Every minute counts

[MrBarnett]

Sorry, Christer, you can Google all you want, but you are not going to change the meaning of ‘ooze’:

[Fisherman]

Dusty, the quotations from the Old Bailey records on the term "oozing" and how it was used in the 19:th century can serve as useful reading for you too, of course.

As for how papers did not use the word still, it does not take away from how the term was used in one report. There are scores of examples of how papers condense the material and fail to print terms that other papers do. That does not add up to the more complete reports being wrong, it adds up to the condensed reports not being as thorough.

[Fisherman]

Gary!

I came up with the idea of searching the Old Baily Records for the term "oozing", and I got 92 cases where that exact term was used. I did not search for "ooze", "oozed", etc, only for "oozing".

After having taken a look on the first twenty cases, I have three such cases I want to present to you. We will begin with the case against Jeremiah Cadogan for breaking peace and wounding, a case from the 4th of March 1839:


ANGUS M'DONALD . I was in the room when this happened—I did not see any body draw a knife, nor see it in any body's hand till I saw it in the possession of Smith, after the prosecutor was stabbed—I picked up a belt and sheath on the opposite side of the room to where the prisoner stood, about three minutes after the prosecutor was stabbed—I had not observed whether the prisoner had such a belt on—I saw the prisoner strike Wilson a blow, and at that very instant a noise came as if water was gushing out—I looked at Wilson, and saw the blood coming from him—the prisoner resumed the fight as if nothing had happened—Wilson was standing in his own defence—I had observed the prisoner stooping and feeling about his trowsers with both hands, immediately before this blow was given—there was a meeting between them, and I heard the blood ooze like water—whether it was a knife or not I cannot tell—it must have been the blow I saw that caused the oozing of blood.

If you can hear blood oozing like water, it will be running in significant quantities!

Here is the next case, that of Daniel Billington, also for reaking peace and wounding, and dating from 5th of April 1852:

EDWARD KENDELL (police-inspector, H). I went to the house and met Sweeney on the stairs—blood was oozing very profusely from a wound just above her waist—I saw her dress—it had a narrow cut about half an inch long, which appeared to have been done with some sharp instrument—I received this knife (produced) from William Hayes—he is not here—I did not see it picked up—there is blood on the point of it.

Last, but njot least, we have the case of Elizabeth Vickers, a case of killing and murder from the 4th of April 1853:

I got up on Monday morning between 7 and 8 o'clock—it was New Year's day when I saw the deceased—he was very jocular to me—very few words passed—I was not jocular to him; I said but very little; I merely smiled at what he said—his tailor had come there—he was a very jocular man when well—he had a dreadful bad wound—his hair was cut, and the blood was oozing out very bad indeed—it was on the right side, just about the temple; and there was a large lump on the temple—I saw the blood issuing from the wound, it ran down the hair.

These three cases should settle the issue about whether "oozing" can portray a substantial bleeding or not. I have little doubt that the 72 cases I did not check will provide more such examples.

And so my point stands that John Neil may have been talking about a substantial bleeding as he used the term "oozed" - and that would be in line with the initial interviews where Neil is quoted as having spoken of how Nichols was bleeding profusely. The exact term "oozing very profusely" is actually documented in the Daniel Billington case above.

[Fisherman]

It may be that I’ve misunderstood the meaning of ‘ooze’ all my life. I thought it described the slow, almost imperceptible movement of a liquid or a semi-liquid substance.

If you were to look briefly at a body with a trail of glistening blood leading from it to the pavement, could you be certain it was actually moving? I doubt it, but you might still say it was oozing from the body.

Sorry, the contradictory press descriptions really aren’t to be relied upon.

It really is a lot less about your perception of the term ”ooze” and a lot more about how the victorians in general - and specifically John Neil - understood and used it. The suggestion from your side would be that it bled so very little when Neil saw it that it could not have bled at all when Mizen did, but very clearly, Mizens testimony contradicts such a thing.
That is the picture that emerges.

Have a look at the sentence ”a lot of blood oozed” on Google, and you will see that it describes very substantial flows many times. Although the victorians did not write on Google, I think it must open up for another interpretation than yours. I have said it many times, and I see no reason not to stand by it.

[MrBarnett]

It may be that I’ve misunderstood the meaning of ‘ooze’ all my life. I thought it described the slow, almost imperceptible movement of a liquid or a semi-liquid substance.

If you were to look briefly at a body with a trail of glistening blood leading from it to the pavement, could you be certain it was actually moving? I doubt it, but you might still say it was oozing from the body.

Sorry, the contradictory press descriptions really aren’t to be relied upon.

[drstrange169]

Is there any independent confirmation that "Maizen" used the word "still" other than the error filled Addy report?


>>Because he was likely to describe the blood as "looking fresh" although he know it was nothing at all like fresh?<<

Can the Addy's version be relied on as accurate?


>>A question: If the blood was still running as Mizen looked at Nichols, (how) would that affect your take on Lechmere and his potential guilt?<<

It all depends on what definition of "running" is used'


>>PS. Is the "ooze" in "oozing with confidence" the same "ooze" as in trickle very slowly...?<<

Yes, somebody has so much confidence that it's, metaphorically, leaking out of his body.


>>PPS. Just checked Google for the term "a lot of blood oozed". 32 600 hits.<<

Yes, the number of internet hits are a wonderful guide to determine accurate information aren't they? I just googled, Qanon is true ...4,910,000 results (0.39 seconds)

[drstrange169]

If we are to take the "Addy" report as accurate the blood was "still" running after, "20 minutes past four".

iDd the Times and the Telegraph use the word "still"?

[Fisherman]

But when Neil first shone his lamp on the body, the blood was merely ‘oozing’.

I donīt know how many times Iīve responded to this detail, Gary. But here we go again:

We donīt know how much bleeding is involved in the term oozing. There is no description available. We do, however, know that Neil also speaks of how the blood was "running", and so we have two expressions involved.
We also have the original press reports from before the inquest, where Neil said that Nichols bled "profusely".
Could it be that she "oozed profusely"? Can you ooze profusely? According to 875 hits on Google, you can.

What I believe oozing means in the context is to bleed with no underlying pressure. The blood can well out and still be oozing, the way I understand things. Others will disagree and claim that to ooze can only be to trickle very little.
But if people did not disagree, this would not be ripperology.

Did Mizen have the time to crouch down and detect this ooze before he went off for the ambulance?

Yes. The detail of his observations tells us this. He assessed the level of coagulation in the pool, even. In actual fact, he was a very good witness when it comes to establishing the blood evidence. He tells us that the blood had not seized to flow as he arrived, that it looked fresh, that it was somewhat coagulated in the pool and that it had run over the brim in the pool and started to run into the gutter. He is the one witness who goes into great detail about all of this, and in doing so, I believe he gets his revenge on Lechmere for having lied to him.
But thatīs of course just me.

And why would he use the word ‘still’? That suggests a comparison to an earlier experience.

Not very likely, no. As you will know, the coroner may well have asked the question "Was the blood still running at that stage?" although he knew Mizen had no previous experience of Nicholsīs bleeding. "Still" in this context will refer to the fact that she had not stopped bleeding as Mizen saw her. Nothing odd there.
Of course, if he had only said that the blood was running, instead of "still" running, it would play into the hands of those who say that the term may describe a bloodstream that had stopped flowing. Mizen effectively rules that option out, so thank you Jonas!

It makes more sense to me that he was describing blood exiting the body when he helped move it after his return with the ambulance.

Why?

Because he believed that the blood had run for half an hour and was "still running" at that stage?

Because he was likely to describe the blood as "looking fresh" although he know it was nothing at all like fresh?

Because he would be likely to describe the blood under her neck, that was at this stage a large clot, as "somewhat congealed" if blood dripped down on it? Something that Thain said nothing at all about, by the way, instead describing a large clot, not a wet mess.

Or is there any other reason?

To me, the suggestion makes no sense at all.

A question: If the blood was still running as Mizen looked at Nichols, (how) would that affect your take on Lechmere and his potential guilt?

PS. Is the "ooze" in "oozing with confidence" the same "ooze" as in trickle very slowly...?

PPS. Just checked Google for the term "a lot of blood oozed". 32 600 hits.

[MrBarnett]

The Times have him as George Cross too. The Morning Advertiser has Mizen as Maizen. The Daily Telegraph claims it was Paul who refused to help prop Nichols up. Etcetera, etcetera.
What will you have us do? Throw all sources out?

The only information Mizen gives (involving more than this paper) about the blood has it running, looking fresh and being in a state of ongoing coagulation. Nowhere does he say that it had stopped running, so there is no contradiction about it in any of the papers. The picture is therefore reasonably clear on the subject.

But when Neil first shone his lamp on the body, the blood was merely ‘oozing’. Did Mizen have the time to crouch down and detect this ooze before he went off for the ambulance?

And why would he use the word ‘still’? That suggests a comparison to an earlier experience.

It makes more sense to me that he was describing blood exiting the body when he helped move it after his return with the ambulance.

[Fisherman]

>>Mizen said the blood was STILL running (and looking fresh, to boot)<<

That report also wrote that his name was,

"Police constable George Maizen"

and that,

"at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street".

Also, that Lechmere was called,

"George Cross"

and it gave the impression that Cross said nothing about another policeman,

"... someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row) ... I went up Buck's row..."

The Times have him as George Cross too. The Morning Advertiser has Mizen as Maizen. The Daily Telegraph claims it was Paul who refused to help prop Nichols up. Etcetera, etcetera.
What will you have us do? Throw all sources out?

The only information Mizen gives (involving more than this paper) about the blood has it running, looking fresh and being in a state of ongoing coagulation. Nowhere does he say that it had stopped running, so there is no contradiction about it in any of the papers. The picture is therefore reasonably clear on the subject.

[Fisherman]

Mizen clearly said no, he did not continue knocking people up after Cross spoke with him. That leaves two possibilities when he said "I only finished knocking up one person."

* Mizen means he had only knocked up one person person before Cross spoke to him and that he did not knock up anyone after that.

* Mizen said something false, then corrected himself. If Mizen can't even agree with himself, that doesn't make him a particularly credible witness. It would also be Mizen admitting to dereliction of duty in failing to go to the immediate aid of another constable. Yet neither Mizen didn't even get a scolding at the Inquest for this failure.

As I pointed out, since Mizen was asked whether or not he continued to knock people up after he had been informed about Nichols, he would have answered in the negative to inform that he stopped that practice, adding to be as exact as possible that although he stopped knocking up as a result of having been informed about the matter, he finished the errand he had started before Lechmere told him about Nichols. That is being a very precise witness, not an unreliable one. Nothing was withheld, all the relevant information was given. The alternative would be to say yes, and give the impression that he did all of his knocking up before he went to Bucks Row.

Maybe we should try and be a little more discerning before we start shouting about unreliability and derelection of duty?

[drstrange169]

>>Mizen said the blood was STILL running (and looking fresh, to boot)<<

That report also wrote that his name was,

"Police constable George Maizen"

and that,

"at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street".

Also, that Lechmere was called,

"George Cross"

and it gave the impression that Cross said nothing about another policeman,

"... someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row) ... I went up Buck's row..."

[Fiver]

PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The East London Observer, 8th of September 1888:

A Juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness (PC Mizen, my remark): No; I only finished knocking up one person.

This quotation establishes that PC Mizen actually did continue his knocking up business after he had been told about Nichols. Crucially, we can see that he contradicts himself somewhat by first denying to have done so, but then clarifies exactly what happened. It is understandable that he first said no because the juryman asks his question as if Mizen had knocked up numerous people before he went to Bucks Row. The contradiction involved in Mizens testimony is what has stuck in some papers, forgetting to make the addition about Mizen finishing an already begun errand.

Mizen clearly said no, he did not continue knocking people up after Cross spoke with him. That leaves two possibilities when he said "I only finished knocking up one person."

* Mizen means he had only knocked up one person person before Cross spoke to him and that he did not knock up anyone after that.

* Mizen said something false, then corrected himself. If Mizen can't even agree with himself, that doesn't make him a particularly credible witness. It would also be Mizen admitting to dereliction of duty in failing to go to the immediate aid of another constable. Yet neither Mizen didn't even get a scolding at the Inquest for this failure.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for sources. It is clear that different newspapers vary significantly in what they claim some of the witnesses said at the Nichols Inquest. So we need to examine all newspaper coverage and compare what they said. The more newspapers that say the same thing, the more likely it is to be correct.

Not necessarily, no. Most papers say that Mizen did not continue his knocking up, and only one establishes that he actually did. The single paper will be the one that is correct. Many papers condensed things and when they did, single papers can expose the real facts.

For listed quotation, it establishes that the Star reporter summarized PC Mizen's testimony as "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed." If accurate, PC Mizen said that the pool of blood was "somewhat congealed." Based on a study on the drying of blood pools, full transformation of blood pools to a gel state took over 3 hours. So a "somewhat congealed" pool of blood could be as much as couple hours old.

The level of coagulation of the blood pool tells us nothing about whether PC Mizen meant "flowing" or "in a straight line" when he said the blood on Nichols neck was "running".

Mizen said the blood was STILL running (and looking fresh, to boot), meaning that there was an ongoing process where blood flowed. There is no way around it.

[Fiver]

For Fiver.

PC Mizen from the inquest, as quoted by The Star, 3rd of September 1888:

He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.

This quotation establishes that the blood had not fully congealed, and so it was running as in moving.

Thanks for sources. It is clear that different newspapers vary significantly in what they claim some of the witnesses said at the Nichols Inquest. So we need to examine all newspaper coverage and compare what they said. The more newspapers that say the same thing, the more likely it is to be correct.

For listed quotation, it establishes that the Star reporter summarized PC Mizen's testimony as "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed." If accurate, PC Mizen said that the pool of blood was "somewhat congealed." Based on a study on the drying of blood pools, full transformation of blood pools to a gel state took over 3 hours. So a "somewhat congealed" pool of blood could be as much as couple hours old.

The level of coagulation of the blood pool tells us nothing about whether PC Mizen meant "flowing" or "in a straight line" when he said the blood on Nichols neck was "running".