Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

I wont, if you promise to tear up that book you are writing on Cross being the Ripper !

Letīs write it together. Or at least give me the phone number to your pathologist.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Or at least give me the phone number to your pathologist.

Have you asked Dr Jason Payne-James for his views?

http://www.payne-james.co.uk/

[Fisherman]

You have been cherry picking again !

Pathologist

The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled.


"I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little"

So as you keep banging on about trickling blood etc.

If she had been killed around 3.20am by the time the body was found the wound could have still been trickling blood

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nope. Your man is incredibly clear on what he says.

1. 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.

2.The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled.

So the 20 minute possibility only applies to cases where these particulars were not in play. They were with Nichols, however.

Ask yourself:

Were there "significant open neck wounds" in Nicholsī case?

Yes there was. In fact, there was much more than so; she had had every vessel in her neck severed. But for the spine, she was decapitated.

Would that - according to your pathologist - mean that there would be no real chance of any clamping effect?

Yes, it would. That is precisely what he says.

Will it be true that the possibilities of a clamping effect having come into play will diminish with an increasin rate of damage done to the neck?

Yes, it will.

Was Nichols lying in a position where the bloodflow would be clamped?

No, she was not.

Like I said, Trevor, there is no cherrypicking to be had. Your pathologist does not allow for that. With people who have the kind of damage to their necks that Nichols had, and who are lying in a way that would not clamp the bloodflow, there is only one option open: that person will - according to your pathologist - bleed out in the initial minutes after having been cut.

It is much the same as putting a plastic bottle of water on the ground and pricking a small hole it the cork. That bottle will loose itīs water slowly.

If you take away the cork, and put an obstacle against the opening of the bottle neck, then that obstacle will slow down the rate of the water running out.

But Nichols was the equivalent of a bottle with no cork and with nothing to stop the bloodflow. It will have been the optimal background for a very quick emptying of blood.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Neil testified to blood oozing from the neck wound and he said he found the body at about 3:45am which, allowing for 20 minutes of oozing or trickling, means that Nichols must have been killed any time between 3:25 and 3:40 (when Cross and Paul found her body). That itself seems to be useful in establishing the approximate time of death.

I fail to understand, however, why this means that "Cross could not have been the killer" as you said in #920. Are you able to explain what you mean by that?

I must also say that the quote from your expert is a little ambiguous because, when he says that it is possible that bleeding could go on for a period of twenty minutes, it is not clear if he means in circumstances where the neck has been nearly decapitated so that there is little in the way of 'clamping' effect. In other words, I can't quite make out if a lack of 'clamping' effect speeds up the time (due to the blood all flowing out quickly) or slows it down (because there is nothing to stop it and it thus takes longer). As Fisherman has pointed out, the expert also says that with a body lying motionless on the ground a few hundred millilitres would spill out in the "initial few minutes" and that this trickle could go on for "many minutes". Does this also mean 20 minutes, in circumstances of near decapitation, or some other time?

Just to add to that in #927 you seem to say that the vagueness of witness timings is relevant here but I don't think it's that important. It's common ground that Cross and Paul found the body about five minutes before Neil so that if blood would have taken no longer than 5 minutes to ooze out of the neck wound then Cross is definitely in the frame but, if 10 minutes or longer (up to the expert's limit of 20 minutes), then it could have been Cross or virtually anyone else in the area.

Read it through again and sift what the pathologist is really saying. He does not suggest that Nichols would have bled for twenty minutes - he says, and I quote: "I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes", but that would require that the criteria about a clamped bloodflow was met, or that the damage to the neck was lesser than in Nichols case - or a combination of the two. So what the pathologist says is that blood CAN flow for twenty minutes in some such cases.

It is equivalent to what he says about the stomach cutting - he speaks very generally about how "Severe abdominal wounds would ‘contribute’ to the rapidity of bleeding to death, but this effect could range from almost negligible (if the neck wounds were so bad that death would have been very quick, and the abdominal wounds didn’t hit anything major) to very great (if the neck wounds miraculously missed all the major vessels and the abdominal wounds pranged something big)."

So what he does is to go "If on the one hand..." and "if on the other hand". And we know that "on the other hand" could not apply to Nichols.

Itīs the exact same with what he says about how people CAN bleed for twenty minutes - given that the circumstances allow for it.

In Nichols case, they didnīt. Her case is described by the two passages:

1. 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.

The pathologist qualifies that he is now speaking of Nichols specifically, since he says "Getting back to the specific case in question" before he lays down the facts.

He after that says that says that "a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death" but he qualifies this by adding "if the wound / gravity conditions were right". And he has already described what the "right" conditions for such a thing would be.

2. "The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled."

Nichols? Total vessel severing. No clamping.

What the pathologist says is basically that the time people will take to bleed out varies, owing to a number of circumstances. If ALL the bloodflow-hindering circumstances are in place, a person can bleed for twenty minutes (and perhaps more, he does not give any "endstation" timewise). So somebody who has been superficially cut, and who has ended up with the neck damage being clamped shut, will bleed out slowly. But somebody who lies like a bottle with no cork screwed on, and who has very extensive damage to the neck, will bleed out in the initial couple of minutes following the cut(s).

Itīs not as if the circumstances play no role. He mentions them because they are all-important. They explain what parameters can slow the process down - but none of these parameters were in place in Bucks Row.

The best,
Fisherman

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Isn't it strange that the blood flow wasn't enough for Paul to have noticed it?
curious

My personal hunch is that the blood flowed out of Nichols neck and down onto the ground where it formed a pool hidden underneath her. If there was a concave surface that the blood filled out slowly, then it would take some time before it ran over the brim and started to flow into the gutter, as per Thain.

I think that Paul could hardly have missed that stream of blood if it was there when he kneeled by Nichols side and checked her for breath. But if she was very freshly killed, then the blood would perhaps not have filled out the concave surface below her as Paul was there, but only did so a minute or two later.

I also think a lot about how Paul could miss the cuts to the neck. My contention is that Lechmere pulled the dress down over the abdominal wounds. But would he not want to cover the wounds to the neck too?

And maybe he did - maybe he did pull Nicholsī linsey froch up to cover the neck wound, and maybe Paul could not see the neck wounds as he was there.

The neck was not concealed when Neil found her, though. But IF Lechmere had pulled the frock (or Nicholsī flannel chest cloth) up over the neck, then that may have followed the rest of the clothing down, as Paul pulled it over her knees.

Speculation? Yes. Plausible? Thatīs your call. But I think so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Not at all. This was raised at the inquest and the evidence was that it was too dark for Paul to have been able to see any blood at all.

But he DID see that the clothes were pulled up, he did see enough to check her for breath and Lechmere saw her from across the road.

It was never established that it was too dark to see the blood - it was simply reasoned that this was so. The inquest was not taking part of any reenactment with the precise amounts of light.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Read it through again and sift what the pathologist is really saying. He does not suggest that Nichols would have bled for twenty minutes - he says, and I quote: "I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes", but that would require that the criteria about a clamped bloodflow was met, or that the damage to the neck was lesser than in Nichols case - or a combination of the two. So what the pathologist says is that blood CAN flow for twenty minutes in some such cases.

I understand the point Fisherman, and I think you are basically rephrasing what I have already said. But for me it is unclear exactly what the expert is saying about the consequences of clamping v non-clamping and this seems to be confirmed by the fact that different people are interpreting it in different ways in this thread. I'm just wondering if it is possible to clear up the ambiguity.

[Fisherman]

Have you asked Dr Jason Payne-James for his views?

http://www.payne-james.co.uk/

No, I have not, David. I never met or spoke to him during the making of the documentary. Maybe I should - but I prefer sleeping as of now!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I understand the point Fisherman, and I think you are basically rephrasing what I have already said. But for me it is unclear exactly what the expert is saying about the consequences of clamping v non-clamping and this seems to be confirmed by the fact that different people are interpreting it in different ways in this thread. I'm just wondering if it is possible to clear up the ambiguity.

Different people will ALWAYS interpret things differently out here. I have vast experience of that.

I once engaged a forensic document expert who confirmed what I suspected in a case with a signature. The person I debated with "interpreted" it differently.

I then asked the expert to clarify, and he did. He put it beyond doubt that I was right.

Guess what my opponent did then? Correct: He said "That was not what he said the first time!"

So much for "interpretations"!

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

But he DID see that the clothes were pulled up, he did see enough to check her for breath and Lechmere saw her from across the road.

It was never established that it was too dark to see the blood - it was simply reasoned that this was so. The inquest was not taking part of any reenactment with the precise amounts of light.

Well that may be so but the evidence nevertheless was that it was very dark.

Paul: "It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood".

Cross: "He did not notice any blood, as it was very dark".

So whichever way you look at it, it was very dark. Now think of the colour of blood. It's dark isn't it? How do you see something dark in the dark? I would suggest it's not easy.

And while he might have seen her clothes (it's not actually clear from the evidence if he saw or felt them) he certainly did not see her breath, which would be quite a feat. He said he "knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe". Why you think that involves seeing anything is beyond me.

[curious]

I understand the point Fisherman, and I think you are basically rephrasing what I have already said. But for me it is unclear exactly what the expert is saying about the consequences of clamping v non-clamping and this seems to be confirmed by the fact that different people are interpreting it in different ways in this thread. I'm just wondering if it is possible to clear up the ambiguity.

David,
I've been sitting here, shaking my head in wonder at how you interpreted what I thought I said or at least what I attempted to say.

Your conclusions about what I think/wrote are so far off, there's no reason to attempt to discuss it . . . .

curious

[David Orsam]

I've been sitting here, shaking my head in wonder at how you interpreted what I thought I said or at least what I attempted to say.

Your conclusions about what I think/wrote are so far off, there's no reason to attempt to discuss it . . . .

And for my part, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about, but if you don't want to discuss it that's no problem.

[Trevor Marriott]

Letīs write it together. Or at least give me the phone number to your pathologist.

The best,
Fisherman

You asked me to put specific questions to the pathologist which I did and he has answered in the best way he can.

Now you are looking for specific answers to fit your theory that is never going to happen, because there are so many ambiguities connected with this and so many ways of interpreting what had been put forward depending on which side of the fence you are on

We clearly do not know if the the neck wound was open or closed via the position of the neck. A person can lay on their back and still have their head to one side.

This loss of blood is is insignificant, as is the blood oozing or flowing you have already been told that blood loss can vary, and that time of death cannot be determined by looking at a wound, or by how much blood is oozing or flowing from a wound, or by the mount of blood on the pavement.

You have already been told that the estimated time of death by the doctor is guesswork.

In a previous post I set out in great detail the approx timings of the witnesses and their actions at the crime scene and thereafter. That clearly shows Cross would not have had the time to carry out this murder and show your times are wrong.

I fail to see what else any pathologist can now bring to the table with regards to this.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

Interesting how you approach the phrase 'a couple of minutes,' Fish. You obviously don't want Nichols to have bled for no more than two minutes, because that would prove that Neil killed Nichols. So you stretch the meaning. I think 7 or 8 minutes was your tops. That would, you say, allow Crossmere to kill and mutilate Nichols, deal with Paul, inform Mizen, and for Mizen to reach Neil. Now, I would say that 'a couple of minutes' is rather less than 7 or 8. But if you're going to stretch the meaning like this, Fish, then why not 9, or 10, 11, 12...?

The truth is, Fish, that you cannot make hard-and-fast rules at a remove of 126 years, concerning a body that you have not examined, and expect to be right to within a minute or two. You are asking for something that cannot be got.

[Tom_Wescott]

Pc Thain - The True Ripper

You obviously don't want Nichols to have bled for no more than two minutes, because that would prove that Neil killed Nichols.

Neil? Oh come on, Robert. Thain's the killer. Consider the evidence. For starters, Neil told Thain that he'd found a suicide, but what does Thain tell Llewellyn? That a murder was committed. How did he know that? Also, Thain admitted to having bloody hands and tried to blame that on his picking the body up to put it on the ambulance. However, that doesn't explain all the blood found on Brady Street - HIS beat - that must have been left PRIOR to the discover of Nichols' body. It's obvious that Thain murdered her on his buddy's beat and was cleaning up at Honey's Mews when he got the signal from Neil and had to go. Not having enough time to get all the blood off himself he handled the body in order to explain its presence.

You keep working on your Neil theory, Linford, but it ain't gonna be as good as mine.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott