Every minute counts

[MrBarnett]

Having had an excellent dinner and having given it some afterthought, it occurs to me that the expression running denotes two very different things, running as moving liquids (the water was running from the tap) and running as streching between two points (the painted line was running from door to door). Therefore, I think that much as we may accept that running may point to the latter propensity, other liquidy verbs do not serve the same purpose (we cannot say that the line "oozed from door to door").
To me, that establishes that when Neil said that there was blood oozing from the wound in the neck, he was not speaking of how there was a line of dried up blood along the neck, but instead that blood was exiting the wound as he looked on. Meaning that Nichols bled as Neil saw her.

Comments?

Why did the coroner allow that linguistic imprecision to pass? Tut tut!

As for ‘oozing’, that describes movement that is barely perceptible. Why do you only give us two options: dried and moving? How about moist and glistening but not obviously flowing.

What’s the image above:

a) A tube with toothpaste oozing out of it?

or

b) A tube and some toothpaste which has oozed from it?


It’s ‘a’ every time for me.

[Fisherman]

Found this: "The pavement beneath the body of Alice McKenzie was still dry, placing her death sometime after 12:25 A.M. and before 12:45 A.M., when it began to rain."

I think we may have to meet halfways, Gary!

[Fisherman]

I was accepting Arnold’s assessment. He reckoned 12.40. I doubt she was killed at the very minute the body was discovered by Watkins.

So do I - but if we are to believe that Nichols could have been killed the minute before Lechmere arrived, then that should perhaps be the norm for McKenzie too? And you mean Andrews, not Watkins, I believe.

Anyways, it seems it is claimed that the blood only clotted as Phillips was in place, meaning that she actually bled as Reid took a peak. Have you any idea what source there is for this?

[MrBarnett]

I was accepting Arnold’s assessment. He reckoned 12.40. I doubt she was killed at the very minute the body was discovered by Watkins.

[Fisherman]

either the blood was still activity running approx half an hour after the injuries to the ‘carotid vessels’ occurred ...

McKenzie was found at 12.50 and Reid arrived at 1.10. I make that 20 minutes, not 30. What am I missing...?

Oh, and I just saw this passage in the text about her on Casebook:

"Reid notices that blood continues to flow from the throat into the gutter (about 1:09 A.M.) but it begins to clot upon the arrival of Phillips (about 1:12 A.M.)"

I donīt know how that was sourced, but maybe somebody else out here does...?

[Fisherman]

Dr Biggs a modern day forensic pathologist states

"As I’ve said before, blood ‘still flowing’ from a dead body does not necessarily indicate that death has only just happened. I’ve certainly been at scenes some hours after death (or even the next day) and been able to make more blood ooze out of a wound with very little movement of the body.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, Trevor, you are correct: A bleeding can stretch over a long time.

Itīs good to have that established, I must say!

[Fisherman]

Thanks Jerry.

Phillips said in evidence that when he arrived in Castle Alley at 1.10 ‘he found the body lying on the pavement in the position already described [by Reid], as to which the witness gave full details.’

He did not contradict or update Reid’s testimony, so either the blood was still activity running approx half an hour after the injuries to the ‘carotid vessels’ occurred or the imprecision of ‘running’ was thought to be insignificant.

Having had an excellent dinner and having given it some afterthought, it occurs to me that the expression running denotes two very different things, running as moving liquids (the water was running from the tap) and running as streching between two points (the painted line was running from door to door). Therefore, I think that much as we may accept that running may point to the latter propensity, other liquidy verbs do not serve the same purpose (we cannot say that the line "oozed from door to door").
To me, that establishes that when Neil said that there was blood oozing from the wound in the neck, he was not speaking of how there was a line of dried up blood along the neck, but instead that blood was exiting the wound as he looked on. Meaning that Nichols bled as Neil saw her.

Comments?

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Jerry.

Phillips said in evidence that when he arrived in Castle Alley at 1.10 ‘he found the body lying on the pavement in the position already described [by Reid], as to which the witness gave full details.’

He did not contradict or update Reid’s testimony, so either the blood was still activity running approx half an hour after the injuries to the ‘carotid vessels’ occurred or the imprecision of ‘running’ was thought to be insignificant.

Dr Biggs a modern day forensic pathologist states

"As I’ve said before, blood ‘still flowing’ from a dead body does not necessarily indicate that death has only just happened. I’ve certainly been at scenes some hours after death (or even the next day) and been able to make more blood ooze out of a wound with very little movement of the body.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

I saw she had a cut on the left side of the throat, and there was a quantity of blood under the head which was running into the gutter.-Detective-Inspector Edmund Reid (Alice McKenzie murder)

Thanks Jerry.

Phillips said in evidence that when he arrived in Castle Alley at 1.10 ‘he found the body lying on the pavement in the position already described [by Reid], as to which the witness gave full details.’

He did not contradict or update Reid’s testimony, so either the blood was still activity running approx half an hour after the injuries to the ‘carotid vessels’ occurred or the imprecision of ‘running’ was thought to be insignificant.

[Fisherman]

I will take a pause from this now, but I will return to check the thread later.

[Fisherman]

Hi Jerry!

Had a quick look at McKenzie, and it seems Reid was in place twenty minutes after she was found, would that be correct? Given that McKenzie had only had her left carotid artery severed, it may perhaps be quite logical that she bled for twenty minutes or more. I have been told that even Nichols could have bled for that amount of time...!

In the Nichols case, we have this exchange between Neil and the coroner:

"The Coroner - Did you notice any blood where she was found?

Witness - There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. The blood was then running from the wound in her neck."

When Neil says that the blood was running "then", he makes it very clear that the blood was actively running.

He also says that the blood was "oozing" and to me, if the bloos was NOT running, that sounds decidedly odd. Why would he categorize the blood as "oozing" if he could not see the speed at which it travelled? It would be like saying that the blood was trickling when it was in fact coagulated.

Any comment appreciated.

[jerryd]

I saw she had a cut on the left side of the throat, and there was a quantity of blood under the head which was running into the gutter.-Detective-Inspector Edmund Reid (Alice McKenzie murder)

[jerryd]

I am equally sure that Baxter would not want to have the wrong picture presented at his inquest, Gary. And although I agree that medicos were generally more precise in their language, I donīt think it applies to the question at hand. Medicos and PC:s alike would know the difference between "running" and "had run", donīt you think?

It really should be a non-issue, and to me it is.

I noticed that blood was running from the left side of the neck.-PC Walter Andrews (Alice McKenzie murder)

[Fisherman]

I’m sure medical men were more precise in their language than PCs.

I am equally sure that Baxter would not want to have the wrong picture presented at his inquest, Gary. And although I agree that medicos were generally more precise in their language, I donīt think it applies to the question at hand. Medicos and PC:s alike would know the difference between "running" and "had run", donīt you think?

It really should be a non-issue, and to me it is.

[Fisherman]

I am reminded here of Francis Hewitt claiming to have seen blood ‘flowing’ from Tabram’s chest wound at 5.00am, 2 or more hours after her death.

Hewitt was not a professional witness, though. And the quotation is not from the inquest, is it? In the papers from before the Nichols inquest, John Neil is quoted as saying that the blood streamed profusely from the neck wound or something such, and once I have pointed that out, I have been met with that kind of criticism: papers exagerrated.

I think Hewitt may well have said that there was blood flowing from the wound over the heart to the reporter. It would not be something Hewitt saw every day in the week and there would have been lots of blood. But I also think that if such a vocabulary was employed by professional witnesses at an inquest, the coroner would have corrected the mistake. And the reason should be obvious - he would not want people to get the wrong idea.