Every minute counts

[Fisherman]

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?

[Fisherman]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[erobitha]

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.

[Fisherman]

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?

[Fisherman]

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!

[Fisherman]

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!

[Fisherman]

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.

[jerryd]

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.

[jerryd]

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.

Gary.

I believe the blood was still running out of her neck when Reid saw her. But, my belief is based on a later time that the throat was cut than between 12:25 and 12:45.

[jerryd]

McKenzie was found at 12.50 and Reid arrived at 1.10. I make that 20 minutes, not 30. What am I missing...?

Oh, and I just saw this passage in the text about her on Casebook:

"Reid notices that blood continues to flow from the throat into the gutter (about 1:09 A.M.) but it begins to clot upon the arrival of Phillips (about 1:12 A.M.)"

I donīt know how that was sourced, but maybe somebody else out here does...?

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.

[MrBarnett]

It is a still picture, Gary. Therefore we cannot say if the paste is oozing from it or not. All we can say is that some paste has exited the tube, but we know nothing about the speed at which it did so.
If you find a long dead antelope with a wound from which blood has flown and dried up, do you say "Look, thereīs blood oozing from the wound"?
Nor do I.

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.

[Scott Nelson]

Fluid blood could have been blood mixed with other bodily fluids, like urine or digestive juices from the stomach.

[Fisherman]

And thatīs it for me for today.

[Fisherman]

Why did the coroner allow that linguistic imprecision to pass? Tut tut!

Because there was no imprecision, of course!

As for ‘oozing’ that describes movement that is barely perceptible. Why do you only give us two options: dried and moving? How about moist and glistening but not obviously flowing.

Not flowing is not flowing/running/oozing/moving. Thatīs why I give you two options only. Either the blood was running or it was not. And it was.

What’s this:

a) A tube with toothpaste oozing out of it?

or

b) A tube and some toothpaste which has oozed from it?


It’s ‘a’ every time for me.

It is a still picture, Gary. Therefore we cannot say if the paste is oozing from it or not. All we can say is that some paste has exited the tube, but we know nothing about the speed at which it did so.
If you find a long dead antelope with a wound from which blood has flown and dried up, do you say "Look, thereīs blood oozing from the wound"?
Nor do I.