Every minute counts

[Fisherman]

But when Neil first shone his lamp on the body, the blood was merely ‘oozing’.

I donīt know how many times Iīve responded to this detail, Gary. But here we go again:

We donīt know how much bleeding is involved in the term oozing. There is no description available. We do, however, know that Neil also speaks of how the blood was "running", and so we have two expressions involved.
We also have the original press reports from before the inquest, where Neil said that Nichols bled "profusely".
Could it be that she "oozed profusely"? Can you ooze profusely? According to 875 hits on Google, you can.

What I believe oozing means in the context is to bleed with no underlying pressure. The blood can well out and still be oozing, the way I understand things. Others will disagree and claim that to ooze can only be to trickle very little.
But if people did not disagree, this would not be ripperology.

Did Mizen have the time to crouch down and detect this ooze before he went off for the ambulance?

Yes. The detail of his observations tells us this. He assessed the level of coagulation in the pool, even. In actual fact, he was a very good witness when it comes to establishing the blood evidence. He tells us that the blood had not seized to flow as he arrived, that it looked fresh, that it was somewhat coagulated in the pool and that it had run over the brim in the pool and started to run into the gutter. He is the one witness who goes into great detail about all of this, and in doing so, I believe he gets his revenge on Lechmere for having lied to him.
But thatīs of course just me.

And why would he use the word ‘still’? That suggests a comparison to an earlier experience.

Not very likely, no. As you will know, the coroner may well have asked the question "Was the blood still running at that stage?" although he knew Mizen had no previous experience of Nicholsīs bleeding. "Still" in this context will refer to the fact that she had not stopped bleeding as Mizen saw her. Nothing odd there.
Of course, if he had only said that the blood was running, instead of "still" running, it would play into the hands of those who say that the term may describe a bloodstream that had stopped flowing. Mizen effectively rules that option out, so thank you Jonas!

It makes more sense to me that he was describing blood exiting the body when he helped move it after his return with the ambulance.

Why?

Because he believed that the blood had run for half an hour and was "still running" at that stage?

Because he was likely to describe the blood as "looking fresh" although he know it was nothing at all like fresh?

Because he would be likely to describe the blood under her neck, that was at this stage a large clot, as "somewhat congealed" if blood dripped down on it? Something that Thain said nothing at all about, by the way, instead describing a large clot, not a wet mess.

Or is there any other reason?

To me, the suggestion makes no sense at all.

A question: If the blood was still running as Mizen looked at Nichols, (how) would that affect your take on Lechmere and his potential guilt?

PS. Is the "ooze" in "oozing with confidence" the same "ooze" as in trickle very slowly...?

PPS. Just checked Google for the term "a lot of blood oozed". 32 600 hits.

[MrBarnett]

The Times have him as George Cross too. The Morning Advertiser has Mizen as Maizen. The Daily Telegraph claims it was Paul who refused to help prop Nichols up. Etcetera, etcetera.
What will you have us do? Throw all sources out?

The only information Mizen gives (involving more than this paper) about the blood has it running, looking fresh and being in a state of ongoing coagulation. Nowhere does he say that it had stopped running, so there is no contradiction about it in any of the papers. The picture is therefore reasonably clear on the subject.

But when Neil first shone his lamp on the body, the blood was merely ‘oozing’. Did Mizen have the time to crouch down and detect this ooze before he went off for the ambulance?

And why would he use the word ‘still’? That suggests a comparison to an earlier experience.

It makes more sense to me that he was describing blood exiting the body when he helped move it after his return with the ambulance.

[Fisherman]

>>Mizen said the blood was STILL running (and looking fresh, to boot)<<

That report also wrote that his name was,

"Police constable George Maizen"

and that,

"at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street".

Also, that Lechmere was called,

"George Cross"

and it gave the impression that Cross said nothing about another policeman,

"... someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row) ... I went up Buck's row..."

The Times have him as George Cross too. The Morning Advertiser has Mizen as Maizen. The Daily Telegraph claims it was Paul who refused to help prop Nichols up. Etcetera, etcetera.
What will you have us do? Throw all sources out?

The only information Mizen gives (involving more than this paper) about the blood has it running, looking fresh and being in a state of ongoing coagulation. Nowhere does he say that it had stopped running, so there is no contradiction about it in any of the papers. The picture is therefore reasonably clear on the subject.

[Fisherman]

Mizen clearly said no, he did not continue knocking people up after Cross spoke with him. That leaves two possibilities when he said "I only finished knocking up one person."

* Mizen means he had only knocked up one person person before Cross spoke to him and that he did not knock up anyone after that.

* Mizen said something false, then corrected himself. If Mizen can't even agree with himself, that doesn't make him a particularly credible witness. It would also be Mizen admitting to dereliction of duty in failing to go to the immediate aid of another constable. Yet neither Mizen didn't even get a scolding at the Inquest for this failure.

As I pointed out, since Mizen was asked whether or not he continued to knock people up after he had been informed about Nichols, he would have answered in the negative to inform that he stopped that practice, adding to be as exact as possible that although he stopped knocking up as a result of having been informed about the matter, he finished the errand he had started before Lechmere told him about Nichols. That is being a very precise witness, not an unreliable one. Nothing was withheld, all the relevant information was given. The alternative would be to say yes, and give the impression that he did all of his knocking up before he went to Bucks Row.

Maybe we should try and be a little more discerning before we start shouting about unreliability and derelection of duty?

[drstrange169]

>>Mizen said the blood was STILL running (and looking fresh, to boot)<<

That report also wrote that his name was,

"Police constable George Maizen"

and that,

"at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street".

Also, that Lechmere was called,

"George Cross"

and it gave the impression that Cross said nothing about another policeman,

"... someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row) ... I went up Buck's row..."

[Fiver]

PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The East London Observer, 8th of September 1888:

A Juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness (PC Mizen, my remark): No; I only finished knocking up one person.

This quotation establishes that PC Mizen actually did continue his knocking up business after he had been told about Nichols. Crucially, we can see that he contradicts himself somewhat by first denying to have done so, but then clarifies exactly what happened. It is understandable that he first said no because the juryman asks his question as if Mizen had knocked up numerous people before he went to Bucks Row. The contradiction involved in Mizens testimony is what has stuck in some papers, forgetting to make the addition about Mizen finishing an already begun errand.

Mizen clearly said no, he did not continue knocking people up after Cross spoke with him. That leaves two possibilities when he said "I only finished knocking up one person."

* Mizen means he had only knocked up one person person before Cross spoke to him and that he did not knock up anyone after that.

* Mizen said something false, then corrected himself. If Mizen can't even agree with himself, that doesn't make him a particularly credible witness. It would also be Mizen admitting to dereliction of duty in failing to go to the immediate aid of another constable. Yet neither Mizen didn't even get a scolding at the Inquest for this failure.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for sources. It is clear that different newspapers vary significantly in what they claim some of the witnesses said at the Nichols Inquest. So we need to examine all newspaper coverage and compare what they said. The more newspapers that say the same thing, the more likely it is to be correct.

Not necessarily, no. Most papers say that Mizen did not continue his knocking up, and only one establishes that he actually did. The single paper will be the one that is correct. Many papers condensed things and when they did, single papers can expose the real facts.

For listed quotation, it establishes that the Star reporter summarized PC Mizen's testimony as "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed." If accurate, PC Mizen said that the pool of blood was "somewhat congealed." Based on a study on the drying of blood pools, full transformation of blood pools to a gel state took over 3 hours. So a "somewhat congealed" pool of blood could be as much as couple hours old.

The level of coagulation of the blood pool tells us nothing about whether PC Mizen meant "flowing" or "in a straight line" when he said the blood on Nichols neck was "running".

Mizen said the blood was STILL running (and looking fresh, to boot), meaning that there was an ongoing process where blood flowed. There is no way around it.

[Fiver]

For Fiver.

PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The Star, 3rd of September 1888:

He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.

This quotation establishes that the blood had not fully congealed, and so it was running as in moving.

Thanks for sources. It is clear that different newspapers vary significantly in what they claim some of the witnesses said at the Nichols Inquest. So we need to examine all newspaper coverage and compare what they said. The more newspapers that say the same thing, the more likely it is to be correct.

For listed quotation, it establishes that the Star reporter summarized PC Mizen's testimony as "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed." If accurate, PC Mizen said that the pool of blood was "somewhat congealed." Based on a study on the drying of blood pools, full transformation of blood pools to a gel state took over 3 hours. So a "somewhat congealed" pool of blood could be as much as couple hours old.

The level of coagulation of the blood pool tells us nothing about whether PC Mizen meant "flowing" or "in a straight line" when he said the blood on Nichols neck was "running".

[Fisherman]

For Fiver.

PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The Star, 3rd of September 1888:

He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.

This quotation establishes that the blood had not fully congealed, and so it was running as in moving.

PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The Morning Advertiser, 4th of September 1888:

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

This quotation establishes the same thing as the quotation above, since the blood is described as "still" running we can be sure that Mizen speaks of an ongoing process.

PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The East London Observer, 8th of September 1888:

A Juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness (PC Mizen, my remark): No; I only finished knocking up one person.

This quotation establishes that PC Mizen actually did continue his knocking up business after he had been told about Nichols. Crucially, we can see that he contradicts himself somewhat by first denying to have done so, but then clarifies exactly what happened. It is understandable that he first said no because the juryman asks his question as if Mizen had knocked up numerous people before he went to Bucks Row. The contradiction involved in Mizens testimony is what has stuck in some papers, forgetting to make the addition about Mizen finishing an already begun errand.

[JeffHamm]

Thank you Jeff and nice post.

So, in the case of Alice McKenzie, a witness that states when he saw the body the blood from her neck was "spurting", "gushing" or "running vey fast". In this case the cutter would have been at the body very recently? Correct? By the way, this witness didn't arrive at the body until a few minutes after it was discovered by PC Andrews.

Hi jerryd,

Sorry, I think I missed this before. I'm a bit rusty on the McKenzie case, but if the blood was still "spurting", that sounds like the heart was still pumping to me. And given one would expect the heart to stop fairly quickly after the throat was cut, then I think it would be safe to conclude that she had been murdered very shortly before that time (if spurting was intended to convey what it does to me, of course). I think both the other descriptions gushing and very fast would also point to that conclusion, although some caution might be warranted given they could be viewed as more subjective in nature than "spurting".

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

The Echo also claims that Mizen said "Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up." This completely contradicts your original post which claimed that Mizen continued "some of his waking up duties before he set out for Bucks Row".

Yes, but to be fair to the Lechmere theorists, you have to ask yourself why the Jury asked Mizen this question.

There had been an allegation that Mizen was less than punctual in proceeding to Buck's Row.

In the statement you quote, he is merely denying the allegation. The question is whether one believes him, or doesn't believe him.

There has been a good deal of debate about this point.

[Fiver]

Dried blood does't come into it. We are talking about blood that had exited the body a few minutes before and looked fresh. Ooze suggests a certain viscosity doesn't it, something thick slowly exiting from a small opening. If the blood from the deer was fresh and looked semi-liquid I might describe it as oozing from the wound even if it wasn't visibly moving.

Here's a study on similar topic - the drying of blood pools. With the samples used, transformation of the blood to a gel state took over 3 hours and the blood did not fully dry until over 9 hours after it was originally deposited.

[Fiver]

There can be one answer to these questions only, and that is that Mizen spoke of the bleeding and coagulation as he first saw the body. We can read about it in the Echo:

"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

Thanks for providing another source for PC Mizen's testimony at the Nichols's inquest. As previously noted, running can mean "flowing", but it can also mean "measured in a straight line". Either meaning could apply to Mizen's statement that "There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

The Echo also claims that Mizen said "Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up." This completely contradicts your original post which claimed that Mizen continued "some of his waking up duties before he set out for Bucks Row".

[Fiver]

Yes. But if this was what Mizen spoke of, why would he say that the blood was STILL running as he saw Nichols? Did he presume that she had been bleeding for half an hour?
Why did he say that the blood looked fresh after half an hour?
Why was the blood in the pool partially coagulated? It had had hakf an hour to coagulate and Thain tells us that it was a clot of blood at this stage, not half coagulated haf liquid.

Neither PC Mizen nor PC Thain nor anyone else said any of those things at the Nichols Inquest.

[Fiver]

Mizen said that the blood "was still flowing" and "looking fresh", and he pointed out that it was partly coagulated.

Neither PC Mizen nor anyone else said any of those things at the Nichols Inquest.