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.

[Fisherman]

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?

One minute would possibly be enough in my book. Although if Lechmere was correct in saying that he would notice anybody up at the murder spot the moment he entered Bucks Row, then two minutes are probably called for. With every minute we add, an alternative killer becomes less and less credible, starting from a low credibility position from the outset. It goes from really bad to worse, Iīm afraid.

[MrBarnett]

What do you mean by ‘It is not as if the Ripper "neglected to secure the opening in the vessel", is it!’

He obviously didn’t secure the opening(s) of any of the vessels he opened. So unless they had contracted themselves they were still capable of allowing the passage of fluids.

How can the ‘then’ seal the deal? It’s the wording used by one reporter based on his understanding of Neil’s meaning.

And what we seem to have here is a running pool:

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

The pool ‘had’ run from the neck wound surely?

I wonder whether Mr Scobie would be happy to go into court armed with a sheaf of differently worded press reports to support the blood evidence or whether he would insist on interviewing Neil and Mizen himself to eliminate the uncertainty in the matter?

[Fisherman]

The thing is, even if we were to allow for the idea that Mizen spoke of when he put the body on the stretcher, the 3-5 minute space where the pathologists placed the likely ending of the bleeding is still used up by Lechmere, since we have Neil on record saying that the blood was running from the neck of Nichols as he examined her. "Then", remember!

We would still have a situation where an alternative killer would occupy a less credible space of time than the one Lechmere covers himself. Every minute counts, and every added minute represents a lesser likelihood of being a bleeding minute.

That said, why would we think that Mizen spoke of the passage when he put Nichols on the stretcher? The Echo tells us that he spoke of when he first saw the body. Meaning that the chances for an alternative killer goes from small to even smaller. Unless they are never even there, if the blood seized to run before minute ten.

[Fisherman]

What do you mean by ‘It is not as if the Ripper "neglected to secure the opening in the vessel", is it!’

That was what the example you posted spoke of. Which was why I said that you need to stop posting examples that are not compatible to our case.

He obviously didn’t secure the opening(s) of any of the vessels he opened. So unless they had contracted themselves they were still capable of allowing the passage of fluids.

How can the ‘then’ seal the deal? It’s the wording used by one reporter based on his understanding of Neil’s meaning.

The "then" tells us that the blood was running "then". If it had been a streak of dried blood Neil spoke of, why would he say that it was running "then", Gary? It is a construction aimed to clarify that it seized to run later on, but it had not done so "then".

And what we seem to have here is a running pool:

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

The pool ‘had’ run from the neck wound surely?

A pool cannot run from a neck down to the ground. Very obviously, what is spoken of is that blood ran from the neck into a pool. Ergo "there was a pool of BLOOD just where her neck was lying. It (the BLOOD) was running from the wound in the neck.
Pools do not run. They are shaped by running liquid.

I wonder whether Mr Scobie would be happy to go into court armed with a sheaf of differently worded press reports to support the blood evidence or whether he would insist on interviewing Neil and Mizen himself to eliminate the uncertainty in the matter?

He would not be able to interview Neil and Mizen, Iīm afraid. They are long dead. If they had been alive, it would have been his duty to speak to them, of course. But as it stands, what he have to go by, is what is in the reports, And in the reports, neither man speaks of "had run", they both speak of "running". So the "uncertainty" you speak of is an invention only, but Scobie would nevertheless need to ask about it to clear away any alternative possibilities, no matter how weak they were.

[Fisherman]

No comment from your side has come about the issue about "running" versus "had run", Gary. Are we to assume that the coroner accepted that the blood was spoken of as if it ran from the wound while all the while he would have known that it didnīt? Would Baxter not point out the flawed wording, if it risked giving the wrong picture altogether? As we can see, all - each and every one of them - press reports makes a case for the blood running, not having run.
Was it the standard way of speaking of dried up blood, "it was running"? If so, an articla in the Times of October 4 seems to have gotten it wrong. Thgis is Phillips commenting on the Stride case:
"The CORONER. - Did you examine the blood at Berner-street?
Witness. - I did. The blood had run down the waterway to within a few inches of the side entrance of the club."

Not "was running". "Had run".

They knew how to get it right, apparently.

[MrBarnett]

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.

[MrBarnett]

No comment from your side has come about the issue about "running" versus "had run", Gary. Are we to assume that the coroner accepted that the blood was spoken of as if it ran from the wound while all the while he would have known that it didnīt? Would Baxter not point out the flawed wording, if it risked giving the wrong picture altogether? As we can see, all - each and every one of them - press reports makes a case for the blood running, not having run.
Was it the standard way of speaking of dried up blood, "it was running"? If so, an articla in the Times of October 4 seems to have gotten it wrong. Thgis is Phillips commenting on the Stride case:
"The CORONER. - Did you examine the blood at Berner-street?
Witness. - I did. The blood had run down the waterway to within a few inches of the side entrance of the club."

Not "was running". "Had run".

They knew how to get it right, apparently.

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

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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)

[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.

[Fisherman]

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

[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.