Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Every minute counts

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

  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 03-20-2021, 03:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 03-20-2021, 02:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 03-20-2021, 02:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post



    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.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 03-20-2021, 02:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    You can stop posting examples of wounds that cannot be compared to the ones Nichols sustained, Gary! It is not as if the Ripper "neglected to secure the opening in the vessel", is it!

    Letīs move over to the actual and factual material instead.

    You wrote before - and the argument is not new - that perhaps Neil spoke of a dried up bloodstream as oozing.

    Here is how the blood was described by Neil at the inquest, the material coming from two sources.

    In the Daily Telegraph, Neil is quoted as saying that "he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat". If that blood had been dried up, Iīd suggest that Neil would have misled the inquest by using the wrong tense instead of saying that the blood "HAD oozed" from the neck. And if he HAD said that, how on earth was he to know that it had "oozed", Gary?

    Once you have worked that out, hereīs the nexct passage from the DT:

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

    So once again, he uses a tense he should not have used. He should have said "It had run from the neck", not that it WAS running, right?

    Of course, at this stage, one can say: But what if Neil sinmply worded himself badly, and MEANT that the blood HAD run but said that it WAS running.

    If that should occur, I am of course ready to fire my last quotation. Itīs from the Morning Advertiser, and it has the same sentence but with a slightly different wording:

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

    Then.

    At that stage.

    I donīt know why Lechmere is defended in soúch a peculiar fashion. Is it in order to clear away any chance that he is wrongfully convicted? If so, that is an honorable cause, but the truth of the matter is that not a word points to the blood being dry or having seized to run as Neil saw it. Each and every report speaks of an active blood flow, going by the tense used. And that little "then" in the Morning Advertiser seals the deal, does it not?

    Polly Nichols was bleeding as John Neil examined her.


    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    "A large vein", Gary, is not tantamount to ALL the large vessels of the neck. How "large" was the vein in your example?

    Moreover, it is said that the vein in question can bleed "profusely" for "several hours" after death. Would not such a profuse bleeding wmpty out the five or six litres of blood quicker than that? Or does "profusely" mean "significantly" instead?

    Nichols had her veins and arteries all severed in the neck. Arteries bleed a lot more than veins. A vein can contract itself if cut, thus prolonging the bleeding procedure a whole lot. When you have ALL the vessels in the neck severed, no contraction can occur, the blood will empty out unrestrictedly un less the body is positioned in a manner that stops the bloodflow. Nichols' body wasnīt.

    Is not about how clueless victorian doctors were. Itīs about not comparing apples to pears if we can avoid it.

    More to come!


    Had every last drop of Nichols’ blood emptied by the time Mizen helped place her on the trolley?

    Surely, once the heart stops beating gravity takes control and moving the body might lead to the leaking of liquid blood/blood-coloured fluids.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	A55F29D9-AFA7-45D7-8571-2563438461BB.jpeg
Views:	1011
Size:	86.0 KB
ID:	753576 Another Victorian article from The Scotsman of Jan. 6th, 1893.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Click image for larger version

Name:	6C4C8C9D-8603-4F78-AB5E-746F20AC575A.jpeg
Views:	1024
Size:	146.8 KB
ID:	753573

    This a passage from THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THE MONTON CASE, an article that appeared in ‘The Scotsman’ of 15th Jan. 1894.


    Does this mean that Victorian doctors were completely clueless? Or are the few minutes of additional bleeding we need to exonerate Lechmere well within reasonable bounds?



    "A large vein", Gary, is not tantamount to ALL the large vessels of the neck. How "large" was the vein in your example?

    Moreover, it is said that the vein in question can bleed "profusely" for "several hours" after death. Would not such a profuse bleeding wmpty out the five or six litres of blood quicker than that? Or does "profusely" mean "significantly" instead?

    Nichols had her veins and arteries all severed in the neck. Arteries bleed a lot more than veins. A vein can contract itself if cut, thus prolonging the bleeding procedure a whole lot. When you have ALL the vessels in the neck severed, no contraction can occur, the blood will empty out unrestrictedly un less the body is positioned in a manner that stops the bloodflow. Nichols' body wasnīt.

    Is not about how clueless victorian doctors were. Itīs about not comparing apples to pears if we can avoid it.

    More to come!

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	6C4C8C9D-8603-4F78-AB5E-746F20AC575A.jpeg
Views:	1024
Size:	146.8 KB
ID:	753573

    This a passage from THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THE MONTON CASE, an article that appeared in ‘The Scotsman’ of 15th Jan. 1894.


    Does this mean that Victorian doctors were completely clueless? Or are the few minutes of additional bleeding we need to exonerate Lechmere well within reasonable bounds?




    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Click image for larger version

Name:	681B7EA7-95CF-4F0B-8AC7-46EDAE59154B.jpeg
Views:	1029
Size:	146.1 KB
ID:	753569

    Can we be sure that’s what Mizen said and that he wasn’t talking about some liquid that he noticed while moving the body?

    All that aside, perhaps this is a good place to collect examples of blood flowing at a considerable time after death.

    Here’s my first contribution - in this case a scalp wound was found to be still bleeding 17 hours after death. ‘Very unusual’ apparently.

    Mizen said that the blood "was still flowing" and "looking fresh", and he pointed out that it was partly coagulated. Thain commented on the blood in direct connection with when the body was taken away, and he did not say that the blood he saw was part coagulated, part flowing and looking fresh. He said it was a large clot of blood.
    Mizen would not have said that the blood looked fresh half an hour after Nichols was cut, since he would be very much aware that it was not fresh at that stage.

    The evidence if very much in favor of Nichols bleeding as he first saw her.

    Yes, some people will bleed long after death, depending on the type of wound. A removed scalp will not involve the severing of any major vessels and so the bleeding can go on for quite some time, I should imagine. But what we should look for is not examples of extreme occurences, but instead what is likely to happen.

    Note the sequence of the blood observations: The carmen see no blood, Neil sees a pool under the neck, a pool that will have grown after the carmen left, and Mizen sees how the blood in the pool has run over the brim and started to enter the gutter.

    Logic. Consequence. Gotta love it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X