that, but I don’t think either of us believe that do we?

Another option we are left with is that the blood flow had ceased and so once again Mizen's statement cannot be used to pinpoint a time for the death cut



Sorry you are off


Steve

[David Orsam]

It is part of a e-mail exchange where I have asked Jason Payne-James if I could quote him, and he has given his consent. Here it is, my questions in red, his answers in blue:

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?

Yes

Do you know of any examples?

No

Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?

I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.

I think it is hard to say that I have misinterpreted Jason Payne-James on this matter - to me, it seems pretty clear. But I have every hope that you - or somebody else out here - may find a way to reinterpret it as acknowledging that Nichols can have bled for hours on end.

So let's compare the reality with what Fisherman posted on this forum on 11 July 2016:

"If the victim displayed the kind of damage Nichols did, and was positioned the way she was in the kind of temperature that prevailed, it is completely unlikely that the bleeding would go on for any prolonged time, and Jason Payne-James said that the bleeding would be over in a matter of minutes only. When I asked him if he was talking about three, five or seven minutes, he said that the two shorter times were more likely to be true than the longer one.
That´s as far as we can get - likelihoods. And they point a finger at the carman."

I don't see Jason Payne-James saying that the bleeding "would" be over in a matter of minutes. What he agreed was that it could take place in a very few minutes. That is a different matter entirely. He also said he didn't know of any examples of this, something that Fisherman did not mention in his summary of 11 July.

When Fisherman summarised his final answer, he somehow omitted to mention that Payne-James had said that he guessed that "blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time", by which he presumably meant seven minutes. Note that he used the word "flow" not "ooze". He also didn't say that the shorter periods were likely to be "true". He used the expression "more realistic".

What I simply do not see in any of his answers is any kind of maximum amount of time which it is possible for blood to ooze from a neck wound after death. THAT is the key question. That is the question which Dr Briggs addressed. Nothing that Payne-James said in that exchange helps us to answer that crucial question.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

>>Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Fisherman does not answer my questions!!

It's most certainly true in my case.<<

Did he ever tell you what route he took with Andy Griffiths? He is willing to answer all questions now.

Alas, Dusty, he did not. I asked him in #570 if his promise to answer questions applied to all members and, if so:

"can you answer the question (which you have previously avoided) as to what route you took when filming the documentary to time the distance between Doveton Street and Durward Street?"

His reply in #578 was:

"Sorry, David - it is exclusively aimed for Dusty."

I can't think of any good reason for a researcher to withhold underlying data so I'm forced to the conclusion that he refuses to reveal the route because he will then have to admit that he walked down a path that did not exist in 1888.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Hi Fisherman


That is your interpretation of what Payne-James said to you; and of course you have told us that you are not allowed to show us exactly what he wrote, nor what you asked due to reasons of confidentially.

Such standard messages are are printed on emails from UK medical schools and universities, as I can confirm from having worked in such most of my life.

I say your interpretation because I really cannot believe an eminent person such as Payne -James would actually make some of those claims you suggest.

It is part of a e-mail exchange where I have asked Jason Payne-James if I could quote him, and he has given his consent. Here it is, my questions in red, his answers in blue:

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?

Yes

Do you know of any examples?

No

Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?

I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.

I think it is hard to say that I have misinterpreted Jason Payne-James on this matter - to me, it seems pretty clear. But I have every hope that you - or somebody else out here - may find a way to reinterpret it as acknowledging that Nichols can have bled for hours on end.

I´m out of this discussion now, Steve. I could have said more, but I have lost the will to do so.

[Elamarna]

Just a minor point - it was Jason Payne-James who could not see this, not me. It was he who said that at some time, suggestions about very prolonged bleeding times will become absurd. It was he who said that the type of wound Nichols had, would bleed out in a matter of minutes, more likely three or five than seven.

I am only reiterating his view, since I am no medical expert.

Hi Fisherman


That is your interpretation of what Payne-James said to you; and of course you have told us that you are not allowed to show us exactly what he wrote, nor what you asked due to reasons of confidentially.

Such standard messages are are printed on emails from UK medical schools and universities, as I can confirm from having worked in such most of my life.



I say your interpretation because I really cannot believe an eminent person such as Payne -James would actually make some of those claims you suggest.



To suggest one would have a complete bleed out in 3 minutes is somewhat unrealistic, you may well lose enough to cause death in that time, but it will not be a complete "bleed out" as you put it.

There will always be a large volume of blood in some organs such as the liver, and that in the lower extremities of the body is unlikely to reach the neck wound unless gravity is involved, or the body is suspended upside down, for instance, as in animal slaughters for religious reasons.

However we also have the abdominal wounds to consider, it has been suggested that the reason for the apparent lack of blood from the neck is that much blood bled out into the abdominal cavity.

This should logical reduce the bleed time, and may actually help the case against Lechmere.

Lets be clear about what this bleed time is: its not time until all blood loss stops, its until steady flow, not helped by gravity or movement stops.




However just for a moment lets just for the sake of discussion assume that the max time is 7 minutes, at the extreme end of Payne-James suggestion.

And lets again, for the sake of argument assume the Letchmere was the killer.

And lets additional assume that he cut the throat last.

Therefore he attacks and starts to cut the abdomen, bleed time starts there, not when the throat is cut.

If the cut to the throat is first, the bleed start time is the same.

Lets assume the total attack, from the first cut until Paul arrives is no more than 2minutes. and that is a pure guess, it could certainly be more, and is unlikely to be less given that he needs to hide the cuts by moving the skirts and move away from the body

They talk and look at Nichols for 1-2 minutes and set off to find a police officer, lets assume it takes at least 2 minutes, based on the distance involved and ignoring the witness guesstimates on time.

We already have 2min+ 2min+ 2min. before they reach Mizen.
Lets be ultra generous here and say total 5.5 mins, already at the point Payne-James suggests is a good figure.



Now they talk to Mizen, say another minute minimum.
Mizen does not go off to Bucks Row immediately; but on his own admission finishes off one more knock up, allow another minute.
He now has to walk back to Bucks Row, lets say 2-3 minutes max.

Total time from first cut until Mizen arrives is the 5.5 we started with plus the addition of a further 1+1+2.5 that gives us 10 minutes as a minimum. it could easily be longer.

That is reaching the position that Payne-James called absurd, indeed it has already passed it I think.

The probability that Mizen witnessed blood actually flowing from the neck wound is very low; Although of course this is nature and nothing can be ruled out as an exception.

The very real probability is that he witnessed the flow away from the pool towards the gutter,of course the blood was also traveling from Nichols's neck to the pool, therefore it is peferct right to say it was running from her neck and such is not at odds with the blood from the wound actually just oozing. Of course he noticed that the pool was congealing, this suggests that more than a few minutes and passed and that blood flow had diminished.

The case with Neil is far more of an issue.
He is probably there in time if the death cut occurred as above, that is Lechmere is disturbed by Paul.
However that all revolves around what he means by "oozing", and could additional wounds to the abdomen have reduced the bleed time anyway.

That is what I am still working to resolve.



Steve