Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Every minute counts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I went through the Old Bailey cases. I chose 1858 to 1918 to keep it relevant to our time period.

    Oozed got 25 hits, 21 were used as per the dictionary definition.

    2 were used to describe getting information out of someone slowly.

    And 2 were used to described flowing blood. in both those cases the victims were still alive and, as in the example below the amount of blood coming out was clearly explained.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	THOMAS COOK, CHARLES WALTERS. Central Criminal Court, 10th April 1865, page 193..png
Views:	89
Size:	41.8 KB
ID:	754767

    Oozing got 72 hits.

    65 were used as per the dictionary definition.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	GEORGE LEACH (20) 3rd August 1880 ,. Feloniously assaulting Elizabeth Leach, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.png
Views:	89
Size:	42.9 KB
ID:	754768

    5 were used to describe flowing blood. Again, all the victims were alive and the about of flow was made clear.

    Ooze got only 3 hits during the same time period. All of them were used as per the dictionary definition.

    Based on those results, it is not impossible that Neil meant flowing blood, but it is very unlikely.
    Last edited by drstrange169; 04-02-2021, 05:22 AM.
    dustymiller
    aka drstrange

    Comment


    • And then I found the smoking gun!

      WILLIAM SMITH (25), indicted for the Wilful Murder of Sarah Milson 11th June 1866. The case can be read in full here.

      https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...ooze#highlight

      The attending doctor was called about 20 minutes after the murder and he stated that the body continued to ooze blood whilst he was there!!!

      Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2021-04-02 at 4.32.12 pm.png
Views:	88
Size:	93.6 KB
ID:	754770
      dustymiller
      aka drstrange

      Comment


      • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
        And then I found the smoking gun!

        WILLIAM SMITH (25), indicted for the Wilful Murder of Sarah Milson 11th June 1866. The case can be read in full here.

        https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...ooze#highlight

        The attending doctor was called about 20 minutes after the murder and he stated that the body continued to ooze blood whilst he was there!!!

        Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2021-04-02 at 4.32.12 pm.png
Views:	88
Size:	93.6 KB
ID:	754770
        I notice the doctor originally used the word ‘flow’ and then corrected himself and said ‘ooze’.

        I don’t imagine Mizen had time to determine whether the blood was moving when he initially arrived at the scene and was immediately sent off to fetch the ambulance. When he returned and handled the body he became aware of liquid blood or blood-coloured fluid exiting the body.



        Comment


        • What you say makes sense Gary.

          Of course this does not exonerate Cross, but it shows conclusively that there was plenty of time (forensically) for another killer to have been at work before he arrived.

          Hopefully the "blood evidence" theory is now dead and buried alongside all the players in our 1888 story.
          dustymiller
          aka drstrange

          Comment


          • Also Gary, if the blood was actively flowing when Neil arrived, he could not be sure she was beyond all help. One would have thought he would have attempted to staunch the flow. Certainly, if it was still flowing at a rate of knots when Mizen arrived, there are some serious questions that should have been asked about Neil, Thain and Mizen's actions.
            dustymiller
            aka drstrange

            Comment


            • "Hopefully the 'blood evidence theory' is now dead"...?

              Thats not a bad sense of humour, actually!

              And if the blood was actively flowing Neil could not have been sure that she was beyond all help and so he should have staunched the blood flow?

              Amazing!

              Has it not occurred to you, Dusty, that IF Neil had thought that Nichols could be alive, he WOULD have staunched the blood? To recap, Neil noticed that the throat was cut from ear to ear, leaving a gaping wound down to the spine. Nobody can survive that kind of wound, and so no staunchin would be of any other use than to disturb the crime scene.

              Do you seriously beleive that Neil stood by and waited for her to perish? Of course you donīt!

              Neil speaks of "the deceased" when he speaks about Nichols, and he would have been very much aware that she was dead. He would also have been aware that death does not preclude people from bleeding. I think this is something we actually all are aware of. Or?
              The kind of person you describe is the type who would enter execution scenes to staunch the blood from decapitated people, Dusty."He bleeds, so he may be alive!", sort of.

              I think we need to be a bit more discerning and careful about what we argue out here. The examples I posted from the Old Bailey tells us that "ooze" could well depict events where a lot of blood exited a wound. It proves this. The wordings are clear and unambiguous, and so there can be no discussion about it. Or maybe I should say "no serious discussion". And whether the victims were alive or dead does not belong to the dicussion at all, unless you can prove that "ooze" has a different meaning inbetween dead and living people. If not, the parameter has nothing at all to do with the discussion.

              We have a mutual duty not to turn the threads into some sort of fairground. Letīs try and honour that, shall we?
              Last edited by Fisherman; 04-02-2021, 05:58 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                I notice the doctor originally used the word ‘flow’ and then corrected himself and said ‘ooze’.

                I don’t imagine Mizen had time to determine whether the blood was moving when he initially arrived at the scene and was immediately sent off to fetch the ambulance. When he returned and handled the body he became aware of liquid blood or blood-coloured fluid exiting the body.
                Nichols was dead, Gary. Was there a rush to try and get the ambulance in place after 29 and a half minutes instead of 30 minutes?
                Who says that Mizen was "immediately sent off to fetch the ambulance"? More than you, that is?
                What Neil said at the inquest was that he sent Mizen for the ambulance. End of, I beleive, although I have not checked all the papers (I can only bring myself to so much...) He does not say that he did so "immediately" and he mentions not that he saw to it that Mizen did not take a look at the victim before scarpering off, does he? Mizen himself does say that he at once went for the ambulance, but that does not mean that he could not have had a look before Neil told him to do so.

                We cannot invent things like these and try to elevate them to something that exonerates the carman, Iīm afraid.

                Moreover, the blood Mizen described was STILL running, it looked FRESH and it was SOMEWHAT coagulated. Once again, that fits 100 per cent with him looking at the blood as he arrived in Bucks Row the first time and very poorly with his second arrival half an hour later.

                If you choose the illogical solution over the logical one, it is your choice and prerogative. Just donīt claim things as facts that cannot be claimed as facts, please.
                Last edited by Fisherman; 04-02-2021, 05:53 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  Nichols was dead, Gary. Was there a rush to try and get the ambulance in place after 29 and a half minutes instead of 30 minutes?
                  Who says that Mizen was "immediately sent off to fetch the ambulance"? More than you, that is?
                  What Neil said at the inquest was that he sent Mizen for the ambulance. End of, I beleive, although I have not checked all the papers (I can only bring myself to so much...) He does not say that he did so "immediately" and he mentions not that he saw to it that Mizen did not take a look at the victim before scarpering off, does he? Mizen himself does say that he at once went for the ambulance, but that does not mean that he could not have had a look before Neil told him to do so.

                  We cannot invent things like these and try to elevate them to something that exonerates the carman, Iīm afraid.

                  Moreover, the blood Mizen described was STILL running, it looked FRESH and it was SOMEWHAT coagulated. Once again, that fits 100 per cent with him looking at the blood as he arrived in Bucks Row the first time and very poorly with his second arrival half an hour later.

                  If you choose the illogical solution over the logical one, it is your choice and prerogative. Just donīt claim things as facts that cannot be claimed as facts, please.
                  Fine tooth saws?

                  Answer that and all will be forgiven




                  Comment


                  • >>Do you seriously beleive that Neil stood by and waited for her to perish? Of course you donīt! <<

                    Obviously I don't, that was my very point.

                    To Neil she was quite obviously dead, because the blood was "oozing" out, not flowing. And now, instead of experts who acknowledge they have never personally experienced oozing blood form a dead body sometime after death and can only "guess" an answer, we now have a qualified medical expert witnessing blood oozing from a body, at least, 20 minutes after death and possibly even longer.

                    As I wrote, based on solid evidence, not guesswork, the "blood theory" is now like Monty Python's parrot.
                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                      Fine tooth saws?

                      Answer that and all will be forgiven



                      Indulge me, Christer. Explain the ‘facts’ that support your suggestion that horseflesh dealers used fine toothed saws.

                      Comment



                      • >>Was there a rush to try and get the ambulance in place after 29 and a half minutes instead of 30 minutes?<<

                        There was a clear "rush" to get help from the station and notify senior officers. That's how police work is conducted. Surely that's obvious.


                        >>Who says that Mizen was "immediately sent off to fetch the ambulance"? More than you, that is? What Neil said at the inquest was that he sent Mizen for the ambulance. End of,<<

                        Actually no. here's what was really written:

                        "When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance." "

                        The Daily Telegraph for one.

                        "I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it."

                        The Morning Advertiser for two.

                        "When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance."

                        Lloyds for three.

                        "I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station."

                        Morning News

                        Given the actual available evidence, and given the urgency of police procedure, it is not an unreasonable assumption on Gary's part .


                        >>We cannot invent things like these and try to elevate them to something that exonerates the carman, Iīm afraid.
                        Moreover, the blood Mizen described was STILL running, it looked FRESH and it was SOMEWHAT coagulated.<<


                        Ironic that you should accuse Gary of inverting things and then invent something yourself, "still running" comes from the Morning Advertiser, that report mentions nothing about coagulation. It is The Star that states the blood was coagulted. They mention nothing about it being fresh or "still running". That is a direct contradiction of the Advertiser's version.

                        The Star, Evening Post and the Morning News, do however, explain that this was when he lifted the body onto the ambulance, not one newspaper states that he saw the blood when he arrived, not one!

                        You can surmise that they are all wrong, if you want, but you cannot state that it is a fact because no newspaper supports you. However, we can say that it is a fact that the wording in their reports say that he lifted the body on to the ambulance and saw blood running from the neck in that order.


                        >>Just donīt claim things as facts that cannot be claimed as facts, please.<<

                        Pot ... kettle I'm afraid.

                        But, this is all a smoke screen, to cover up the fact that the medical evidence says, a body can still ooze blood at least 20 minutes after death. Forensically speaking, there is NO blood evidence, as you would say, "end of".
                        Last edited by drstrange169; 04-03-2021, 12:44 AM.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment




                        • Got this magazine yesterday Gary.




                          Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2021-04-03 at 11.34.13 am.jpg
Views:	49
Size:	265.1 KB
ID:	754840
                          dustymiller
                          aka drstrange

                          Comment


                          • For Dusty:

                            You write in your post 166 above that "Oozing got 72 hits."

                            Presumably, they are the exact same hits as the 72 I found.

                            You then say:

                            "65 were used as per the dictionary definition."

                            Now, if we are speaking about the same 72 hits, then there are many examples where is says, for instance, "blood and froth was oozing from the mouth".

                            Apparently, you have decided on your own that this is an example of how the writer uses the expression "as per the dictionary definition".

                            The problem should be obvious: nothing is said about the amounts of blood that oozed from the mouth. Not is anything said about the speed at which it happened.

                            All of the examples that only say that blood oozed, but do not add the amounts and the speed may or may not be examples of a substantial bleeding, in which case they serve to further elucidate how Neil may have meant something that deviated from the standard dictionary meaning. Therefore, your statistic gymnastics are very much off. The examples you may use as examples of how ozzing is a slow effusion of blood are the ones where it says that a slow effusion of blood was what occurred. The examples that do not mention these factors can be examples of anyting in terms of volume and speed.

                            And, of course, it is not as if I need any further examples than the three I posted. It was never a popularity contest. It was never as if the suggestion that "ooze" can mean a significant bleeding must be supported by 50 per cent plus of the examples, was it?

                            No, what I tried to find and what I found was verification that ooze was sometimes used when describing rather significant blood flows.

                            Letīs try and treat the material in a correct manner.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                              >>Do you seriously beleive that Neil stood by and waited for her to perish? Of course you donīt! <<

                              Obviously I don't, that was my very point.

                              To Neil she was quite obviously dead, because the blood was "oozing" out, not flowing.
                              There are numerous ways to check for death, but I donīt think that Iīve seen this one before. My personal belief is that Neil would probably have felt her for a pulse. Even if he knew that you cannot survive such damage as had been caused to her, he arguably also knew that the heart can go on beating for some time anyway and so it could provide important evidence to make that check.

                              In your former post, you wrote:

                              "...if the blood was actively flowing when Neil arrived, he could not be sure she was beyond all help. One would have thought he would have attempted to staunch the flow."

                              So you are saying that he would gauge the amount of bloodflow to decide for himself whether he should try and staunch the blood flow? Meaning that if the blood was pulsating out in gushes, he would use a scarf or something such to wrap around the neck with itīs inch-wide gap travelling all the way around and down to the bone?

                              I think that he would certainly be very much aware that the cut was very close in time woth such a scenario, and quite possibly, he would feel pressed to do something, so maybe he would come up with the idea. Who knows? All we can say is that it would be totally useless as an effort to save life.

                              However, and this is where it becoms interesting, your take on things produces an on/off scenario where a PC would reach for the scarf only with some amounts of blood exiting the neck wound, whereas he would abstain from any such efforts with other amounts of blood exiting the wound.

                              Where does the shift occur, thatīs what I would like to know.

                              Would it not be true to say that once there was no spurting any longer, death was certain to occur (or already have occurred) and so no scarf would be of any use? But in such a scenario, there may still be some really significant running of blood, emptying out the blood from the head and so on, due to gravity.

                              And this is the state of bleeding that is in line with the evidence we have: Neil spoke of how Nichols bled "profusely" in initial reports, and he said the the blood was "running" at the inquest. He never spoke of the exact volume of blood that was running. He used the word "oozed", but as we have seen in the Old Bailey records, that expression was occasionally used about a significant bleeding, significant enough for people to HEAR blood "oozing like water". Others described blood "oozed very profusely" from a wound.

                              And of course, since Mizen arrived some minutes after Neil and since the blood was STILL running at that stage, it is in line with Neil having seen a fair amount of blood coming out of the wound. Not spurting, not gushing but bleeding rather significantly and running into the pool that was forming under Nicholsīs neck, only to have run over the brim as Mizen arrived.

                              Totally logical, totally in line and very simple, all of it.

                              Comment


                              • Dusty!

                                On when Mizen was sent for the ambulance:

                                "Given the actual available evidence, and given the urgency of police procedure, it is not an unreasonable assumption on Gary's part ."

                                That is true, it is not unreasonable. But the fact that Mizen speaks of the fresh blood, still flowing tells us that he did not set off immediately. The quotations you use are perfectly compatible with how Mizen arrived, said "Whoa, what do we have here, took a look at the damage aided by his lamp and THEN Neil said "I need you to go get an ambulance", whereupon Mizen said "Okay mate! Will do! Jesus, thatīs a bad cut!" and then he set out for the ambulance.

                                As you say, given the actual evidence (where we have Mizen testifying about assessing the blood and the coagulation at a time when "the blood was still running and looking fresh", I can assure you that not only is my assumption a reasonable one, it is also the one that fits that evidence more closely.

                                Itīs another matter that some will disagree, even to the length of suggesting that the blood evidence is "dead" - if I was to say that blood is generally red and if that statement was in conflict with the ideas of a "fellow" ripperologist, then rest assured that would be the day that blue, green and yellow blood was invented.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X