Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

I have posed a similar question to Fisherman myself on this thread. I asked him how did his suspect know how to cut out Mary Kelly's heart. He didn't respond.

I donīt remember having seen that question, Richard. I can only assume, however, that you think that the removal of the heart proves that the killer had anatomical training or something such, is that correct?

Have you heard of the Ed Gingerich case? Gingerich was an amishman, who - as far as I know - had no anatomical training at all. When he killed his wife, this is what happened, as quoted from CrimeLibrary:

"After a few minutes, Ed dropped to his knees and undressed Katies body. Once all of her clothes were removed, he took a steak knife from the kitchen drawer and used it to make a seven-inch incision in her lower abdomen. Through the incision, Ed reached his hand up inside Katies body cavity, and removed her lungs, kidneys, stomach, liver, spleen, bladder, uterus and heart. He stacked all of her organs in a pile next to her body, and stuck the knife into the top of them."

Most people who read that, and who are of the meaning that cutting the heart out from a dead victim proves some sort of previously aquired anatomical skill, tend to change their minds.

I hope that answers your question.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

When was this pointed out to me?

Chambers Dictionary

Ooze - to flow gently, to percolate, as a liquid through pores or small openings, to leak.

Collins English Dictionary

Ooze - to flow or leak our slowly.

Oxford Dictionary of English

Ooze - slowly trickle or seep out of something.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary

Ooze - (of a fluid) slowly trickle or seep out.

Right, so now we all now what ooze means, we need to find out how long blood can ooze out of a neck wound in the circumstances described. And yes, fine, let's find out the difference between blood oozing out of a throat wound which causes death and one made after death (i.e. through strangulation). We can argue about which one applies to Nichols at our heart's content later but we need to know the science first.

I found this sentence on the net:

I guess that one could say that dead bodies don’t bleed so much as they ooze.

Makes sense to me.

As for the difference inbetween bleeding from a cut artery in a living person as opposed to in a dead person, the simple answer is that the blood will leave a living person at a quicker rate, due to the pressure in the veins.

Returning to the initial post by Trevors pathologist, he said that "Getting back to the specific case in question, if the body were lying motionless on the ground with significant open neck wounds then I would imagine that at least a few hundred millilitres (and probably considerably more) could flow out passively, and that this would happen within the initial couple of minutes."

Here he obviously refers to the specific Nichols case, relating how the body was situated (lying motionless on the ground) and the extent of the damage done to the neck (significant open neck wounds). He then adds that in such a case (and this relates to a case such as the Nichols case) he would imagine that an amount of at least a few hundred millilitres of blood - and probably considerably more - could flow out passively.
So here he tells us that the amount of blood that could flow out passively (as in after death and with no pressure from a beating heart) could range in amount from a few hundred millilitres up to "considerably more", the latter amount not being specified.
Regardless of the amount, though, he says that "this would happen within the initial couple of minutes".

If he had said no more than this, we would not be having any discussion over the matter, for it would be totally clear that he said "In a case like the Polly Nichols case, whatever amount of blood left the body passively afterwards, would leave it in the initial couple of minutes.

However, the pathologist says a few more things, that veil this issue to some extent.

For example, he says that "It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound /gravity conditions were right, ending up with even a few litres of blood being present in extreme circumstances."

Does this passage relate to the Nichols murder, or is it a general observation? Does he think that Nichols, specifically, could have bled for many minutes on account of the "wound/gravity conditions" being right?

The interesting thing is that the pathologist KNEW the wound/gravity conditions in Nichols case. He just established them: She was lying motionless on the ground (correct) and had significant open neck wounds (correct). And he clearly said that with these parameters in place, he would imagine the bleeding to be overwith within the initial couple of minutes.

The question about what sort of wound/gravity conditions would enable a slow trickle of blood to go on is an interesting one. I would suggest that the wound conditions that could slow the process down would be of two types:
1. A situation where the blood outflow was in any way hampered by some sort of obstacle. And we know that this was not in play, just as we know that the pathologist suggested that Nichols position (lying motionless flat on the ground) would be a parameter that made him expect a quick bleeding out in her particular case.
2. A positioning of the body that meant that a greater amount of blood would leave it than the position lying flat down on the ground. The more vertical the position of the body, the more blood would leave it, predisposing that the wound through which the blood leaked out was positioned as near to the coere of the earth as possible, while the exact reverse applies if that wound was as far away from the core of the earth as possible.
If we decapitate a body (thereīs that decapitation again, Trevor!) and hang it feet up, the exsanguination will be very full. Almost every drop of blood will leave the body, and that will take some time.
If we position that decapitated body with the neck up, very little blood will leave the body, and it will happen in a very short time.
So this is where gravitation comes in.

It is interesting information, and it belongs to the discussion, but it does not apply to the Nichols case. In that case, the pathologist made his call by saying "Getting back to the specific case (Nichols, my remark) in question, if the body were lying motionless on the ground with significant open neck wounds (and it was, my remark) then I would imagine that at least a few hundred millilitres (and probably considerably more) could flow out passively, and that this would happen within the initial couple of minutes."

So what the pathologist says is "watch out - there can be factors to weigh in that may have an impact, and that I could have missed since I never saw the body". Wise enough - but as far as we can tell, he made a one hundred per cent correct description of it.

The same thing applies when he speaks of the twenty minute bleeding, as far as I can tell. He canīt first say "In a case like Nicholsī case, I would expect the bleeding to be over within the initial couple of minutes", and then say "Iīm sure she could have bled for twenty minutes" in the next breath. For her to have bled for twenty minutes we need to have another gravity influx than the one we know we had, and/or other circumstances attaching to the wound than we know we had.

In a sense, the discussion is beginning to resemble the discussion about what Phillips said about Chapmans TOD, where people suggest that the doctor would first say that she had been dead at least two hours, only to then disqualify his own judgement in the next second, without anybody having challenged him, and allowing for just one hour.
He would, according to these merry speculators, have gone into an inquest after having made a very thorough investigation, after having weighed the matter carefully, and said "I have taken a good look at this and with the aid of my professional experience, I have come to the conclusion that this woman could not have been dead for any less than two hours. I personally think that she actually has been dead for a significantly longer time, but I am willing to accept that it COULD have been for just two hours.
But hey, maybe she has just been dead for an hour or less."

Trevors pathologist gives us a lesson about what factors will be important, and points out that in cases involving deathly violence to the neck, depending on the circumstances, the victims can bleed for very varying amounts of time after having suffered their neck damages.

But he ALSO telles us, that in the specific case of Nichols, if she was lying motionless, flat on the ground and if her neck damages were significant and with open blood vessels, then he "would imagine" that she would bleed out in the initial couple of minutes.

I fail to see how he could have been any clearer on that particular score.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Hi David

Then you will have to forgive me because I'm not quite sure what it is you are getting at.

Well, for example, as I wrote in my post #1014:

"I'm not actually expecting to establish a precise time of death here for Nichols. What I'm wondering is if it is possible for a forensic pathologist to give a "not before" time of death based on continuing blood flow. In other words, if, at midnight, a forensic pathologist examines a dead body from which blood is still flowing from a neck wound, can that forensic pathologist tell the police "this person was definitely killed (or at least had their throat cut) after 11pm"?. Or can he/she do better and say after 11:30pm, or after 11:40pm? Can the police with confidence then focus only on suspects who don't have an alibi for this time period."

I don't see any cherry picking in Trevor's posts, he has simply pointed out the variables involved, we, and the experts were not there.

Did I accuse Trevor of cherry picking? I thought my point was very simple. We need more information from the expert to clarify his own words. I assume that the expert knows what he was trying to say. The problem is that I don't (and, from what I have read in this thread, no-one else is certain either). So it doesn't matter whether the expert was there or not because I am not asking anything now about the actual murder of Mary Ann Nichols. I know there are variables involved because the expert has said so, but the expert has not explained the practical effect of those variables, i.e. whether they will shorten or increase the duration of the blood flow.

[martin wilson]

Hi David

Then you will have to forgive me because I'm not quite sure what it is you are getting at.
I don't see any cherry picking in Trevor's posts, he has simply pointed out the variables involved, we, and the experts were not there.
All the best.

[David Orsam]

Hi David

You may have to settle for being right that TOD can be established by the evidence given certain conditions.
And accept that Trevor is right that TOD cannot be established from THIS evidence.
All the best.

Hi Martin,

Read my posts again. I'm not trying to establish time of death!!!

[martin wilson]

Hi David

You may have to settle for being right that TOD can be established by the evidence given certain conditions.
And accept that Trevor is right that TOD cannot be established from THIS evidence.
All the best.

[David Orsam]

" This is one of those ‘piece of string’ questions"

Yes, I read that at the time and have taken it into consideration. But (1) that does not answer the question of what is the maximum amount of time that such oozing is physically possible bearing in mind the nature of blood, the amount of blood in a human body, and the laws of physics (2) it is not clear if the 'piece of string' reference is a mention to the various different scenarios that your expert has referred to (such as clamping v non clamping etc.) so that while certain time ranges can (?) be stated for certain scenarios, the expert was saying that one time does not fit all and (3) despite the 'piece of string' reference, your expert nevertheless did provide us with a time for which blood can flow, of twenty minutes, and I am hoping he can clarify what he meant by that - whether that is the maximum or whether it can go on for (much) longer - and whether the caveats he also mentioned would tend to reduce the time that such flow is possible.

[Trevor Marriott]

When was this pointed out to me?

Chambers Dictionary

Ooze - to flow gently, to percolate, as a liquid through pores or small openings, to leak.

Collins English Dictionary

Ooze - to flow or leak our slowly.

Oxford Dictionary of English

Ooze - slowly trickle or seep out of something.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary

Ooze - (of a fluid) slowly trickle or seep out.

Right, so now we all now what ooze means, we need to find out how long blood can ooze out of a neck wound in the circumstances described. And yes, fine, let's find out the difference between blood oozing out of a throat wound which causes death and one made after death (i.e. through strangulation). We can argue about which one applies to Nichols at our heart's content later but we need to know the science first.

We are never going to be able to conclusively prove that. This was a question I first put to the expert

1. How long does blood keep flowing/seeping from a wound where a victim had their throat cut, which has resulted in death? I know previously you did say that sometimes the blood flow would be internal however this is a different scenario.

Here is the firs part of that reply which has already been posted in full previous

First part of reply

" This is one of those ‘piece of string’ questions"

Maybe now this issue can be put to bed !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

As has been pointed out to you there is a big difference between flowing and oozing.

When was this pointed out to me?

Chambers Dictionary

Ooze - to flow gently, to percolate, as a liquid through pores or small openings, to leak.

Collins English Dictionary

Ooze - to flow or leak our slowly.

Oxford Dictionary of English

Ooze - slowly trickle or seep out of something.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary

Ooze - (of a fluid) slowly trickle or seep out.

Right, so now we all now what ooze means, we need to find out how long blood can ooze out of a neck wound in the circumstances described. And yes, fine, let's find out the difference between blood oozing out of a throat wound which causes death and one made after death (i.e. through strangulation). We can argue about which one applies to Nichols at our heart's content later but we need to know the science first.

[Trevor Marriott]

This paragraph is incomprehensible to me. If the expert says that blood can only flow from the neck wound of a motionless corpse for up to 20 minutes - and we know it was still flowing at 3:45 when PC Neil observed it doing so (or "oozing") - then how can you possibly say that the murder could have taken place 40 minutes before the body was found????? It doesn't make any sense to me, unless you are separating the time between strangulation and the cutting of the throat which seems unlikely in the extreme. I mean, this is the entire issue that I am trying to establish - can the blood run from a neck wound in these circumstances for 40 minutes?

But we dont know it was still "flowing" for sure at 3.45am all we have to go on are various descriptions of what the witnesses saw. Much of which conflicts with each other.

I am not supporting the strangulation theory I am keeping all options open but this must be considered as must the fact that she simply had her throat cut and that was the cause of death

As has been pointed out to you there is a big difference between flowing and oozing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

I know nothing of these matters, but I would assume that gravity would influence the flow both in the obvious sense that blood would leave a body, and in the sense of where it left it from, i.e. Nichols's left artery was cut first, and blood would have started to issue from that side, but then her right side was cut too and, since the pavement sloped down to the gutter, we don't know whether blood would have issued in equal amounts from both arteries or whether the blood would tend to 'bunch up' and flow more from her right side than from her left. And then, maybe the state of nourishment of the body and state of the blood might have an effect? I don't know, but all we can tell the experts is that the neck was...(give Llewellyn's evidence)...with possibility but not certainty of strangulation....and see what they say.

[David Orsam]

This 20 minute issue is being blown up out of all proportion in my opinion. The fact is of what relevance is 20 mins in reality, in relation the murder, because we do not know the actual time of death so the murder could have taken place 40 mins before the body was found, and if that be the case then what the witness saw at the crime scene would likely to still be the same as if the victim had been murdered only 20 mins before.

This paragraph is incomprehensible to me. If the expert says that blood can only flow from the neck wound of a motionless corpse for up to 20 minutes - and we know it was still flowing at 3:45 when PC Neil observed it doing so (or "oozing") - then how can you possibly say that the murder could have taken place 40 minutes before the body was found????? It doesn't make any sense to me, unless you are separating the time between strangulation and the cutting of the throat which seems unlikely in the extreme. I mean, this is the entire issue that I am trying to establish - can the blood run from a neck wound in these circumstances for 40 minutes?

[David Orsam]

Thanks Trevor, that's cleared that up.

Hold on, how has it cleared anything up? Trevor has simply given us his interpretation of what we have all already read from the expert. Why don't we wait for the expert to respond before coming to conclusions?

[martin wilson]

Hi all

Thanks Trevor, that's cleared that up.

I think Fish is going off Paul because if Cross was the killer, his evidence would be obviously unreliable.
Still, Bucks Row is an unlikely place to get your doss money, back to the Whitechapel Road, 3 or 4 minutes to Durward street (google maps) and 11 minutes from Doveton Street, so 15 minutes approx, give Fish's lad 5 minutes to meet Polly, and then in Bucks Row kill her and we get much closer to 3.45. given a 3.20 start that is, but logistics aside, how do we know what time he left if he was lying?
All the best.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not actually expecting to establish a precise time of death here for Nichols. What I'm wondering is if it is possible for a forensic pathologist to give a "not before" time of death based on continuing blood flow. In other words, if, at midnight, a forensic pathologist examines a dead body from which blood is still flowing from a neck wound, can that forensic pathologist tell the police "this person was definitely killed (or at least had their throat cut) after 11pm"?. Or can he/she do better and say after 11:30pm, or after 11:40pm? Can the police with confidence then focus only on suspects who don't have an alibi for this time period.

Also, while I have accepted that a forensic pathologist may not want to give answers in respect of the specifics of this case, I can't see why he or she would not be able to tell us in the hypothetical example of a woman of about 5 foot 3 inches who is strangled to death, then has her throat cut to the point of near decapitation and is then placed with her back to the ground and not moved, whether it would be possible in those hypothetical circumstances to say how long the blood would be expected to flow from the neck wound (and whether there is a maximum time beyond which such oozing would simply not be possible).

I have sent a further question to the expert but he has already said that time of death cannot be determined by looking at a wound or by calculating blood loss

This 20 minute issue is being blown up out of all proportion in my opinion. The fact is of what relevance is 20 mins in reality, in relation the murder, because we do not know the actual time of death so the murder could have taken place 40 mins before the body was found, and if that be the case then what the witness saw at the crime scene would likely to still be the same as if the victim had been murdered only 20 mins before.

Fish is trying to make a very tenuous link to Cross being the killer by simply relying on the witnesses who saw the body, and as we see they give varying accounts with regards to blood loss from the wound and blood around the body.

In two separate answers the expert has stated that blood can continue to seep out of the body for "sometime after death" and does mention up to twenty minutes. I dont think there is a way to pin "for sometime" to a specific time frame for reasons previously stated.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk