Could he have taken her blood?

[Sam Flynn]

If you want to think there were other loose tissues than the ones in the abdomen, where the blood was collected, then I think you need to specify them.

The term "loose tissues" is, like Llewellyn's use of "downwards", far too imprecise to be definitive. For what it's worth, the tissues of Polly's head were pretty "loose" after her killer had finished with her throat. If "loose connective tissue" was meant - well, that kind of tissue can be found everywhere in the body.

That notwithstanding, what we know for certain is that Llewellyn - sorry, the newspaper précis - didn't use the term "loose tissues of the abdomen" at all, only "loose tissues", as I noted earlier.

Anyway, back to the thread.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: The term "loose tissues" is, like Llewellyn's use of "downwards", far too imprecise to be definitive. For what it's worth, the tissues of Polly's head were pretty "loose" after her killer had finished with her throat. If "loose connective tissue" was meant - well, that kind of tissue can be found everywhere in the body.

You are still wasting valuable time, Gareth.

The "loose tissues" of the neck and head could not have held any significant volume of blood at all. And the blood would not go "anywhere in the body", would it? It´s a completely ridiculous suggestion.

Llewellyn pointed to the loose tissues of the abdomaninal cavity, because there were no other losoe tissues where a large amount of blood could collect. Let´s not try and be too clever here - because it would be ... guess what? Yes, exactly, a waste of time.

That notwithstanding, what we know for certain is that Llewellyn - sorry, the newspaper précis - didn't use the term "loose tissues of the abdomen" at all, only "loose tissues", as I noted earlier.

He/They-did-not-have-to.

Besides, I seem to remember somebody claiming in an earlier exchange that Halse had said that the Eddowes rag "was easily overlooked". And when THAT poster was corrected by another poster, the former poster said that it made no difference, since that was what Halse had meant anyway.

Consequence.

Useful.

[Sam Flynn]

You are still wasting valuable time, Gareth.

Why should you have the monopoly on that, Fish?

[Fisherman]

Why should you have the monopoly on that, Fish?

Very obviously, I don´t.

I don´t have a monopoly on it.

And I don´t waste time over things like these.

Which is why I have made my last post on it for now.

[Sam Flynn]

Llewellyn pointed to the loose tissues of the abdomaninal cavity

No he didn't, Fish. Stop making things up.

because there were no other losoe tissues where a large amount of blood could collect

The abdomen is a cavity. A "cavity" cannot be described as "loose tissue", any more than a "barrel" can be described as "loose wood".

Besides - I say again - we really aren't talking about gallons of blood sloshing about.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: No he didn't, Fish. Stop making things up.

"Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity" (Pall Mall Gazette)

That´s how much I "made up".

The abdomen is a cavity. A "cavity" cannot be described as "loose tissue", any more than a "barrel" can be described as "loose wood".

The loose tissues were INSIDE the abdominal cavity, that had been very extensively cut.

You know it just as well as I do. But you are seemingly more interested in playing games than you are in the truth...?

Besides - I say again - we really aren't talking about gallons of blood sloshing about.

A gallon of blood is four litres. Nichols would have contained no more than that - at the very most.
So in this instance you are correct - there could not possibly have been galloons (plural) of blood in the abdominal cavity.
On the other hand, nobody has ever suggested that there was. But hey, why care about that when you are on a mission?

... that you can have to yourself, from now on.

Since you claimed I was "making things up", I needed to waste a little more time here. But I think I´m done now. Unless...?

[Sam Flynn]

The loose tissues were INSIDE the abdominal cavity, that had been very extensively cut.

"Loose tissues" exist all over the body. Llewellyn is NOT, repeat NOT, reported as stating that the loose tissues referred to were those inside the abdomen. You have made that assumption, and you're free to do so, but please don't attribute it to Llewellyn.

But you are seemingly more interested in playing games than you are in the truth.

You could not be more wrong.

A gallon of blood is four litres. Nichols would have contained no more than that - at the very most.

I was using colourful language - "gallons" in the sense of "copious amounts" rather than the specific/pedantic measure.

there could not possibly have been gallons (plural) of blood in the abdominal cavity.
On the other hand, nobody has ever suggested that there was.

No, but you keep suggesting that there would have been copious enough blood such that only the "loose tissues of the abdomen" would have been fit to absorb it. Well, that just ain't the case either.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: "Loose tissues" exist all over the body. Llewellyn is NOT, repeat NOT, reported as stating that the loose tissues referred to were those inside the abdomen. You have made that assumption, and you're free to do so, but please don't attribute it to Llewellyn.

Of course it should be attributed to Llewellyn. We have a number of articles where he is quoted as suggesting that the blood that came about when the abdomen was cut, flowed into the abdominal cavity.
Then we have the quote where he says that the arteries and veins emptied out their contents more or less totally, and that the blood from these vessels ended up to a large amount in the loose tissues.

There is only one logical way to combine these quotes.

We know that Nichols was on her back. We know that she was cut in two areas, the neck and the abdomen. We know that a" large amount" of the blood that drained out of the vessels to a nigh on total amount could not have collected in the neck. Therefore, only one area remains where it COULD have collected, and that is the abdomen.
Whether there are "loose tissues" as you say, "all over the body" or not is uninteresting, since there would have been only one place that the blood could have gone. It would not have collected in the loose tissues of the footsoles. It would not have collected in the loose tissues of the armpits. It collected in the loose tissues of the abdomen, and there were loose tissues in the abdomen since Nichols had been very extensively cut there.
There is not a single competing suggestion that can be made with any credibility at all, and I am going to prove that by asking you to provide any such competing area.

I would put it to you that you also are quite convinced that the area Llewellyn spoke of, the are where that large amount collected, was the abdomen. Like I say, you know your stuff. So make the best of it.

You could not be more wrong.

Oh, yes - I could be VERY much more wrong.I don´t question that you are interested in the truth - but being interested in it counts for little if we prioritize quibbling over it.

I was using colourful language - "gallons" in the sense of "copious amounts" rather than the specific/pedantic measure.

So "colourful language" is jolly fine, and I am pedantic? I see.

No, but you keep suggesting that there would have been copious enough blood such that only the "loose tissues of the abdomen" would have been fit to absorb it.

No, I don´t. It is not me but LLEWELLYN who says that nearly all the blood had emptied out of the arteries and veins. "Nearly all the blood" translates to around three litres of it, or something in close proximity to that figure. Unless you are suggesting that Nichols held two litres only? Or anything like that? Maybe you want to point out that I cannot know the exact amount of blood in her vessels before she was cut? Just go ahead, if that is the case, and if that is where you hope to take the discussion.

Otherwise, LLEWELLYN has told us that around three litres of blood emptied out of the arteries and veins, and he equally told us that these amounts of blood could to "a large amount" be found in the loose tissues after the deed. Then, after that, all we have to find out is where these loose tissues were.

On the footsoles? In the armpits?

Or in the jar formed by the abdomen?

Which, Gareth, is your very best guess?

Which is your NEXT best guess?

And why is it that I feel you will not answer these questions, so that we can move on?

[Dane_F]

These are certainly funny lines in the sand to draw. At least it definitively puts to rest the OP's theory of blood being taken in large amounts, whether the blood ended up in the neck, head, or abdomen.

[Fisherman]

These are certainly funny lines in the sand to draw. At least it definitively puts to rest the OP's theory of blood being taken in large amounts, whether the blood ended up in the neck, head, or abdomen.

It could not have ended up in the neck, other than in miniscule amounts.

It could not have ended up in the head, other than in miniscule amounts.

Some blood could have been taken away from the spot; the full amount could never have been estimated, and therefore all the blood could of course not have been accounted for with any absolute certainty.

Then again, we don´t have Llewellyn saying that blood must have been taken away - he is seemingly of the meaning that the blood on the spot accounted for all the blood that needed to be accounted for.

Is all very fine to question things, but if we present ideas of alternative scenarios then they must have some sort of leverage.

[Dane_F]

It could not have ended up in the neck, other than in miniscule amounts.

It could not have ended up in the head, other than in miniscule amounts.

Some blood could have been taken away from the spot; the full amount could never have been estimated, and therefore all the blood could of course not have been accounted for with any absolute certainty.

Then again, we don´t have Llewellyn saying that blood must have been taken away - he is seemingly of the meaning that the blood on the spot accounted for all the blood that needed to be accounted for.

Is all very fine to question things, but if we present ideas of alternative scenarios then they must have some sort of leverage.

I have no intention of being dragged into what amounts to a semantics debate. I found it ironic and humorous and that was what I was commenting on. The key take away in regards to this thread is Llewellyn felt enough of the blood was accounted for that the original theory presented, of Jack taking a large amount of blood away, would not fit with what accounts we have on record.

Everything else that has taken place here, as you have said, is a waste of time really.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: "Loose tissues" exist all over the body. Llewellyn is NOT, repeat NOT, reported as stating that the loose tissues referred to were those inside the abdomen. You have made that assumption, and you're free to do so, but please don't attribute it to Llewellyn.

Of course it should be attributed to Llewellyn.

Nowhere is it recorded that Llewellyn referred to the "loose tissues of the abdomen", Fish, so you can't attribute this to him. The newspaper précis shows that he referred only to "loose tissues" (which can be found all over the body) and not "loose tissues of the abdomen" specifically.

Frustrating, perhaps, but that's all the evidence we've got on this point and we must stick to it. We can theorise on the basis of the evidence, of course, but that's not the same as attributing an opinion to a witness that's not actually on record.

I honestly can't see what's controversial about this, and I'll say no more on the matter.

[Fisherman]

Nowhere is it recorded that Llewellyn referred to the "loose tissues of the abdomen", Fish, so you can't attribute this to him. The newspaper précis shows that he referred only to "loose tissues" (which can be found all over the body) and not "loose tissues of the abdomen" specifically.

Frustrating, perhaps, but that's all the evidence we've got on this point and we must stick to it. We can theorise on the basis of the evidence, of course, but that's not the same as attributing an opinion to a witness that's not actually on record.

I honestly can't see what's controversial about this, and I'll say no more on the matter.

I don´t find it frustrating at all. The only frustration I perceive is in your posts, where you try to conjure up a magic (unnamed) alternative to the abdomen as the place the blood went. With no luck at all, I may add.

You understandably leave my questions about where you yourself think the blood went, if it did not go into the abdomen, unanswered. I predicted it, and I am anything but surprised.

In conclusion, I agree with you: there is nothing at all controversial about what Llewellyn said, and just as little about what he meant.

[Sam Flynn]

The only frustration I perceive is in your posts, where you try to conjure up a magic (unnamed) alternative to the abdomen as the place the blood went.

The neck, for one - but we shouldn't rush to assume that "loose tissue" meant "cut tissue", because Llewellyn might have meant something specific (such as areolar connective tissue) if "loose tissue" was used in a technical sense. As I've told you before, there is loose tissue all over the body.

If by "loose tissue" he actually meant "cut tissue", then the neck had been pretty well cut, hadn't it? So he could have meant that. Given the paucity of evidence, we just don't know either way. We certainly know that "loose tissues of the abdomen" was not written down in any records we have, so we can't attribute those words to Llewellyn... or even the journalist who wrote it up.

In conclusion, I agree with you: there is nothing at all controversial about what Llewellyn said

You are not agreeing with me, because (a) there is plenty that remains controversial about Llewellyn; and (b) that was not my point anyway, as was quite obvious from what I posted.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: The neck, for one - but we shouldn't rush to assume that "loose tissue" meant "cut tissue", because Llewellyn might have meant something specific (such as areolar connective tissue) if "loose tissue" was used in a technical sense. As I've told you before, there is loose tissue all over the body.

But the blood could and would not have collected anywhere in the body. There was only one place where the major part of the blood could go, and that was into the abdominal cavity.
Who are you trying to fool, Gareth? Yourself? You are way too clever for that.

If by "loose tissue" he actually meant "cut tissue", then the neck had been pretty well cut, hadn't it? So he could have meant that.

No, he could not. We are speaking about the major part of the blood that had left the vessels, and that means we are speaking litres of blood. They-will-not-collect-in-a-cut-neck. No, nope, njet, nein, nä, non. Never. And you know what? You know that just as well as I do.

Given the paucity of evidence, we just don't know either way.

Yes, we do. A paucity of evidence can only exist when there are alternative explanations. When they are not around - and they are not - then there is no paucity of evidence.

We certainly know that "loose tissues of the abdomen" was not written down in any records we have, so we can't attribute those words to Llewellyn... or even the journalist who wrote it up.

Nor do we have to. It grieves me not. It is you who are deeply frustrated, not I.

You are not agreeing with me, because (a) there is plenty that remains controversial about Llewellyn; and (b) that was not my point anyway, as was quite obvious from what I posted.

I don´t think a living soul is agreeing with you, Gareth.

I know quite well that Llewellyn was not quoted to have said "the loose tissues of the abdomen".

But equally, you know quite well that is what he meant. Where else would two, three litres go? Into the nostrils?

There is no issue. It is settled. Goodnight to you.