Every minute counts

[Fisherman]

Had every last drop of Nichols’ blood emptied by the time Mizen helped place her on the trolley?

Answer: No, it could not have. It takes the kind of emptying performed in the 1873 Torso deed to ensure such a thing.

Surely, once the heart stops beating gravity takes control and moving the body might lead to the leaking of liquid blood/blood-coloured fluids.

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.

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."

"Running." Not "had run".

"Then". Not "when you put the body on the ambulance".

We will have to rewrite the language and logic manual to allow for the idea that Mizen saw blood running from the body as he helped put Nichols on the stretcher, thinking to himself "Wow, that blood sure looks fresh!" and "To think that she is still bleeding!" and "Look! Now that this blood ends up on that clot, it looks like it is only partially congealed!"

Nichols bled as Mizen first saw her. "Then". He says as much.

[MrBarnett]

Can I ask how much additional bleeding time would have to be added for there to have been a killer who on becoming aware of Lechmere approaching swiftly pulled Polly’s clothing down and left the scene unnoticed. A minute or two? Longer?

[Fisherman]

You can stop posting examples of wounds that cannot be compared to the ones Nichols sustained, Gary! It is not as if the Ripper "neglected to secure the opening in the vessel", is it!

Letīs move over to the actual and factual material instead.

You wrote before - and the argument is not new - that perhaps Neil spoke of a dried up bloodstream as oozing.

Here is how the blood was described by Neil at the inquest, the material coming from two sources.

In the Daily Telegraph, Neil is quoted as saying that "he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat". If that blood had been dried up, Iīd suggest that Neil would have misled the inquest by using the wrong tense instead of saying that the blood "HAD oozed" from the neck. And if he HAD said that, how on earth was he to know that it had "oozed", Gary?

Once you have worked that out, hereīs the nexct passage from the DT:

"There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck."

So once again, he uses a tense he should not have used. He should have said "It had run from the neck", not that it WAS running, right?

Of course, at this stage, one can say: But what if Neil sinmply worded himself badly, and MEANT that the blood HAD run but said that it WAS running.

If that should occur, I am of course ready to fire my last quotation. Itīs from the Morning Advertiser, and it has the same sentence but with a slightly different wording:

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

Then.

At that stage.

I donīt know why Lechmere is defended in soúch a peculiar fashion. Is it in order to clear away any chance that he is wrongfully convicted? If so, that is an honorable cause, but the truth of the matter is that not a word points to the blood being dry or having seized to run as Neil saw it. Each and every report speaks of an active blood flow, going by the tense used. And that little "then" in the Morning Advertiser seals the deal, does it not?

Polly Nichols was bleeding as John Neil examined her.

[MrBarnett]

"A large vein", Gary, is not tantamount to ALL the large vessels of the neck. How "large" was the vein in your example?

Moreover, it is said that the vein in question can bleed "profusely" for "several hours" after death. Would not such a profuse bleeding wmpty out the five or six litres of blood quicker than that? Or does "profusely" mean "significantly" instead?

Nichols had her veins and arteries all severed in the neck. Arteries bleed a lot more than veins. A vein can contract itself if cut, thus prolonging the bleeding procedure a whole lot. When you have ALL the vessels in the neck severed, no contraction can occur, the blood will empty out unrestrictedly un less the body is positioned in a manner that stops the bloodflow. Nichols' body wasnīt.

Is not about how clueless victorian doctors were. Itīs about not comparing apples to pears if we can avoid it.

More to come!

Had every last drop of Nichols’ blood emptied by the time Mizen helped place her on the trolley?

Surely, once the heart stops beating gravity takes control and moving the body might lead to the leaking of liquid blood/blood-coloured fluids.

[MrBarnett]

Another Victorian article from The Scotsman of Jan. 6th, 1893.

[Fisherman]

This a passage from THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THE MONTON CASE, an article that appeared in ‘The Scotsman’ of 15th Jan. 1894.


Does this mean that Victorian doctors were completely clueless? Or are the few minutes of additional bleeding we need to exonerate Lechmere well within reasonable bounds?

"A large vein", Gary, is not tantamount to ALL the large vessels of the neck. How "large" was the vein in your example?

Moreover, it is said that the vein in question can bleed "profusely" for "several hours" after death. Would not such a profuse bleeding wmpty out the five or six litres of blood quicker than that? Or does "profusely" mean "significantly" instead?

Nichols had her veins and arteries all severed in the neck. Arteries bleed a lot more than veins. A vein can contract itself if cut, thus prolonging the bleeding procedure a whole lot. When you have ALL the vessels in the neck severed, no contraction can occur, the blood will empty out unrestrictedly un less the body is positioned in a manner that stops the bloodflow. Nichols' body wasnīt.

Is not about how clueless victorian doctors were. Itīs about not comparing apples to pears if we can avoid it.

More to come!

[MrBarnett]

This a passage from THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THE MONTON CASE, an article that appeared in ‘The Scotsman’ of 15th Jan. 1894.


Does this mean that Victorian doctors were completely clueless? Or are the few minutes of additional bleeding we need to exonerate Lechmere well within reasonable bounds?

[Fisherman]

Can we be sure that’s what Mizen said and that he wasn’t talking about some liquid that he noticed while moving the body?

All that aside, perhaps this is a good place to collect examples of blood flowing at a considerable time after death.

Here’s my first contribution - in this case a scalp wound was found to be still bleeding 17 hours after death. ‘Very unusual’ apparently.

Mizen said that the blood "was still flowing" and "looking fresh", and he pointed out that it was partly coagulated. Thain commented on the blood in direct connection with when the body was taken away, and he did not say that the blood he saw was part coagulated, part flowing and looking fresh. He said it was a large clot of blood.
Mizen would not have said that the blood looked fresh half an hour after Nichols was cut, since he would be very much aware that it was not fresh at that stage.

The evidence if very much in favor of Nichols bleeding as he first saw her.

Yes, some people will bleed long after death, depending on the type of wound. A removed scalp will not involve the severing of any major vessels and so the bleeding can go on for quite some time, I should imagine. But what we should look for is not examples of extreme occurences, but instead what is likely to happen.

Note the sequence of the blood observations: The carmen see no blood, Neil sees a pool under the neck, a pool that will have grown after the carmen left, and Mizen sees how the blood in the pool has run over the brim and started to enter the gutter.

Logic. Consequence. Gotta love it.

[MrBarnett]

Oozing IS a movement. And Mizen said STILL running, so that closes the issue. As for clotted blood looking fluid, I feel certain that Brown would be able to tell the difference.

Can we be sure that’s what Mizen said and that he wasn’t talking about some liquid that he noticed while moving the body?

All that aside, perhaps this is a good place to collect examples of blood flowing at a considerable time after death.

Here’s my first contribution - in this case a scalp wound was found to be still bleeding 17 hours after death. ‘Very unusual’ apparently.

[Fisherman]

I forgot: Kate Eddowes was always likely to bleed longer than Nichols, since her neck did not sustain the same amount of total damage.

[Fisherman]

Is it always obvious to the naked eye that blood has clotted? Doesn’t it still look liquid?

I think you might say blood was ‘oozing’ if there was no obvious movement.

Oozing IS a movement. And Mizen said STILL running, so that closes the issue. As for clotted blood looking fluid, I feel certain that Brown would be able to tell the difference.

[MrBarnett]

Foster depicted "fluid blood” on one side and "clot blood" on the other. I donīt know if blood serum can separate and stay in a liquid state, but I do know that coagulation typicaly begins four minutes after the wound is opened up. It is when the blood exits the body and comes in contact with substances in the wound tissue that the coagulation is set off.

Just as you say I have seen it led on before that Neil meant that the blood he described as oozing and running was in fact already coagulated. But I think that when Mizen says that the blood was STILL running as he saw Nichols, that dissolves that particular option. Nichols bled many a minute after Lechmere had left her, therefore.

Another point: why would Neil have said that the blood had "oozed" if he saw it in a coagulated state? How would he have known that it "oozed" out, that it did not simply "run" out? Once he used the word ooze, he described how the blood exited the wound, did he not?

Is it always obvious to the naked eye that blood has clotted? Doesn’t it still look liquid?

I think you might say blood was ‘oozing’ if there was no obvious movement.

[Fisherman]

The question that must be asked, Gary: If Nichols still bled as Mizen arrived at the murder site - do you agree that such a thing would implicate Lechmere as the likeliest killer?

[Fisherman]

When Brown arrived in Mitre Square, at least half an hour after Eddowes had been killed, he observed a pool of ‘fluid blood-coloured serum’ - presumably what Foster labelled ‘liquid blood’ on his sketch. So either this stuff did not coagulate after 4 minutes or it was still running 20+ minutes after the injuries were inflicted.

I’m sure you’ve batted this one away many times before, but it seems to me that by ‘oozing’ and ‘running’ Neil could have meant ‘had oozed’ or ‘had run’.

Foster depicted "fluid blood” on one side and "clot blood" on the other. I donīt know if blood serum can separate and stay in a liquid state, but I do know that coagulation typicaly begins four minutes after the wound is opened up. It is when the blood exits the body and comes in contact with substances in the wound tissue that the coagulation is set off.

Just as you say I have seen it led on before that Neil meant that the blood he described as oozing and running was in fact already coagulated. But I think that when Mizen says that the blood was STILL running as he saw Nichols, that dissolves that particular option. Nichols bled many a minute after Lechmere had left her, therefore.

Another point: why would Neil have said that the blood had "oozed" if he saw it in a coagulated state? How would he have known that it "oozed" out, that it did not simply "run" out? Once he used the word ooze, he described how the blood exited the wound, did he not?

[MrBarnett]

When Brown arrived in Mitre Square, at least half an hour after Eddowes had been killed, he observed a pool of ‘fluid blood-coloured serum’ - presumably what Foster labelled ‘liquid blood’ on his sketch. So either this stuff did not coagulate after 4 minutes or it was still running 20+ minutes after the injuries were inflicted.

I’m sure you’ve batted this one away many times before, but it seems to me that by ‘oozing’ and ‘running’ Neil could have meant ‘had oozed’ or ‘had run’.