How sure was Paul?

[Fisherman]

Although I do not answer Fivers posts any more, I wish to point out that it is a complete lie that what I posted on behalf of Ingemar Thiblin would instead have been a quote taken form another source.
I posted general information together with what Thiblin said, to clarify the phenomenon of agonal breathing. To use that to imply that I never spoke to Thiblin at all, or whatever it is this genuinely uninformed poster suggests, is simply - and predictably - wrong.

[Varqm]

Looking at a dead woman and the blood condition outside of her body, can it be scientifically/precisely determined how many minutes before the woman's carotid artery was severed?

[JeffHamm]

Looking at a dead woman and the blood condition outside of her body, can it be scientifically/precisely determined how many minutes before the woman's carotid artery was severed?

No. Even with on scene forensic examiners, and state of the art equipment, estimating time of death is still associated with very wide margins of error. The data we're talking about isn't even one that is used for even attempting this. With that in mind, trying to base ToD upon centuries old statements made by untrained witnesses speaking without even the intention of suggesting their statements should be viewed as data for such a purpose is pushing the evidence to do a job it simply cannot do.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

Good point. I think I read an article long time ago, with a forensic pathologist, where he could estimate it within, uncomfortably, around 1-2 hours. The point is it could not be determined, even with advanced technology, whether Nichols was killed at 3:10 am or 3:40 am for example. This blood evidence on Lechmere is bogus then.

[Fiver]

Although I do not answer Fivers posts any more, I wish to point out that it is a complete lie that what I posted on behalf of Ingemar Thiblin would instead have been a quote taken form another source.
I posted general information together with what Thiblin said, to clarify the phenomenon of agonal breathing. To use that to imply that I never spoke to Thiblin at all, or whatever it is this genuinely uninformed poster suggests, is simply - and predictably - wrong.

You haven't been answering my questions for quite a while now. Even when you replied, you frequently did not answer my points. Still, I guess it's a step in the right direction for you to finally admit that you are dodging my questions.

Anyone who looks at post #53 will see that you started by saying "Okay, so the answer from professor Thiblin is at hand." You then quoted a variety of sources (without attribution in the case of Dr Brennan) explaining agonal breathing before finally providing a summary of what you think Professor Thiblin said. You did not provide a full quote of what Professor Thiblin said, nor did you provide an account of exactly what was asked. Since your summaries of other accounts have often been very inaccurate, this leaves us assessing your summary, not what Professor Thiblin actually said.

The only quote you ascribed to Professor Thiblin was saying ""A few minutes" is the answer Thiblin gives on the question how long it [agonal breathing] can go on for"

As I showed in Post #58, this is not correct.

Agonal respiration can last for hours.

That leaves one of two possibilities - either Professor Thiblin knows very little about agonal breathing or you did not accurately summarize what he said. In either case, Robert Paul might have felt agonal breathing from Nichols, but you haven't proved that it was the most likely explanation.

[Fisherman]

Good point. I think I read an article long time ago, with a forensic pathologist, where he could estimate it within, uncomfortably, around 1-2 hours. The point is it could not be determined, even with advanced technology, whether Nichols was killed at 3:10 am or 3:40 am for example. This blood evidence on Lechmere is bogus then.

Tell that to Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin. They assessed the exact case, knowing the amount of damage caused to Nichols.
One has to say that it is odd when two pathologists who have never spoken to each other agree on the exact same bogus.

But of course, you are probably the better informed man.

[Fiver]

Tell that to Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin. They assessed the exact case, knowing the amount of damage caused to Nichols.
One has to say that it is odd when two pathologists who have never spoken to each other agree on the exact same bogus.

But of course, you are probably the better informed man.

You asked some vague questions of Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, and interpreted them the way you wanted to.

For Jason Payne James:
Q. Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case.
A. Yes
Q. Do you know of any examples?
A. No
Q. Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?
A. I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.

You appear to have made up the word "desanguination". You don't even appear to understand that to "bleed out completely' and to "stop bleeding" are not the same thing.

For Ingemar Thiblin you claim that Thiblin told you that there is "not much empirical data to go on"' as to how long "a seeping bleeding" could last, but that "ten to fifteen minutes'" possible.

So Thiblin stated that he had very little data and estimated 10 to 15 minutes.

James stated he had no data at all and estimated 3 to 7 minutes.

The two pathologists disagree on time and admitted they had little or no information to base their estimates on.

[Varqm]

Tell that to Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin. They assessed the exact case, knowing the amount of damage caused to Nichols.
One has to say that it is odd when two pathologists who have never spoken to each other agree on the exact same bogus.

But of course, you are probably the better informed man.

If one cannot precisely ascertain whether someone died at 3:10 or closer to Lechmere's time 3:20/3:30 am or 3:40 am the evidence is not good. And as Jeff Hamm said word description about blood is not accurate in itself, but they cannot even ascertain with actual physical blood and the crime scene before them with the latest technology. This case cannot be solved with blood evidence, worse than most, this is the most uncertain area.

[Varqm]

You asked some vague questions of Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, and interpreted them the way you wanted to.

For Jason Payne James:
Q. Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case.
A. Yes
Q. Do you know of any examples?
A. No
Q. Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?
A. I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.

You appear to have made up the word "desanguination". You don't even appear to understand that to "bleed out completely' and to "stop bleeding" are not the same thing.

For Ingemar Thiblin you claim that Thiblin told you that there is "not much empirical data to go on"' as to how long "a seeping bleeding" could last, but that "ten to fifteen minutes'" possible.

So Thiblin stated that he had very little data and estimated 10 to 15 minutes.

James stated he had no data at all and estimated 3 to 7 minutes.

The two pathologists disagree on time and admitted they had little or no information to base their estimates on.

The best thing is to give the professor(s) the inquest/post mortem descriptions of the blood "situation" and the times and let them answer, or figure it out, was Nichols killed at around 3:20 am or 3:30 am or 3:40 am?
Same thing with Scobie, give him the inquest statements and let him figure it out. I think he would not think Lechmere
did anything wrong by using another name he previously used as long as he gave his work/home address or he was not in the middle of the road when Paul saw him or that he told Mizen he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks row when no policeman was with Lechmere/Paul.

[Fisherman]

If one cannot precisely ascertain whether someone died at 3:10 or closer to Lechmere's time 3:20/3:30 am or 3:40 am the evidence is not good.

One can NEVER precisely ascertain the TOD, not even with our more sophisticated methods. But we nevertheless see how the evaluations are used to convict people in a lot of cases. So very apparently, the legal system thinks the assessments ARE good; good enough to send people to their deaths at times.

Then again, the assessments made by the forensic physicians in my book were never presented as precise. That is becasue these men are quite aware of how there can be no precise timings. And, believe it or not, I am just as aware of that myself as they are!

This was why I never asked the question "Precisely when did Polly Nichols die?" I instead asked what span of time would be the likeliest for her to bleed after having been dealt the damage she sustained. I informed both men of the circumstances, and they both said that a 3-5 minute bleeding time would be what they expected to be the likeliest outcome. Both men also pointed out that the bleeding could have been shorter or longer, but they did not think that would be as likely, and of course, the further removed from the 3-5 minutes, the less likely the suggestion would be. It should all be perfectly simple to understand that they would have thought seven minutes likelier than ten - but LESS likely than 3-5. Thiblin said that he thought that the bleeding could perhaps have gone on for, at the very longest, ten to fifteen minutes. But as I just pointed out, he did not think these longer times were likely at all, but he was not willing to rule them out either. And that is in line with what I said before in this post: both men KNEW that there could be no precise timing.

If you want me to lay it out for you in another fashion, Ingemar Thiblin basically said that if Nichols was cut at 3.45, then she would maximally go on to bleed up until 3.55-4.00, but his best guess is that the bleeding would stop at around 3.48-3.50. And that was way before Mizen arrived, so she very clearly bled for LONGER than Thiblin and Payne James suggested as the most likely bleeding time. Meaning that squeezing another killer in before Lechmere would stretch the already unlikely to the even more unlikely.

If we change the perspective and accept that Mizen arrived at the site around nine minutes after she was cut, we then have him in place at circa 3.54. If we work backwards from there, Thiblins suggestion would allow for her to have started bleeding at the very earliest at 3.39 - 3.44, but he would not favor that suggestion as anything but an extreme possibility. His own guess would be that she in this scenario started bleeding between 3.49 - 3.51. And for that equation to work with another killer than Lechmere, that phantom killer would have had to have cut Nichols well AFTER Lechmere left her. In fact, as far as the timings go, Thiblins suggestion would point to PC Neil as the likely cutter of the neck. How likely we believe such a thing is, is up to anybody to assess for themselves.

And as Jeff Hamm said word description about blood is not accurate in itself, but they cannot even ascertain with actual physical blood and the crime scene before them with the latest technology. This case cannot be solved with blood evidence, worse than most, this is the most uncertain area.

Nichols was "still bleeding" as Mizen arrived, and since she was, Lechmere becomes the likely killer - unless we prefer John Neil as the better suspect. There is nothing at all uncertain about this, I´m afraid.

[caz]

No. Even with on scene forensic examiners, and state of the art equipment, estimating time of death is still associated with very wide margins of error. The data we're talking about isn't even one that is used for even attempting this. With that in mind, trying to base ToD upon centuries old statements made by untrained witnesses speaking without even the intention of suggesting their statements should be viewed as data for such a purpose is pushing the evidence to do a job it simply cannot do.

- Jeff

Post of the week for me, Jeff.

But no matter how many times we are told this, those who most need to take it on board will simply choose to ignore it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Aethelwulf]

Nichols was "still bleeding" as Mizen arrived, and since she was, Lechmere becomes the likely killer - unless we prefer John Neil as the better suspect. There is nothing at all uncertain about this, I´m afraid.

So the key questions seem to be:

1. How sure are you about the the descriptions given at the time about 'blood still flowing'. Is there anyway those could be wrong?
2. How confident are you that Nicholls was not an 'outlier' in terms of her bleeding time? Obviously, you can't be, so the sensible thing to do is go with the most likely scenario, as you have done. But it still means we can't rule out another killer.

One other thing, how does blood alcohol level affect all of this (if at all)?

[Varqm]

Nichols was "still bleeding" as Mizen arrived, and since she was, Lechmere becomes the likely killer - unless we prefer John Neil as the better suspect. There is nothing at all uncertain about this, I´m afraid.

First Fisherman did you give the doctors the inquest statements and let them determine it themselves,for example can they
really envision the blood condition or flow from Mizen's description(s) of the blood?
Can they really trust Mizens descriptions? Don't ask them too may questions let them figure it out.

"they both said that a 3-5 minute bleeding time would be what they expected to be the likeliest outcome.
Both men also pointed out that the bleeding could have been shorter or longer, but they did not think that would be as likely, and of course,the further removed from the 3-5 minutes, the less likely the suggestion would be."

Correct me if I am wrong when Mizen saw the blood 9 minutes has elapsed, so per above, the suggestion is less likely,
gone past the 3-5 minutes.



Neil at 3:45 and Thain a bit later were in Bucks as Mizen was talking to Paul/Lechmere so Lechmere's discovery and
encounter with Paul was at around 3:40 am,add the dou's time talking and examining Nichols plus the walk to Mizen.
I believe in the 3 PC's time(s).

"if Nichols was cut at 3.45, then she would maximally go on to bleed up until 3.55-4.00 "
if Nichols was cut at 3.40, then she would maximally go on to bleed up until 3.50-3:55

"but his best guess is that the bleeding would stop at around 3.48-3.50."
-but his best guess is that the bleeding would stop at around 3.43-3.45.

"Mizen arrived at 3:54"
Mizen arrived at 3:49
"would allow for her to have started bleeding at the very earliest at 3.39 - 3.44"
would allow for her to have started bleeding at the very earliest at 3.34-3:49

"His own guess would be that she in this scenario started bleeding between 3.49 - 3.51"
His own guess would be that she in this scenario started bleeding between 3.44 - 3.46,
so Neil is not a suspect he has not arrived and Thain came over. So Nichols started bleeding a minute after Neil arrived?

[Fisherman]

First Fisherman did you give the doctors the inquest statements and let them determine it themselves,for example can they
really envision the blood condition or flow from Mizen's description(s) of the blood?
Can they really trust Mizens descriptions? Don't ask them too may questions let them figure it out.

"they both said that a 3-5 minute bleeding time would be what they expected to be the likeliest outcome.
Both men also pointed out that the bleeding could have been shorter or longer, but they did not think that would be as likely, and of course,the further removed from the 3-5 minutes, the less likely the suggestion would be."

Correct me if I am wrong when Mizen saw the blood 9 minutes has elapsed, so per above, the suggestion is less likely,
gone past the 3-5 minutes.



Neil at 3:45 and Thain a bit later were in Bucks as Mizen was talking to Paul/Lechmere so Lechmere's discovery and
encounter with Paul was at around 3:40 am,add the dou's time talking and examining Nichols plus the walk to Mizen.
I believe in the 3 PC's time(s).

"if Nichols was cut at 3.45, then she would maximally go on to bleed up until 3.55-4.00 "
if Nichols was cut at 3.40, then she would maximally go on to bleed up until 3.50-3:55

"but his best guess is that the bleeding would stop at around 3.48-3.50."
-but his best guess is that the bleeding would stop at around 3.43-3.45.

"Mizen arrived at 3:54"
Mizen arrived at 3:49
"would allow for her to have started bleeding at the very earliest at 3.39 - 3.44"
would allow for her to have started bleeding at the very earliest at 3.34-3:49

"His own guess would be that she in this scenario started bleeding between 3.49 - 3.51"
His own guess would be that she in this scenario started bleeding between 3.44 - 3.46,
so Neil is not a suspect he has not arrived and Thain came over. So Nichols started bleeding a minute after Neil arrived?

Read again, please. The physicians were very much aware of the types of wounds Nichols had sustained just as they were aware of the conditions she was found in and the position she was lying in. It was from those insights they made their estimations. What Mizen said is neither here nor there in this context. It was a simple enough question: Given what we know about Nichols and her wounds, how long do you think it is likeliest that she would have bled after her throat was cut?

It really is not very hard to understand what their respective answers mean for the potential culpability of Lechmere.

[Varqm]

Read again, please. The physicians were very much aware of the types of wounds Nichols had sustained just as they were aware of the conditions she was found in and the position she was lying in. It was from those insights they made their estimations. What Mizen said is neither here nor there in this context. It was a simple enough question: Given what we know about Nichols and her wounds, how long do you think it is likeliest that she would have bled after her throat was cut?

It really is not very hard to understand what their respective answers mean for the potential culpability of Lechmere.

It is hard to understand, Mizen's description vs actual blood./blood flow
But to quote, with the 3 PC's time of 3:45 am:

"Mizen arrived at 3:54"
Mizen arrived at 3:49
"would allow for her to have started bleeding at the very earliest at 3.39 - 3.44"
would allow for her to have started bleeding at the very earliest at 3.34-3:49

The Killer heard Lechmere.like Neal heard Thain in Brady St.. And left at around 3:37-38 just when Lechmere arrived at Bucks row/Brady St.,Lechmere reached the murder spot around 3:40 am, waited for Paul 40 yards way, did their talk and checked the body.