Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

he did, in this article I quoted. He didn't say, "First one came up to me, and then after he was finished, the other came up to me." He says that one spoke and the other and then the other left. This means they were together in this article. It can mean nothing else. Now, that doesn't mean this is the only article, but it's a sensible one.

Mike

Maybe we just define "sensible" differently? I find it distinctly unsensible to permanently look away from the fact that Mizen never said "There were these two guys who spoke to me..."

I really, really wonder why he would not just say that and be done with it? It would have been so sensible.

The best,
Fisherman

[Batman]

If Cross was the murderer then why did he kill only on weekends/holidays if his route was a normal weekly work route?

[The Good Michael]

.

And you know what? My money is on Mizen having mentioned that two men spoke to him if two men spoke to him.

he did, in this article I quoted. He didn't say, "First one came up to me, and then after he was finished, the other came up to me." He says that one spoke and the other and then the other left. This means they were together in this article. It can mean nothing else. Now, that doesn't mean this is the only article, but it's a sensible one.

Mike

[Fisherman]

If they were having a conversation, they were within earshot of each other. A conversation requires such things.

Mike

... but only for those who actually converse with each other. The rest may well be the ones who have gone down Hanbury Street - as per the Echo.

So, yes, you are epically correct: If Paul conversed with Mizen, all three should have heard each other.

If he did not, however, then there is no reason to think that Paul overheard what Lechmere said.

... and how many people does Mizen say spoke to him? One, en, uno, yxi, un, ein.

And you know what? My money is on Mizen having mentioned that two men spoke to him if two men spoke to him.

And guess what more? We have gone over this a thousand times before, and I am getting seeeeeeriously bored with it.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

If it does not show that Paul was within earshot as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, then we canīt dub Paul a corroborating witness to that particular part...

If they were having a conversation, they were within earshot of each other. A conversation requires such things.

Mike

[Fisherman]

I'm a poster on the Lizzie Borden Forum. Andrew Borden was murdered, admittedly by hatchet and not knife, at about 11am on August 4th 1892.

The testimony of the Medical Examiner for Fall River, Mass., Dr Dolan, was that he arrived at the Borden house at 11:45 am, some 45 minutes after Andrew's murder. He examined his head wounds and observed 'bright red blood' oozing (his words) from them. He also stated that blood was 'dripping' from the couch on which the body was found onto the carpet underneath. Andrew Borden's blood had not clotted in that time, though his wife's, killed at approx 9:30am, had.

On another detail, weren't there alleyways nearby in Bucks Row leading through Winthrop St to Whitechapel High St, past Brown Bros, the Ripper could have used to escape?

I am not any specialist on the Borden case. Nor do I wish to read up extensively on it.

I took a brief look, and noticed that the doctor said, about Andrew Borden that "I do not think he could have been dead over half an hour".
So maybe we should not say 45 minutes? 30 minutes - or less - seemingly fits the bill better.

Anyway, Borden was still warm and still bleeding as the doctor arrived, and so we should perhaps take into account that his main arteries were not severed as they were in Nicholsīcase. Would that be correct?

The blood the doctor described was running fresh over the side of Bordens head, and it would proceed from there down onto the sofa in which he lay and into his clothes. And it would clot there.

I donīt know if the doctor described THAT blood?

... but I do know that in any normal case, the blood that leaves a vessel will come into contact with substances on the outer side of that vessel that will start the coagulation. And blood WILL coagulate in few minutes - under normal circumstances.

Of course, there will always be exceptions, just as I said in my post to Scott. But we can only work from the presumption that Nichols was physically normal, and indeed the clotting of the blood in her case, taken together with itīs still running five or six minutes after Nichols had been cut, paints a picture of a normal case to my ears.

Otherwise, I am perfectly fine with keeping a door open for things not having panned out the expected way in the Nichols case, when it comes to the blood. But I equally think that we must accept that if things did go down alongside the protocol of normality, then Lechmere ends up as the prime suspect, while there are no other suspects.

By the way, for blood to stay unclotted for 45 minutes, it will have to lack the chemical substances that ensure clotting, or it must be contained within the body with no wounds exposing it to air. In the latter case, blood can stay fluent for days even, although a breaking down process will set in eventually.

I donīt know if there is a tradition of blood food where you come from? There is where I come from - when the christmas pig was slaughtered in the olden days, itīs blood was let from the neck veins, and collected in a bucket. The blood was then used for blood bread, blood sausage and such things.

The important thing about this culinary excursion, however, is to point out what happened after the bucket was filled with blood: The blood was whipped frenetically and unceasingly, because otherwise it would clot and become useless for food production. That whipping started the second after the blood got into the bucket.

Blood clotting is a fast process and it sets in very quickly too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

From Illustrated Police News:The night was very dark. Witness and the other man left the woman, and in Baker's-row they saw Police-constable Mizen. They told him that a woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other man observed, "I think she's dead." The policeman replied, "All right." The other man, who appeared to be a carman, left witness soon afterwards.

Here we can see that Paul and Cross split up after they'd spoken, together, with Mizen. Cross goes on to say that he did not say a policeman wanted Mizen. That's unimportant anyway. Mizen was mistaken. This shows that Cross had a corroborating witness to what he just told the inquest. Difficult to lie here.

Mike

If it does not show that Paul was within earshot as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, then we canīt dub Paul a corroborating witness to that particular part...

...which is all that matters.

As for the equally uncorroborated "Mizen was mistaken"-nonsense, I have spent time enough on it already.

But thanks for not calling me dishonest again. Thatīs always something!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ok. I take it back Christer. Mizen did observe blood still running from Nichol's neck. Therefore she was cut VERY recently.

U-huh. Well, when you wrote that it was not correct to say that it was a proven thing that Mizen saw the blood on occasion number one and not after having fetched the ambulance, I actually thought that you were unhappy with the source. So thatīs why I asked.

As such, you are welcome to post any criticism of my thoughts, I actually welcome it and find it both necessary and useful. I am not quite the pitbull some think I am, and I am not quite as locked on target as some will have it. I think your description is the only way we can put the matter: Mizenīs observations establishes that the only reasonable suggestion is that Nichols had been cut very recently.
After that, I donīt doubt that there will be pathologists pointing out the wisdom in never saying never, both as regards the period of time for which the blood will have run from Nicholsī neck and as regards the time it would take for the blood to congeal (some people have less of a propensity to have their blood congealed; there are things like bleeding disease and blood-thinning substances).

Iīm fine with that, as long as we donīt loose sight of the fact that all things considered, a "normal" outcome of the bleeding time and the congealing of the blood seems to put Lechmere smack bang in the middle of the frame.

... and that is only the blood evidence, mind you!

So just keep it coming, Scott - so far, I have seen nothing but well grounded criticism from your part, regardless of who or what it is you have criticized.

I spend most of my time telling people that "ooze" can involve a significant stream of blood, that Lechmere actually can be described as having been found by the side of Polly Nichols and that giving a false namne but a real address must not point to bottomless stupidity, so you make for a very welcome change.
If the debate was not totally polarized and focused on uninteresting matters the way things have been, it would be a lot better.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rosella]

Whether it was oozing or not oozing Andrew Borden's blood was still bright red and unclotted 45 minutes after his murder.

[Fisherman]

Ooze is just a term to signify that the remaining presure is too low to force the blood out quickly with low pressure gravitational forces responsible for the movement of blood out of the body.

Bingo!

... but try to tell Robert that...!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Itīs not me using those synonyms interchangably, itīs your source, Robert. They SPECIFICALLY used the expression about that scratch in the forehead oozing blood, and then they listed synonyms for "oozed" IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT! Right?

Wrong!

Do you think that 'blood percolated from a long scratch on his forehead' or
'blood drained from a long scratch on his forehead' or 'blood leached from a long scratch on his forehead' make sense?

As for the episode of the lion, I stand by what I said : the idea of blood oozing profusely, is a nonsense.

Iīm afraid that the only intelligible reaction to having it proven to you that you have missed out on an expression is to admit that this happened. "Blood oozed profusely" has more than 800 hits on Google (!), some of them from the 18:th century, some from the 19:th and so on, following through right up til today. So itīs a used expression and one that is very hard to misunderstand. You can find "blood oozed heavily" (80 + hits) and "blood oozed in abundance", "blood oozed unstoppably" etcetera too.

To ooze is NOT just about small amounts, Robert. "Ooze" is not as much about the volume as it is about the speed of the flow.

As for your unwillingness to take on board the synonyms I posted, this is what I did:

I looked at the link you provided, telling me that it described what oozing was about. On the link, there were three links to synonyms to "ooze":

US English dictionary
English synonyms
US English synonyms

I chose "English synonyms", since you are so fond of British matters and quality.

Clicking on that link, I got:

Synonyms of ooze in English:

VERB
1 blood oozed from a long scratch on his forehead

seep, discharge, flow, exude, trickle, drip, dribble, issue, filter, percolate, escape, leak, drain, empty, bleed, sweat, well, leach;

Medicine extravasate
rare filtrate, transude, exudate

2 she was positively oozing charm
exude, gush, drip, pour forth, give out, send out, emit, breathe, let loose, display, exhibit, demonstrate, manifest

As far as I can tell, the sentence "blood oozed from a long scratch on his forehead" is used as an example of how the verb "oozed" can be used, and then a number of synonyms are listed. Iīm sure that some will be more and some less frequently used in combination with describing forehead scratches, but the fact of the matter is that the synonyms are listed in this exact context.

Whether I can rely on you or not to be the judge of things is somewhat unclear, since you repeatedly deny that the expression "blood oozed profusely" is anything but a contradiction in terms. Well, to be fair, you moved the goalposts and said that it could at least never be used when speaking about gaping wounds.
That was whan I produced that lion, and you started to go into denial again.

"Ooze" is a description of the speed of a flow, and the underlying pressure behind it. If there is no pressure, the flow will be of an oozing character. Just like I quoted from the net earlier, there was a guy who wrote that dead people do not bleed - they ooze blood.
That will be hitting the head of the nail, Robert.

The best,
Fisherman

[Batman]

Ooze is just a term to signify that the remaining presure is too low to force the blood out quickly with low pressure gravitational forces responsible for the movement of blood out of the body.

[Rosella]

I'm a poster on the Lizzie Borden Forum. Andrew Borden was murdered, admittedly by hatchet and not knife, at about 11am on August 4th 1892.

The testimony of the Medical Examiner for Fall River, Mass., Dr Dolan, was that he arrived at the Borden house at 11:45 am, some 45 minutes after Andrew's murder. He examined his head wounds and observed 'bright red blood' oozing (his words) from them. He also stated that blood was 'dripping' from the couch on which the body was found onto the carpet underneath. Andrew Borden's blood had not clotted in that time, though his wife's, killed at approx 9:30am, had.

On another detail, weren't there alleyways nearby in Bucks Row leading through Winthrop St to Whitechapel High St, past Brown Bros, the Ripper could have used to escape?

[The Good Michael]

From Illustrated Police News:The night was very dark. Witness and the other man left the woman, and in Baker's-row they saw Police-constable Mizen. They told him that a woman was lying in Buck's-row, witness adding, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk." The other man observed, "I think she's dead." The policeman replied, "All right." The other man, who appeared to be a carman, left witness soon afterwards.

Here we can see that Paul and Cross split up after they'd spoken, together, with Mizen. Cross goes on to say that he did not say a policeman wanted Mizen. That's unimportant anyway. Mizen was mistaken. This shows that Cross had a corroborating witness to what he just told the inquest. Difficult to lie here.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Robert;324905

As for the episode of the lion, I stand by what I said : the idea of blood oozing profusely, is a nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Like 'gushing trickle' and 'light downpour'?

Mike