Every minute counts

[Abby Normal]

>>Neil spoke of how Nichols bled "profusely" in initial reports, <<

Incorrect, we have no record of Neil "speaking" Mrs Nichols bleeding profusely.

But, all this is irrelevant, because we now know for certain that bodies can bled for a substantial time after death, so the "blood evidence" theory is like William Holden at the start of Sunset Boulevard.

do people still bleed an hour after their throat has been cut, their mid section gashed and they are dead ? a half hour?
how long do people even stay alive after such wounds?

its common sense. polly nichols was very recently killed when in the company of lech and paul. hence pointing to a strong possibility lech was her killer.

or we can go with the possibility of yet another phantom ripper.
but of course there is zero evidence for one.

[drstrange169]

>>Neil spoke of how Nichols bled "profusely" in initial reports, <<

Incorrect, we have no record of Neil "speaking" Mrs Nichols bleeding profusely.

But, all this is irrelevant, because we now know for certain that bodies can bled for a substantial time after death, so the "blood evidence" theory is like William Holden at the start of Sunset Boulevard.

[drstrange169]

>> ... there are many examples where is says, for instance, "blood and froth was oozing from the mouth".<<


Checking within my timeframe, I could find only one hit for your italicised phrase: Joseph Feltham 18th Oct 1882 Manslaughter.

It can be found here:

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=def1-951-18821016&div=t18821016-951#highlight

And it's another lock, stock and two smoking barrels!

Here's what James Thorton Gilbert the attending medical man said,

"I think she had been dead from four to five hours- she was perfectly cold;rigor mortis had set in ... blood and froth was oozing from the mouth and nose ..."

So, we have another case of blood oozing a significant time after death, this time over four hours after death!

As I keep repeating, the blood evidence theory had been terminated with extreme predudice.

[Fisherman]

Just noticed that the thread you referred to, Gary, was one here on Casebook.The one I spoke of was the one on JTR Forums.

[Fisherman]

I’ll add to it so we can get an idea of how likely it is that Ma Lechmere was an illicit horse butcher rather than a seller of cooked, boneless cat’s meat.

I have read the thread and seen all the fors and againsts, just as I have read all the stuff about whether there were illicit horse meat businesses or not. It was another example of ripperology at its finest in many ways. What it all boiled down to (excuse the pun) was that nothing much could be proven either way.

Being personally convinced of something does not come with any guarantees of everybody agreeing with you. Trust me, I know. I am not opposed to the idea that Maria Louisa was a lowly cats meat woman to aggravate you, you have my word on that. I actually do think her horse chunks were much bigger and bonier.

But just like you I cannot prove my point, so I have to settle for knowing that she was in the horse flesh business and accepting that as such, that does no harm at all to the Lechmere theory.

[MrBarnett]

Did you read this thread?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...e-meat-dealers

I’ll add to it so we can get an idea of how likely it is that Ma Lechmere was an illicit horse butcher rather than a seller of cooked, boneless cat’s meat.

[MrBarnett]

Nobody who bought horseflesh with no bones in it would need a fine toothed saw. Nobody who bought horseflesh with bones in it and sold it on without parting it over those bones would need a fine toothed saw. Only the horseflesh dealers who bought horseflesh in chunks big enough to have bones inside them and who thereafter wanted to cut the horseflesh up in smaller parts over the bones would need a saw. The horseflesh dealers who bought such horseflesh with such intentions would need a bone saw. And a bone saw is a fine toothed saw.

That should just about cover it.

Now, YOU indulge ME:

What are the indications that Ma Lechmere had no use for a fine toothed saw in her occupation as a horse flesh dealer?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is truly ripperology at itīs finest!

Did you read this thread?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/general-discussion/753880-horse-meat-dealers

[Fisherman]

Indulge me, Christer. Explain the ‘facts’ that support your suggestion that horseflesh dealers used fine toothed saws.

Nobody who bought horseflesh with no bones in it would need a fine toothed saw. Nobody who bought horseflesh with bones in it and sold it on without parting it over those bones would need a fine toothed saw. Only the horseflesh dealers who bought horseflesh in chunks big enough to have bones inside them and who thereafter wanted to cut the horseflesh up in smaller parts over the bones would need a saw. The horseflesh dealers who bought such horseflesh with such intentions would need a bone saw. And a bone saw is a fine toothed saw.

That should just about cover it.

Now, YOU indulge ME:

What are the indications that Ma Lechmere had no use for a fine toothed saw in her occupation as a horse flesh dealer?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is truly ripperology at itīs finest!

[Fisherman]

Dusty!

On when Mizen was sent for the ambulance:

"Given the actual available evidence, and given the urgency of police procedure, it is not an unreasonable assumption on Gary's part ."

That is true, it is not unreasonable. But the fact that Mizen speaks of the fresh blood, still flowing tells us that he did not set off immediately. The quotations you use are perfectly compatible with how Mizen arrived, said "Whoa, what do we have here, took a look at the damage aided by his lamp and THEN Neil said "I need you to go get an ambulance", whereupon Mizen said "Okay mate! Will do! Jesus, thatīs a bad cut!" and then he set out for the ambulance.

As you say, given the actual evidence (where we have Mizen testifying about assessing the blood and the coagulation at a time when "the blood was still running and looking fresh", I can assure you that not only is my assumption a reasonable one, it is also the one that fits that evidence more closely.

Itīs another matter that some will disagree, even to the length of suggesting that the blood evidence is "dead" - if I was to say that blood is generally red and if that statement was in conflict with the ideas of a "fellow" ripperologist, then rest assured that would be the day that blue, green and yellow blood was invented.

[Fisherman]

>>Do you seriously beleive that Neil stood by and waited for her to perish? Of course you donīt! <<

Obviously I don't, that was my very point.

To Neil she was quite obviously dead, because the blood was "oozing" out, not flowing.

There are numerous ways to check for death, but I donīt think that Iīve seen this one before. My personal belief is that Neil would probably have felt her for a pulse. Even if he knew that you cannot survive such damage as had been caused to her, he arguably also knew that the heart can go on beating for some time anyway and so it could provide important evidence to make that check.

In your former post, you wrote:

"...if the blood was actively flowing when Neil arrived, he could not be sure she was beyond all help. One would have thought he would have attempted to staunch the flow."

So you are saying that he would gauge the amount of bloodflow to decide for himself whether he should try and staunch the blood flow? Meaning that if the blood was pulsating out in gushes, he would use a scarf or something such to wrap around the neck with itīs inch-wide gap travelling all the way around and down to the bone?

I think that he would certainly be very much aware that the cut was very close in time woth such a scenario, and quite possibly, he would feel pressed to do something, so maybe he would come up with the idea. Who knows? All we can say is that it would be totally useless as an effort to save life.

However, and this is where it becoms interesting, your take on things produces an on/off scenario where a PC would reach for the scarf only with some amounts of blood exiting the neck wound, whereas he would abstain from any such efforts with other amounts of blood exiting the wound.

Where does the shift occur, thatīs what I would like to know.

Would it not be true to say that once there was no spurting any longer, death was certain to occur (or already have occurred) and so no scarf would be of any use? But in such a scenario, there may still be some really significant running of blood, emptying out the blood from the head and so on, due to gravity.

And this is the state of bleeding that is in line with the evidence we have: Neil spoke of how Nichols bled "profusely" in initial reports, and he said the the blood was "running" at the inquest. He never spoke of the exact volume of blood that was running. He used the word "oozed", but as we have seen in the Old Bailey records, that expression was occasionally used about a significant bleeding, significant enough for people to HEAR blood "oozing like water". Others described blood "oozed very profusely" from a wound.

And of course, since Mizen arrived some minutes after Neil and since the blood was STILL running at that stage, it is in line with Neil having seen a fair amount of blood coming out of the wound. Not spurting, not gushing but bleeding rather significantly and running into the pool that was forming under Nicholsīs neck, only to have run over the brim as Mizen arrived.

Totally logical, totally in line and very simple, all of it.

[Fisherman]

For Dusty:

You write in your post 166 above that "Oozing got 72 hits."

Presumably, they are the exact same hits as the 72 I found.

You then say:

"65 were used as per the dictionary definition."

Now, if we are speaking about the same 72 hits, then there are many examples where is says, for instance, "blood and froth was oozing from the mouth".

Apparently, you have decided on your own that this is an example of how the writer uses the expression "as per the dictionary definition".

The problem should be obvious: nothing is said about the amounts of blood that oozed from the mouth. Not is anything said about the speed at which it happened.

All of the examples that only say that blood oozed, but do not add the amounts and the speed may or may not be examples of a substantial bleeding, in which case they serve to further elucidate how Neil may have meant something that deviated from the standard dictionary meaning. Therefore, your statistic gymnastics are very much off. The examples you may use as examples of how ozzing is a slow effusion of blood are the ones where it says that a slow effusion of blood was what occurred. The examples that do not mention these factors can be examples of anyting in terms of volume and speed.

And, of course, it is not as if I need any further examples than the three I posted. It was never a popularity contest. It was never as if the suggestion that "ooze" can mean a significant bleeding must be supported by 50 per cent plus of the examples, was it?

No, what I tried to find and what I found was verification that ooze was sometimes used when describing rather significant blood flows.

Letīs try and treat the material in a correct manner.

[drstrange169]

Got this magazine yesterday Gary.

[drstrange169]

>>Was there a rush to try and get the ambulance in place after 29 and a half minutes instead of 30 minutes?<<

There was a clear "rush" to get help from the station and notify senior officers. That's how police work is conducted. Surely that's obvious.


>>Who says that Mizen was "immediately sent off to fetch the ambulance"? More than you, that is? What Neil said at the inquest was that he sent Mizen for the ambulance. End of,<<

Actually no. here's what was really written:

"When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance." "

The Daily Telegraph for one.

"I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it."

The Morning Advertiser for two.

"When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance."

Lloyds for three.

"I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station."

Morning News

Given the actual available evidence, and given the urgency of police procedure, it is not an unreasonable assumption on Gary's part .


>>We cannot invent things like these and try to elevate them to something that exonerates the carman, Iīm afraid.
Moreover, the blood Mizen described was STILL running, it looked FRESH and it was SOMEWHAT coagulated.<<

Ironic that you should accuse Gary of inverting things and then invent something yourself, "still running" comes from the Morning Advertiser, that report mentions nothing about coagulation. It is The Star that states the blood was coagulted. They mention nothing about it being fresh or "still running". That is a direct contradiction of the Advertiser's version.

The Star, Evening Post and the Morning News, do however, explain that this was when he lifted the body onto the ambulance, not one newspaper states that he saw the blood when he arrived, not one!

You can surmise that they are all wrong, if you want, but you cannot state that it is a fact because no newspaper supports you. However, we can say that it is a fact that the wording in their reports say that he lifted the body on to the ambulance and saw blood running from the neck in that order.


>>Just donīt claim things as facts that cannot be claimed as facts, please.<<

Pot ... kettle I'm afraid.

But, this is all a smoke screen, to cover up the fact that the medical evidence says, a body can still ooze blood at least 20 minutes after death. Forensically speaking, there is NO blood evidence, as you would say, "end of".

[MrBarnett]

Fine tooth saws?

Answer that and all will be forgiven

Indulge me, Christer. Explain the ‘facts’ that support your suggestion that horseflesh dealers used fine toothed saws.

[drstrange169]

>>Do you seriously beleive that Neil stood by and waited for her to perish? Of course you donīt! <<

Obviously I don't, that was my very point.

To Neil she was quite obviously dead, because the blood was "oozing" out, not flowing. And now, instead of experts who acknowledge they have never personally experienced oozing blood form a dead body sometime after death and can only "guess" an answer, we now have a qualified medical expert witnessing blood oozing from a body, at least, 20 minutes after death and possibly even longer.

As I wrote, based on solid evidence, not guesswork, the "blood theory" is now like Monty Python's parrot.