Observer: Hi Fish
Polly Nichol's was not hanged, she was nigh on decapitated. Hanging is no comparison to near decapitation when assessing whether the heart would have been beating three minutes after the initial injury. Surely you realise this?
Yes, Observer - I actually do realize that. And I hope that YOU realize that Stride had her left carotid artery cut off, and the doctors still allowed for her to have lived on for a couple of minutes.
The heart may keep pumping for some considerable time even after a violent death like the ones of Stride and Nichols. It may also stop very quickly after such a death. It varies from case to case, but cutting a neck is not tantamount to pulling an immediate switch on the heart. And I do not appreciate having sharing this knowledge called "tosh".
No it is not in line with what you are suggesting, I quote
"perhaps thirty seconds before Paul entered the stage, we could well have a respiration system gasping away and blood flowing freely."
A mere thirty seconds, between gasping away, and a faint movement? Did he even detect a faint movement? How would you detect a faint movement in those conditions? He didn't even notice that her throat was cut.
Yes, Observer - a mere thirty seconds. None of us knows how it went down, but thirty seconds is a long time in these circumstances. The heart needs to be fed with oxygen and other vital substances to pound on, and they WILL run out rather quickly with a cut neck (although not necessarily in a matter of three seconds). The heart may thus beat wildly after the cut, the victim can gasp for air - and then the system can all die down, leaving perhaps just that electrically induced odd twitch of the heart that Paul may have felt.
Nothing at all strange with that scenario, Iīm afraid.
Paper talk nothing more. We had a deep wound to the throat what else do we need, of yes, blood flying out of the wound. Neil was either misquoted, or fed a leading question. Under oath, at the inquest he stated exactly what he had witnessed, that is, blood oozing out of the wound. Mizen observed the same phenomena.
How do you know that Neil stated "exactly what he had witnessed", Observer? Were you there? How do you know the remove of time that had passed since the neck was cut? It could be seconds only.
Iīll help you answer: you do not know. And why should you be given the prerogative to decide how much blood comes out when oozing? Google gives 1 180 hits for the combination "oozed profusely". Hereīs a quote from a professional: "the vascular spaces were indeed visible during surgery and the lymphatic fluid oozed profusely during the operation."
Now, Observer, seeing as we have Neil saying that it bled profusely, and seeing as it had not even stopped bleeding as Mizen arrived, perhaps two, three minutes later, what do you think is the reasonable interpretation?
That it bled very little as Neil saw her, and then it bled very little as Mizen saw her too? A cut neck resulted in a very slow emptying of the blood, sort of?
Or that the blood flow tapered off successively, and the blood oozed profusely out of the wound when Neil saw here, whereas it had tapered off to a slow, dying stream when Mizen did?
Which suggestion is most compatible with the kind of death Nichols died?
Tosh indeed.
Yes - lots of it.
What is the matter with people? Why not read up before flinging horse manure? It will end up in your own face otherwise.
Cross favoured dead over drunk for one reason, he realised that Polly Nichols was quite dead.
Of course - I had forgotten that you know these things. Silly me.
The best,
Fisherman
Polly Nichol's was not hanged, she was nigh on decapitated. Hanging is no comparison to near decapitation when assessing whether the heart would have been beating three minutes after the initial injury. Surely you realise this?
Yes, Observer - I actually do realize that. And I hope that YOU realize that Stride had her left carotid artery cut off, and the doctors still allowed for her to have lived on for a couple of minutes.
The heart may keep pumping for some considerable time even after a violent death like the ones of Stride and Nichols. It may also stop very quickly after such a death. It varies from case to case, but cutting a neck is not tantamount to pulling an immediate switch on the heart. And I do not appreciate having sharing this knowledge called "tosh".
No it is not in line with what you are suggesting, I quote
"perhaps thirty seconds before Paul entered the stage, we could well have a respiration system gasping away and blood flowing freely."
A mere thirty seconds, between gasping away, and a faint movement? Did he even detect a faint movement? How would you detect a faint movement in those conditions? He didn't even notice that her throat was cut.
Yes, Observer - a mere thirty seconds. None of us knows how it went down, but thirty seconds is a long time in these circumstances. The heart needs to be fed with oxygen and other vital substances to pound on, and they WILL run out rather quickly with a cut neck (although not necessarily in a matter of three seconds). The heart may thus beat wildly after the cut, the victim can gasp for air - and then the system can all die down, leaving perhaps just that electrically induced odd twitch of the heart that Paul may have felt.
Nothing at all strange with that scenario, Iīm afraid.
Paper talk nothing more. We had a deep wound to the throat what else do we need, of yes, blood flying out of the wound. Neil was either misquoted, or fed a leading question. Under oath, at the inquest he stated exactly what he had witnessed, that is, blood oozing out of the wound. Mizen observed the same phenomena.
How do you know that Neil stated "exactly what he had witnessed", Observer? Were you there? How do you know the remove of time that had passed since the neck was cut? It could be seconds only.
Iīll help you answer: you do not know. And why should you be given the prerogative to decide how much blood comes out when oozing? Google gives 1 180 hits for the combination "oozed profusely". Hereīs a quote from a professional: "the vascular spaces were indeed visible during surgery and the lymphatic fluid oozed profusely during the operation."
Now, Observer, seeing as we have Neil saying that it bled profusely, and seeing as it had not even stopped bleeding as Mizen arrived, perhaps two, three minutes later, what do you think is the reasonable interpretation?
That it bled very little as Neil saw her, and then it bled very little as Mizen saw her too? A cut neck resulted in a very slow emptying of the blood, sort of?
Or that the blood flow tapered off successively, and the blood oozed profusely out of the wound when Neil saw here, whereas it had tapered off to a slow, dying stream when Mizen did?
Which suggestion is most compatible with the kind of death Nichols died?
Tosh indeed.
Yes - lots of it.
What is the matter with people? Why not read up before flinging horse manure? It will end up in your own face otherwise.
Cross favoured dead over drunk for one reason, he realised that Polly Nichols was quite dead.
Of course - I had forgotten that you know these things. Silly me.
The best,
Fisherman
Comment