Every minute counts

[Fisherman]

Dried blood doesn’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.

If you google "oozing water", you will find 46000 examples on Google. So it seems that it is not as much a question of viscosity as it is of movement.
My take on all of this is that the word ooze generally describes a slowish running movement with no apparent underlying pressure behind it. When it comes to blood, I think we would agree that what happens when a large artery is cut open in a living person has nothing to do with oozing. The blood spurts out, owing to pressure. Once the pressure disappears, however, I would say that the blood that exits the artery without that pressure oozes out. Next example: if we cut ourselves in a fingertip, there will of course be some underlying pressure behind the blood that exits the wound, but that pressure will not be readily visible in the bleeding process, and so Iīd say that the blood will ooze out of the fingertip.
So to me, we need not be talking about aomething thick at all. Blood is per se not very thick, is it? Itīs not like that toothpaste you posted yesterday at all. Instead, what I gather you will be talking about is that the oozing process gives the impression that the liquid is thick, sluggish etc, and yes, the slower a liquid moves, the more placid/thick/sluggish it will look. But the liquid is the same throughout, it is the velocity at which it travels that gives an impression of "thickness". You donīt think arterial spray is representative of a thick liquid, do you?

And no, I would not say that blood that does not move oozes. To ooze is to move. No movement, no oozing.

[jerryd]

Christer.

Here is what you had to say when we discussed the blood evidence in the McKenzie case a few years ago. Was Alice McKenzie technically alive? - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com) (post #27)

As for coagulation, I donīt think we can say that the blood did not coagulate until Phillipsī arrival - if we are to be strictly factual the blood actually coagulated from second one. Coagulation is a process that is induced by the blood passing out through an opening in the body. Such an opening can be caused by many sorts of tools, a knife being just one example.
Here is the science of the matter:
When the endothelium is damaged, the normally isolated, underlying collagen is exposed to circulating platelets, which bind directly to collagen with collagen-specific glycoprotein Ia/IIa surface receptors. This adhesion is strengthened further by von Willebrand factor (vWF), which is released from the endothelium and from platelets; vWF forms additional links between the platelets' glycoprotein Ib/IX/V and the collagen fibrils. This localization of platelets to the extracellular matrix promotes collagen interaction with platelet glycoprotein VI. Binding of collagen to glycoprotein VI triggers a signaling cascade that results in activation of platelet integrins. Activated integrins mediate tight binding of platelets to the extracellular matrix. This process adheres platelets to the site of injury.

So, the coagulation starts immediately as the blood passes over the damaged tissue leading out into the open air. Then it will take three or four minutes before the process becomes visible to the naked eye, by means of the blood becomin clotted. If there is an ongoing bleeding, there will be an addition of fresh blood that has only just started to coagulate.

I think what happened when Phillips arrived was that the coagulation had finally turned all the blood into a clotted state, meaning that there had not been any further bleeding for a number of minutes.

[jerryd]

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.

Gary.

I believe the blood was still running out of her neck when Reid saw her. But, my belief is based on a later time that the throat was cut than between 12:25 and 12:45.

[jerryd]

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...?

Yes, about 12:50 but probably a few minutes later, also at about 12:50 Isaac Lewis Jacobs was heading out of his house heading to McCarthy's place in Miller's Court to pick up supper for his brother. Andrews heard his footsteps approx. when Jacobs was almost reaching Wentworth Street from Castle Street. Andrews ran from the body up to Isaac Lewis Jacobs, questioned him, and they both ran back. By the time they returned to the body and Jacobs was left to watch over the body alone, he (Ike Jacobs) stated blood was spurting, running fast, gushing (depending on what source you look at) from the wound in the throat. The front end of the blood evidence is more important in the McKenzie case than the back end, in my opinion.

Sorry Christer, just responding to your post. Not trying to derail the thread. I happen to feel there are similarities in the blood evidence of both cases, though.

[MrBarnett]

It is a still picture, Gary. Therefore we cannot say if the paste is oozing from it or not. All we can say is that some paste has exited the tube, but we know nothing about the speed at which it did so.
If you find a long dead antelope with a wound from which blood has flown and dried up, do you say "Look, thereīs blood oozing from the wound"?
Nor do I.

Dried blood doesn’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.

[Scott Nelson]

Fluid blood could have been blood mixed with other bodily fluids, like urine or digestive juices from the stomach.

[Fisherman]

And thatīs it for me for today.

[Fisherman]

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

Because there was no imprecision, of course!

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.

Not flowing is not flowing/running/oozing/moving. Thatīs why I give you two options only. Either the blood was running or it was not. And it was.

What’s this:

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.

It is a still picture, Gary. Therefore we cannot say if the paste is oozing from it or not. All we can say is that some paste has exited the tube, but we know nothing about the speed at which it did so.
If you find a long dead antelope with a wound from which blood has flown and dried up, do you say "Look, thereīs blood oozing from the wound"?
Nor do I.

[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?