Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Every minute counts

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    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.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by jerryd View Post

      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.
      I donīt remember all of the reports involved here, but I am aware that you delved deep into them. What I am wondering here is how she could have been cut after 12.50 if the ground under her was dry and the rain started to fall at 12.45...? Surely, in such a case, she must have been down on the ground many minutes before she was cut?
      Anyways, this is not the thread for it, although comparable matters may be of interest!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by jerryd View Post
        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.
        As I said, I donīt remember the many reports that were weighed into this, but overall the underlying science is pretty easy. Blood starts to coagulate the second it passes over the cut and it takes around four minutes for the coagulation process to become visible. The extent of the damage done and the position of the body is instrumental in deciding the bleeding time and -extent.

        Looking at McKenzie today without delving deep into the reports and articles, Iīd say that the elapsed time must not mean that she could not have bled as Reid saw her. Why I back then thought that the bleeding had probably stopped as Phillips arrived, I canīt tell as I cannot remember all the material involved.

        Certainly, though, the observations you describe that Jacobs made seem to put a very different hue on things - but that IS for another thread!

        Comment


        • #49
          Since I do not want the overriding issue to get lost (or ooze away), Iīd like to ask whether people out here agree with me about it:

          If we accept that Nichols bled as Neil and Mizen first saw her, does that not mean that Lechmere must be regarded as by far the likeliest killer of her?

          Comment


          • #50
            I find the attempts at trying to manipulate imprecise language of the time to be relied upon as being scientific minute-by-minute fact a bit of a leap.

            Your argument simply boils down to two variables, the speed of the blood flow and how long blood flows post-mortem, which in the right combination points to Lechmere as being the most likely killer of Polly Nichols.

            It also includes two variables that could easily allow time for another person to commit the act of murder and partial mutilation. It is entirely possible. No amount of language manipulation of erroneous timings of blood flow changes that.
            "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
            - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              Since I do not want the overriding issue to get lost (or ooze away), Iīd like to ask whether people out here agree with me about it:

              If we accept that Nichols bled as Neil and Mizen first saw her, does that not mean that Lechmere must be regarded as by far the likeliest killer of her?
              No because there is no way of telling how long she had been bleeding

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                No because there is no way of telling how long she had been bleeding

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Not exactly, no - but we know for certain that it exceeds the likely time frame the two pathologists spoke of.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                  I find the attempts at trying to manipulate imprecise language of the time to be relied upon as being scientific minute-by-minute fact a bit of a leap.

                  Your argument simply boils down to two variables, the speed of the blood flow and how long blood flows post-mortem, which in the right combination points to Lechmere as being the most likely killer of Polly Nichols.

                  It also includes two variables that could easily allow time for another person to commit the act of murder and partial mutilation. It is entirely possible. No amount of language manipulation of erroneous timings of blood flow changes that.
                  Thanks for the accusations of manipulation and erroneous timings! Maybe you can tell me how the timings can be erroneous when I very clearly say that they are not to be regarded as exact?
                  In my world, that is being discerning, in yours it is being manipulating, it seems..?

                  Now, unless Paul and Lechmere teleported themselves from Browns stable yard to Mizen, there will be an elapsed amount of time involved in the process. And we have Paul saying that the total amount of time, involving the examination and the trek, took no more than four minutes. Given the distance, that seems a fair estimation to me, but as I say, I am open to ideas that it took less or more time. Thatīs how manipulative I am.

                  Then Mizen had to get to Browns stable yard, and we should involve his conversation with Lechmere and his knocking up business in there, and so I find that four minutes may have been what it took. But, I am willing to move that time somewhat in either direction too.

                  The thing is, if we work from the assumption that Paul reached the body at 3.46, then the nine minute scenario has Thain leaving for Llewellyn in the correct time, justaboutish, and so that seems to make for at least some corroboration.

                  Whichever way we look at things, it must be accepted that the total amount of time could not have been five minutes only, far from it, and that is what it would take to reach the window of time the two pathologists name as the likely bleeding period. Meaning that another killer must have worked in a space of time that - according to the pathologists - was less likely to be a bleeding time.

                  This is something that should interest anybody studying the case, and since I have presented the material I work from in extenso and given my reasons for why I regard Lechmere as the most likely killer, I find it a bit sad when people cannot discuss it in a better tone than the one you use.

                  Itīs not that I am not used to it - itīs just that I believe it is squandering the possibilitites to have an intelligible discussion.

                  Can we try again, on a better note? How about you make an estimation of your own of the timings and present it, and we can work from there?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I’m not going to get into this debate but I’ll just let everyone know, if they don’t already, that David Orsam has a new article on this very topic. That’s my only contribution.
                    Regards

                    Herlock



                    Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      Not exactly, no - but we know for certain that it exceeds the likely time frame the two pathologists spoke of.
                      But any opinion can only be guesswork, there is no way they can be specific, and no way for them to be able to conclusively and beyond doubt support your belief that Nichols had died within the parameters relative to Lechmere and his movements that morning.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        Thanks for the accusations of manipulation and erroneous timings! Maybe you can tell me how the timings can be erroneous when I very clearly say that they are not to be regarded as exact?
                        In my world, that is being discerning, in yours it is being manipulating, it seems..?

                        Now, unless Paul and Lechmere teleported themselves from Browns stable yard to Mizen, there will be an elapsed amount of time involved in the process. And we have Paul saying that the total amount of time, involving the examination and the trek, took no more than four minutes. Given the distance, that seems a fair estimation to me, but as I say, I am open to ideas that it took less or more time. Thatīs how manipulative I am.

                        Then Mizen had to get to Browns stable yard, and we should involve his conversation with Lechmere and his knocking up business in there, and so I find that four minutes may have been what it took. But, I am willing to move that time somewhat in either direction too.

                        The thing is, if we work from the assumption that Paul reached the body at 3.46, then the nine minute scenario has Thain leaving for Llewellyn in the correct time, justaboutish, and so that seems to make for at least some corroboration.

                        Whichever way we look at things, it must be accepted that the total amount of time could not have been five minutes only, far from it, and that is what it would take to reach the window of time the two pathologists name as the likely bleeding period. Meaning that another killer must have worked in a space of time that - according to the pathologists - was less likely to be a bleeding time.

                        This is something that should interest anybody studying the case, and since I have presented the material I work from in extenso and given my reasons for why I regard Lechmere as the most likely killer, I find it a bit sad when people cannot discuss it in a better tone than the one you use.

                        Itīs not that I am not used to it - itīs just that I believe it is squandering the possibilitites to have an intelligible discussion.

                        Can we try again, on a better note? How about you make an estimation of your own of the timings and present it, and we can work from there?
                        I’m saying you are warping timings and language at the very least, if not manipulating. It’s an unconscious bias most likely towards an already preferred suspect. It is a “what if” scenario at best. It cannot be dismissed and may have a level of credence, but the evidence offered and the variables outlined is not enough to give more weight to Lechmere than others. It is a “could be possible”.

                        The original premise is based upon how long blood takes to clot post-mortem which cannot be relied on, cross referenced with timings of witnesses and pathologists that cannot be relied on. Ergo...
                        "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                        - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Since I do not want the overriding issue to get lost (or ooze away), Iīd like to ask whether people out here agree with me about it:

                          If we accept that Nichols bled as Neil and Mizen first saw her, does that not mean that Lechmere must be regarded as by far the likeliest killer of her?
                          Only because we don’t have all the facts.

                          Doesn’t Paul’s arrival fit the timing even better? But we discount him because Lechmere gives him an alibi.
                          What we don’t know is whether another man left the scene moments before Lechmere arrived.

                          If we could say that the timing just doesn’t allow for that to have happened, then Lechmere’s the killer. If not, then the case against him is weak.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            I’m not going to get into this debate but I’ll just let everyone know, if they don’t already, that David Orsam has a new article on this very topic. That’s my only contribution.
                            Lord Orsam on the reporting of the 1876 accident:

                            “Four out of six witness did not have their addresses published in the local press reports of the inquest.”

                            Here’s what was published.

                            Walter Williams: 36, Cloudseley Road

                            George Porter: 3, Elizabeth Terrace*

                            Henrietta Owen: 100, Aldenham Street

                            Dr Hindbaugh: Barnesbury Road

                            William Warner: 25, Henry Street

                            Charles Cross: No address given

                            *His brother’s shop

                            In trying to be clever and argue (presumably) that ‘Barnesbury Road’ is not an address and 3, Elizabeth Terrace was not Porter’s own address , the great O drops the greatest of clangers and somehow misses one of the three witnesses whose addresses were published in full.

                            And in doing so obscures the point being made. No address or location was provided for Cross, for all the other witnesses one was.

                            I’ve no doubt there are similar examples of his Lordship’s slipshod methods in his endless waffle about the blood evidence. Be warned.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	7D66A038-8C0A-4B38-9994-3692D28FEE63.jpeg
Views:	177
Size:	199.8 KB
ID:	753711
                              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              Lord Orsam on the reporting of the 1876 accident:

                              “Four out of six witness did not have their addresses published in the local press reports of the inquest.”

                              Here’s what was published.

                              Walter Williams: 36, Cloudseley Road

                              George Porter: 3, Elizabeth Terrace*

                              Henrietta Owen: 100, Aldenham Street

                              Dr Hindbaugh: Barnesbury Road

                              William Warner: 25, Henry Street

                              Charles Cross: No address given

                              *His brother’s shop

                              In trying to be clever and argue (presumably) that ‘Barnesbury Road’ is not an address and 3, Elizabeth Terrace was not Porter’s own address , the great O drops the greatest of clangers and somehow misses one of the three witnesses whose addresses were published in full.

                              And in doing so obscures the point being made. No address or location was provided for Cross, for all the other witnesses one was.

                              I’ve no doubt there are similar examples of his Lordship’s slipshod methods in his endless waffle about the blood evidence. Be warned.


                              Don’t just take my word for it, look at the clipping above.

                              The dead child’s father claimed to have received information that Cross was to blame for the accident.

                              Would it have been a responsible act for the coroner to have disclosed Cross’s home address in open court?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Are the Lechmere theorists also followers of Hallie Rubenhold?

                                Here's why I ask.

                                If Polly Nichols was soliciting at the time of her murder, as most Ripperologists assume (and most likely this would have been somewhere along the Whitechapel Road, though I am open to other suggestions), wasn't it rather unfortunate for the Lechmere theorists that she would bring her punter, Charles the Ripper, back for an infamous 'knee trembler' in the very street that he would walk down if he was simply and innocently commuting from Doveton Street to Pickford & Co? Wouldn’t a murderer want to avoid his own route of egress?

                                I suppose the Lechmerians could argue that Charles, having picked her up in the Whitechapel Road, brought her to his own route by design, either to unconsciously incriminate himself by murdering a woman along his usual morning walk, or, conversely, having the startling foresight to realize that if he was nearly caught in the act, it would give him the ability to 'explain it all away.' But that would also mean that Charles timed the murder perfectly to coincide with his usual morning commute through Buck’s Row, and at very close to the time he would normally leave for work.

                                I confess that neither explanation appears to be the least bit palatable.

                                On the other hand, perhaps the Lechmerians might want to 'buck the Ripperological tide' (pun intended) and give a subtle wink in the direction of Ms. Rubenhold, theorizing that Polly was simply staggering down Buck's Row (or Heaven forbid, sleeping there!) when the Ripper/Crossmere came upon her.

                                If not, then why in the blazes is Lechmere's route to work, or his alleged time of leaving home, the least bit relevant?

                                Unless, of course, he was entirely innocent, and was just a bloke walking to work.
                                Last edited by rjpalmer; 03-21-2021, 06:17 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X