Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

David Orsam:

I don't even know what that above sentence means! I'm not making any point about the congealed blood!!! Are you quite sure you have understood me Fisherman?

Yes, I am. And I am equally quite sure that you fail to see the crucial point I am making. If you donīt know what I mean (and I think that is the case), do not despair - an explanation is on itīs way!

The focus in your response on the congealed blood I find baffling. My mention of the Star's report, which referred to the congealed blood, was no more than a passing one in the first place and I only mentioned it in my last post because you seemed to be having difficulty understanding what I described as the contradictory nature of the Star and Standard reports.

The Standard? Was it not the Post? Anyway, rest assured that I see what you are speaking of. My problem is that you will not take on board that no matter how much and how long you speak of these matters, it will do nobody no good since no certainty can be reached until we bring the blood evidence into the discussion.

To clarify that: if you were a reader of the Star in September 1888 you would have believed that Mizen said the blood he saw was "somewhat congealed" whereas if you were a reader of the Standard you would have believed he said it "appeared fresh".

And if you were a medico, you would not bat an eyebrow, since BOTH things can and will coincide in time, to the second.

In other words, two separate accounts which, on their face, are contradictory even if it is possible to reconcile them.

No, they are not contradictory at all, David! Not in the least, in fact.

While that was all I was saying about that - and I regard it as wholly uncontroversial - I cannot resist adding that no newspaper report stated that Mizen said that the blood he saw was both "fresh" AND "congealed" and, rather amusingly, your own reconstruction of Mizen's evidence did NOT have him saying that either, so clearly you had a difficulty in reconciling both observations in a sensible way - but let's not worry about that because I repeat I am not making any point relating to the congealed nature of the blood and nothing I have said rests on it.

I have no trouble at all reconciling the two statements - but you apparently fail to see this? I have explained if more than one time, but here goes again:

Your body is a smart construction, David. It "knows" that you run the risk of having it punctured, and it has therefore come up with a solution to the problem of the blood that will leave your body unless something is done about it. The solution os coagulation - when a vessel is opened up, the blood that leaves that vessel will come in contact with coagulants on the outside of the vessel. This contact will in seconds start a coagulation, with the ultimate aim to "close the door" to your body.

This is EXACTLY what lies behind what you see as an anomaly in Mizenīs case: As longs as there was blood in her vessels and a reason of gravity for that blood to exit these vessels, fresh blood (as per Jonas M) will have flowed out of the opened-up vessels.

When that blood exited the vessels, though, it came in contact with the coagulants on the outer side of the vessels, and as the blood ended up in the pool unerneath Nichols, an inevitable process of coagulation had started in all the blood of that pool. So the pool would start to coagulate! It would not, however, turn into a "congealed mass" (as per John T) before the bloodflow was over! Instead, it would visibly start to congel within around three minutes, and then that process would increase over time. But the blood that flowed out of the neck wound would NOT be congealed, since it had only just passed the openings in the vessels - that blood would need the same three minutes to congeal as the blood that had exited her neck earlier.

So as long as you have blood running into a blood pool, that pool will remain uncongealed to an extent until no more blood is added. After the last drop of blood has ended up in the pool, it will settle and congeal, the process taking around seven minutes to get fully congealed, and after that the blood will more and more solidify, and if it is left untouched it will dry up totally.

So when Mizen saw the pool, it was "somewhat congealed", meaning that around three minutes or more had passed since the first blood exited Nichols neck and ended up on the pavement, whereas when Thain saw the pool, the blood had long since stopped flowing, and the pool had been left to first fully coagulate, and then to solidify into a congealed mass.

The best,
Fisherman

That is the single most irrelevant and off-point post I have read since I joined this forum. It has virtually nothing to do with what I wrote.

To pick up the only two points that related to my post:

1. "The Standard? Was it not the Post?" Check out my thread on the Witnesses board entitled "Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence". I point out that the reports of Mizen's evidence are the same in the Evening Standard as in the Morning Post and Morning Advertiser, so just one reporter involved here.

2. "And if you were a medico, you would not bat an eyebrow, since BOTH things can and will coincide in time, to the second." That is simply wrong! The premise I was outlining was in respect of someone who read only the Star or the only the Standard. If you were a medico who read only the Star then you would know that Mizen said the blood appeared congealed but you would have no idea that he said it appeared fresh. Likewise, if the medico only read the Standard he would know that Mizen said the blood appeared fresh but would have no idea that he also said it was congealed. So two different medicos reading the two different papers would walk away with contradictory impressions of what Mizen said. I'll say the next bit again in capital letters: YES IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO RECONCILE THE TWO but you first need the information about both the congealed blood and the fresh blood to know that there is anything to reconcile.

Your subsequent tutorial on congealed blood was a waste of time because I am not making any positive (or negative) point about the congealing of the blood. Surely you must understand that. If you think I have made such a point please quote it!

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: And that quote makes my point for me perfectly!!! It shows you have dramatically changed your tune. Previously you were saying that the report in the Echo "proves" the time Mizen saw Nichols bleeding. In fact, you previously said "there IS an article that very firmly establishes exactly when it was Mizen looked at the body!" You couldn't have been clearer. There was one single article which cleared up the whole business. That was the Echo.

Now you are saying we have to weigh in "all of the material". Well that wasn't what you were saying before - and that is my ONLY point.

Yes. The article clarifies the whole thing once we look at it in the context surrounding the matter. Itīs all very simple. Without context, no version will yield anything at all of value.

To summarise the position, you have asked us to believe that Mizen said the words: "No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter" in response to the question "Was there anyone else there then?" asked by the coroner.

No, I have not. The one thing that was said in response to the coroners question was of course the information that there was nobody else in place. The rest of what Mizen said was very obviously not in direct response to that question. But since when are PC:s forbidden to offer information on their own accord...?

Just from reading it one can see that it is HIGHLY unlikely that Mizen would have answered the coroner's question in this way - describing something he has not been asked about - but when one realises that it is inconsistent with the evidence as summarised in other newspaper reports, it becomes untenable and thus fairly described as 'ridiculous'.

You may think so, but - once again - it only becomes TRULY ridiculous when we ponder the alternative: That Mizen claimed that there was fresh blood running from Nicholsī wound down into a pool that according to his colleague was a "congealed mass"! Now THAT`S ridiculous!

We have already noticed how Mizenīs narrative does NOT follow a straight timeline. If he had not been asked about the blood earlier by either coroner or jury, and if he then noticed that he had let the story roll on without mentioning what he considered valuable evidence, what was he to do?
Ask the coroner to rewind the inquest?
Or simply fit the information in AFTER other parts that were chronologically placed afterwards?
Are we to think that he would have skipped it over, since he had come too long in his story ( Oh, sod it, I forgot - well, no use doing so now!), or could it be that he was recalled in his mind to the earlier events by the coroners question?

I know what I think! And what I think is in line with the blood evidence. What you think is in line with Alice in Wonderland, Iīm afraid.

Unless you are able to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the Echo report ALONE proves when Mizen saw the blood then that itself proves the point I have been making over the last couple of days.

I am very little interested in semantic quibbles. The blood evidence is vague - until you see the Echo. But it must be coupled with the surrounding evidence. Thatīs when this article becomes the dealmaker, and thatīs when we can establish when and what the whole business is about. If you think that I made an unforgivable mistake by not stating this rather obvious fact from the outset, then be my guest.

If you put forward a strong case that Mizen saw the blood when he first arrived on the scene, it's not enough because you said you had proved the point.

The point IS proven, as far as Iīm concerned. I have come to realize that you do not accept this - and I have learnt to live with it. It bothers me very little, luckily.

If you do actually prove that Mizen saw the blood when he first arrived on the scene but do so using evidence other than the Echo report then that is still not enough because you said you had proved it from the Echo report! You see my point now?

Yes - and I have for the longest done so. And I have for the exact same span of time regarded it as uninteresting. Iīm sorry, David, but the realities, the facts, the context is of much larger interest to me than somebody nitpicking about expressions of mine. Per se, I can be fascinated by such matters, but not in the respect that I think it has anything at all to do with a useful discussion of the case.

I end by asking you whether in all honesty and in good faith - having considered the points I have made - you still maintain that the Echo report on its own proves the time when Mizen saw the blood and has cleared the whole thing up. If you can't say that - and, frankly, I know you can't - then this particular line of debate closed.

Ah! I LIKE that suggestion! I will therefore not say anything at all as an answer to you on this particular question; to a little extent because I have given my answer already and donīt think that I can expand further on it without falling asleep, but to a much larger extent because I really, REALLY want the discussion to revolve around important matters instead of misconceptions and semantical quibbles. Above all, I think itīs time that the context of the issue is understood.

That should be bleedinī obvious, if you excuse the pun.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

That is the single most irrelevant and off-point post I have read since I joined this forum.

Techincally, you could be right - but only up until you answered it ...

You quoted from the Evening Post. Whether other papers had the same article is another thing. When you single out and source a paper, that is the paper that we should speak of.

I know that two people reading two different articles will come away with different impressions. It was always so, and so it will always be.

But how is it interesting to this debate????????

Surely, it must be a lot more valuabe to point to how your posts may mislead people into believing that "fresh blood" and "somewhat congealed blood" can and will coexist?

But you know, David, I am beginning to realize that such matters are secondary to you. I will therefore leave it to you to carry on the discussion about whether different articles will make diffent impressions on people. Iīm sure people will be totally fascinated with such groundbreaking thinking.

The field is yours. Goodnight!

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, perhaps you can help me here. I am visualising two pools of blood : one by her head (underneath her, I think was your expression) and that was congealed. And then there is a second pool in the gutter, which is being fed by blood oozing/running or otherwise exiting from her throat. The blood in the gutter, being the blood that first exited her neck, should have been as congealed as the blood by her head/underneath her. If it wasn't as congealed as the blood underneath her, that would suggest that Neil or Paul did move her in some way, and thereby started another blood flow.

[David Orsam]

I am very little interested in semantic quibbles.

That's amusing. I made it crystal clear what I was saying at the outset of this discussion and you initally seemed interested in responding.

My post 1259: "In post #1107 in this thread, Fisherman claimed to demonstrate conclusively that "The time at which Jonas Mizen saw blood running from Nichols neck towards the gutter was when he INITIALLY arrived at the murder site". I am going to demonstrate that this claim is seriously flawed."

And then I said:

"Now, Fisherman's big point is that the report of the Echo shows that Mizen DID see blood flowing from Nichols' throat at the time he first arrived on the scene. But, in fact, it does no such thing."

That was the entire basis of my original post. That's all I was saying, i.e. that the report in the Echo does not demonstrate anything conclusively. It is an edited summary only and it's just not clear from it what Mizen was saying. As I concluded in my original post:

"I do not claim to know when Mizen saw the blood but that, as I said in post #1003, the position is not clear".

My only other response to your post is in respect of this sentence of yours:

"You may think so, but - once again - it only becomes TRULY ridiculous when we ponder the alternative: That Mizen claimed that there was fresh blood running from Nicholsī wound down into a pool that according to his colleague was a "congealed mass"! Now THAT`S ridiculous!"

Firstly, you have entirely overlooked my point that Mizen might have seen the blood when he returned to the crime scene after having summoned the body of Nichols. In all your long posts, that is something on which you have been completely silent. Secondly, as I already pointed out to you, and I think you now accept, the evidence of Thain to which you refer was in respect of the time the blood was being washed away. At that time, Thain said that "blood was running into the gutter" and that "On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood". What we have from Mizen's evidence in the Star is: "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed". Mizen does not say anything about whether the pool of blood was underneath the body or not (although I recall that in your reconstruction he WAS saying that) but, as far as I am concerned, both those observations are practically identical and could easily describe the same scene, albeit that the body was absent from Thain's description, so there was no throat for blood to run from. Subject to that, if we add the word "somewhat" into Thain's evidence (i.e. "a mass of somewhat congealed blood") then they are absolutely identical. So Mizen could have been describing what he saw after Nichols' body was removed to the ambulance. But it could have been when he returned to the scene after summoning the ambulance or when he first arrived at the scene.

I might just add that I no longer know why this all even matters.

[David Orsam]

You quoted from the Evening Post. Whether other papers had the same article is another thing. When you single out and source a paper, that is the paper that we should speak of.

As far as I recall, I only quoted the Evening Post in my original post in this discussion. The report in that paper says:

"Police-constable Mizen said that on Friday morning, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker’s-row, at the corner of Hanbury-street. A man passed, who looked like a carman, and said “You are wanted round in Buck’s-row”. A carman was brought in court, and witness said he was the man. He went round and found Police-constable Neil with the deceased. At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck."

So when I referred to the Standard I'm sure I did mean the Standard not the Evening Post.

Surely, it must be a lot more valuabe to point to how your posts may mislead people into believing that "fresh blood" and "somewhat congealed blood" can and will coexist?

To me - and I'm sure to everyone - it's obvious that, at a crime scene, you can have fresh blood coming from a body and then, separately, some older blood which has previously flowed from the body and has congealed but you can't have fresh, congealed blood. It's a contradiction in terms.

I will therefore leave it to you to carry on the discussion about whether different articles will make diffent impressions on people.

Well you were the one who confidently and boldy claimed on this board that the report in the Echo proved when Mizen saw the blood. I simply demonstrated, as I was perfectly entitled to do, that it does no such thing - and then defended that position. I realise why you don't like that but I must say I am a little disappointed in you that you didn't just accept it, take it on the chin, and move on.

[GUT]

To me - and I'm sure to everyone - it's obvious that, at a crime scene, you can have fresh blood coming from a body and then, separately, some older blood which has previously flowed from the body and has congealed but you can't have fresh, congealed blood. It's a contradiction in terms.

Sorry David but blood that has just started to congeal could easily be described, I think, as fresh(ly) congealed.

[David Orsam]

Sorry David but blood that has just started to congeal could easily be described, I think, as fresh(ly) congealed.

I don't disagree but I don't believe it affects what I said. You needed to add the "ly" to make your point. I am saying you cant have blood - the same blood - which is both fresh and congealed at the same time.

Another way of putting it, I think, is that you can't have congealed, fresh blood. No room for a "ly" there!

In any case, don't think Fisherman or anyone else is saying that Mizen was referring to freshly congealed blood. The report in the Standard was that the blood "appeared fresh".

[Robert]

The person we are concerned with must be a risk-taker, quick-witted, resourceful, with a very strong gift for improvisation and total faith that, whatever happens, he will somehow be able to turn it to his advantage.

That's Fish. As for Crossmere.....

[David Orsam]

Firstly, you have entirely overlooked my point that Mizen might have seen the blood when he returned to the crime scene after having summoned the body of Nichols.

Tsk, just noticed a silly error. That sentence in #1295 should have read:

Firstly, you have entirely overlooked my point that Mizen might have seen the blood when he returned to the crime scene after having summoned the ambulance to collect the body of Nichols.

[Fisherman]

Fish, perhaps you can help me here. I am visualising two pools of blood : one by her head (underneath her, I think was your expression) and that was congealed. And then there is a second pool in the gutter, which is being fed by blood oozing/running or otherwise exiting from her throat. The blood in the gutter, being the blood that first exited her neck, should have been as congealed as the blood by her head/underneath her. If it wasn't as congealed as the blood underneath her, that would suggest that Neil or Paul did move her in some way, and thereby started another blood flow.

I always try to help out, Robert, you know that - but I am not as sure that you always appreciate my help....?

You have in fact posted the answer to your question yourself, when you earlier quoted the Star: There was only one pool.

The blood in the gutter - which was not described as a pool - was fed by the pool under ner neck. Since blood was running towards the gutter from the pool under her neck, we must accept that the pool under her neck had been filled to a degree where it could not hold any more blood, and so it spilled over.

The fact that this blood, running towards the gutter, did not form a pool there, is testimony to how the bloodflow from the neck would have ended.

Informative example of comparison:

Put a soup bowl on top of a molehill. Fill the spou bowl with blood, up to the brim. Then add a spoonful more blood. That spoonful cannot be accomodated inside the soup bowl, that is already full. Instead, it will run over the brim, and down the side of the molehill. Since there will have been surface tension on the blood filling up the soup bowl, a lillte more than just a spoonful of blood will run down the side of the molehill, but all in all, it will not be enough to form a pool on the groun below the molehill. Perhaps it will not even reach the ground, instead just leaving a red brushstroke of blood alongside the molehill.

The things I will do for you, Robert! One would only have wished that you appreciated it more.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David Orsam:

That's amusing. I made it crystal clear what I was saying at the outset of this discussion and you initally seemed interested in responding.

You know, David, every once in a while when we think we have been crystal clear, others do not agree. I thought you were offering a discussion on the whole matter, and not just on some sort of veiled semantic point.

My post 1259: "In post #1107 in this thread, Fisherman claimed to demonstrate conclusively that "The time at which Jonas Mizen saw blood running from Nichols neck towards the gutter was when he INITIALLY arrived at the murder site". I am going to demonstrate that this claim is seriously flawed."

And then I said:

"Now, Fisherman's big point is that the report of the Echo shows that Mizen DID see blood flowing from Nichols' throat at the time he first arrived on the scene. But, in fact, it does no such thing."

That was the entire basis of my original post. That's all I was saying, i.e. that the report in the Echo does not demonstrate anything conclusively. It is an edited summary only and it's just not clear from it what Mizen was saying. As I concluded in my original post:

"I do not claim to know when Mizen saw the blood but that, as I said in post #1003, the position is not clear".

... and I still say that the article in the Echo is what tells us how the whole thing went down. Without it, we would end up at the mercy of people who will be totally fundamentalistic about in which order a sequence of events is presented. The Echo opens up for an understanding of why this is the totally wrong approach.
But didnīt you say that you would leave the topic? How about coming good on that promise?

My only other response to your post is in respect of this sentence of yours:

"You may think so, but - once again - it only becomes TRULY ridiculous when we ponder the alternative: That Mizen claimed that there was fresh blood running from Nicholsī wound down into a pool that according to his colleague was a "congealed mass"! Now THAT`S ridiculous!"

Firstly, you have entirely overlooked my point that Mizen might have seen the blood when he returned to the crime scene after having summoned the body of Nichols.

No, I have not. You wrote it, I read it. And then I noticed that you nevertheless go on about a "possibility" that was never there. So while I am happy about you recognizing that Mizen "may" (ha!) have seen the blood in moment one, I am much less happy that you have not yeat discarded that he could have seen it in moment two. He could not - the blood was a congealed mass by then.

In all your long posts, that is something on which you have been completely silent. Secondly, as I already pointed out to you, and I think you now accept, the evidence of Thain to which you refer was in respect of the time the blood was being washed away. At that time, Thain said that "blood was running into the gutter" and that "On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood". What we have from Mizen's evidence in the Star is: "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed". Mizen does not say anything about whether the pool of blood was underneath the body or not (although I recall that in your reconstruction he WAS saying that) but, as far as I am concerned, both those observations are practically identical and could easily describe the same scene, albeit that the body was absent from Thain's description, so there was no throat for blood to run from. Subject to that, if we add the word "somewhat" into Thain's evidence (i.e. "a mass of somewhat congealed blood") then they are absolutely identical. So Mizen could have been describing what he saw after Nichols' body was removed to the ambulance. But it could have been when he returned to the scene after summoning the ambulance or when he first arrived at the scene.

Wrong. Again. And you leave out a number of important factors.

Letīs look at the sequence of events, shall we?

"...witness was despatched for a doctor. About ten minutes after he had fetched the surgeon he saw two workmen standing with Neale. He did not know who they were. The body was taken to the mortuary, and witnessed remained on the spot."

This is about Thain. It seems he returned with the doctor, and ten minutes afterwards, two workmen had come along. Then the body was taken to the mortuary. And then the blood was washed away, immediately afterwards:

She saw her son go out, directly the body was removed, with a pail of water to wash the stains of blood away.
(Morning Advertiser)

Llewellyns examination was a shortish affair:

"The doctor looked at the woman, and then said, "Move the woman to the mortuary. She is dead, and I will make a further examination of her." We then placed her on the ambulance, and moved her there."
(Morning Advertiser)

From Llewellyns own testimony, we know that he felt the hands and arms for warmth and also the chest. But that was about it, apparently.

Now, when was Llewellyn in place? At 4.10, just about. And when did Mizen go to fetch the ambulance? at 3.50, just about. How long did it take to fetch it? Twenty minutes or slightly more. So when would Mizen be back with it? At 4.10, or slightly thereafter.

Apparently, the ambulance was there and ready to go when Llewellyn had finishedlooking at Nichols, something that would have taken very short time - he intended to examine her thoroughly at the mortuary, and just established that she was dead. And he felt her for warmth to find out if she was long dead.

(Question: If she had been still bleeding when Llewellyn saw her, would he have any reason at all to feel her for warmth in sucha case? No, he would not - he would know that she was very recently dead in such a case, it would have been a matter of minutes only.)

So what do we have? We have Llewellyn arriving at 4.10, or thereabouts, and performing his examination. We have Mizen joining the party with the ambulance at the same time, justabout. We then have Nichols lifted onto the ambulance directly after Llewellyn had finished, and immediately thereafther James Green went to work, bucket and broom in hand.

It is one flowing sequence. And as Green started to clean the blood away, it was a congealed mass. And that remove in time would be very close to the remove in time in which Mizen arrived with the ambulance.

This is NOT a scene where fresh-appearing blood is running from the wound in Nichols throat, and ends up in a pool of blood that is only somewhat congealed.

Your suggestion - if we add the word "somewhat" into Thain's evidence (i.e. "a mass of somewhat congealed blood") then they are absolutely identical - does not work. To begin with, why would we add "somewhat" to what Thain said in the first place? He said that it was a clot of blood. It was a congealed blood mass. The blood had set into a clot.

That is not "somewhat congealed" blood, so why on earth would we add the word "somewhat" to Thains take? And, more importantly, Mizen said that the blood was still running from her neck and appeared fresh! The blood is NOT still running as Llewellyn sees her! At that stage, the blood has set into that clot.

I might just add that I no longer know why this all even matters.

Perhaps because you just cannot let your misconception go, although you have been shown that it is completely nuts?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David Orsam:

To me - and I'm sure to everyone - it's obvious that, at a crime scene, you can have fresh blood coming from a body and then, separately, some older blood which has previously flowed from the body and has congealed but you can't have fresh, congealed blood. It's a contradiction in terms.

Dear me! How hard can it be to understand, David? The blood in the pool under Nichols had BOTH fresh and congealing blood in it when Mizen saw it! Yes, that CAN be the case, and it undoubtedly WAS the case here.

You must think of the blood in the pool as a collection of blood entities. Try and imagine the blood as a series of cubic centimeters of blood that had all come from Nicholsīneck, but at different removes in time. The first cubic centimeter that had hit the ground was the one that had been in the pool for the longest time, perhaps six minutes. The next cubic centimeter had been in the pool for a slightly shorter period of time. And then there was the whole scale of cubic centimeters. The last one had only been in the pool for a few seconds as Mizen saw it.

Now, the first cubic centimeter had been congealing for six minutes. The last had not even started congealing. What will that produce?

Think of making scrambled eggs, David; you break six eggs into a pot and you heat it on the stove. Here, you get the exact opposite to the blood reaction when it comes to temperature. The blood will coagulate as it cools, but the eggs will "coagulate" as they are heated.
In the beginning, it will all look like a fresh floating pool of eggs. Then the parts that have taken up the most heat (the parts that have been furthest down in the pot) will start to solidify. If you leave the pot on, it will all solidify in the end. You will end up with a clot of eggs.

But when the first signs of "coagulation" are seen, there will be solidifying small contingents of the eggs in a sea of what appears to be freshly flowing egg liquid. I trust you HAVE made scrambled eggs?

This is what Mizen describes, and that was what he saw: the blood in the pool was no longer thin and free flowing, it had started to coagulate - it was SOMEWHAT congealed. There were elemens in the floating blood that bore witness to how it was in the process of congealing.

It is very different from the solidified clot, the blood mass, that Thain witnessed about. And it is EXTREMELY important to understanding the case as such, as you may appreaciate!

Well you were the one who confidently and boldy claimed on this board that the report in the Echo proved when Mizen saw the blood. I simply demonstrated, as I was perfectly entitled to do, that it does no such thing - and then defended that position. I realise why you don't like that but I must say I am a little disappointed in you that you didn't just accept it, take it on the chin, and move on.

I think we may well both be disappointed, David. The Echo report is, was and remains the solution to the riddle with the blood, but only taken in combination with the surrounding evidence. I am not saying that the article on itīs own tells the whole story - I am saying that it offers the key to understanding the whole issue.

If I worded myself "If we read the Echo article, we need no other information to understand the blood evidence", I would have been slightly rash. And maybe I did say just that, I cannot even remember any longer. My brain is in the process of coagulating. Part of me is upset about the unwillingness on your behalf to see the very simple elements involved that make it totally impossible for Mizen to have spoken about the second time he saw the body, at around 4.10 or thereafter, and part of me is beginning to loose the will to live.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Thanks for the help, Fish. I never saw such a helpful chap as you.

I'm still a bit confused as to why gravity works perfectly well when it comes to getting the blood out of Nichols, but as soon as the blood emerges gravity goes on a tea break, allowing the blood to build up a six inch pool, before reluctantly finishing its tea break and letting the slope in the pavement take the newly emerging blood down to the gutter.

The blood built up a six inch pool before gravity kicked in. Why could not the blood go on building up so as to have an eight inch or ten inch pool? Or why did the blood not flow down to the gutter when the pool was only four inches, or two?

[Dane_F]

One point that I think needs to be clearly made is about the use of the term "blood evidence". As much as someone would like to say there is "blood evidence" to help support their theory, there simply isn't. Without having the inquest reports there is no blood evidence that can be used. All we have are newspaper reports possibly ABOUT blood evidence. Without the full inquest reports, to know the complete context of questions and statements, the "logical" leaps being made are simply too far and in my opinion too illogical to be made in the first place. Especially when the sources we do have are inaccurate and sometimes conflicting.