Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

[Elamarna]

Christer,
You have made comments that Mizen could have told the differnce between Fresh blood a what i presume you term "non fresh" not puting words in your mouth, but dont know how else to describe it.

I asked a question which you may have missed.


Would you care to explain how fresh bleeding, after the heart stops would differ in apperance from say a large neck wound, which started bleeding again after movement of the body? Seriously please explain, without doing an internet search, just on your own knowledge as an educated person.


It would be very helpful and enlightening to have your answer/comments on such



Steve

[Elamarna]

This rot really deserves no answer. For example, you speak of how it would be very likely that the wounds were reopened as she was lifted onto the stretcher.

Reopened? A gaping wound in the neck, an inch or two wide? "Reopened"?

If all bleeding had stopped, it would in all probability involve clotting in the neck wounds, in particular the Carotids and jugulars. Movement can easy dislodge something.
Of course the body had not completely drained of blood, far from it, given it was laying reasonably flat on the ground, in which case if the wounds had not partially closed, bleeding would be occurring the whole time, even if slowly and purely under gravity.


And you shamelessly say that I turn the Echo article into "unassailable fact" - always the same, is it not, Steve?


Unfortunately its what you tend to do

I SUGGEST that this article is the one that sits best with the evidence. The same evidence that you so desperately are trying to discard, that is.

Discarding nothing, just not inventing as some posts do.

So it is not me making up facts - it´s you throwing them away, sweeping them under the carpet in carefully chosen amounts, to make your own thinking - the, ehrm, "factually based" ditto - fit the bill.

Avoidance of the issues, yet again

You are really not worth the time and the effort, Steve. Take a look in the mirror and you will know why.

Maybe I can work up the will to comment on your factually based major opus on Bucks Row - the one that will reveal all and finally put Mizen to shame, you know - but I really can´t guarantee it. It sounds like something I would genuinely prefer to avoid in order to look at what really happened instead.

Goodbye, and the fairest of luck.

As for "the ever weakening theory"? Allow me to laugh! Eternally criticized by a bunch of twisters? Yes. Weakened? Not for a second.

What other critism is there worth having but External, Having ones followers telling one how great you are is truly pointless.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Reopened? A gaping wound in the neck, an inch or two wide? "Reopened"?

OK - widened, then.

[Sam Flynn]

If the blood had ceased to flow, why was the pool only somewhat congealed?

At school, I did a series of experiments on the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide when I entered (and won) the "Welsh Young Scientist of the Year" competition, and used ox blood as one of the catalysts; red blood cells contain the enzyme catalase, which decomposes hydrogen peroxide. I had sealed jars of blood which had been drained from the animal several hours previously, so- obviously - all blood flow had ceased. After opening the jars, the blood started to clot with time (not instantaneously, mind you) but, even when large amounts of clot occupied the jars, there was still plenty of liquid blood left.

[Fisherman]

My suggestions are based in fact, wounds can bleed again if a body is moved.
So yet another incorrect statement from you.

What a truly remarkable response "Mizen would not have said what he did"

Mizen is truthful, he understands forensic pathology, he never says what he does not mean, he is never mistaken, apart of course from tge time he gives for meeting Lechmere and Pauk

Your view of Mizen is so bias that it is now beyond a joke.

Like much of the pro Lechmere argument it as gone far beyond source based evidence to the level of beleif and faith, where of course evidence has no legitimate place.

Steve

This rot really deserves no answer. For example, you speak of how it would be very likely that the wounds were reopened as she was lifted onto the stretcher.

Reopened? A gaping wound in the neck, an inch or two wide? "Reopened"?

And you shamelessly say that I turn the Echo article into "unassailable fact" - always the same, is it not, Steve?

I SUGGEST that this article is the one that sits best with the evidence. The same evidence that you so desperately are trying to discard, that is.

So it is not me making up facts - it´s you throwing them away, sweeping them under the carpet in carefully chosen amounts, to make your own thinking - the, ehrm, "factually based" ditto - fit the bill.

You are really not worth the time and the effort, Steve. Take a look in the mirror and you will know why.

Maybe I can work up the will to comment on your factually based major opus on Bucks Row - the one that will reveal all and finally put Mizen to shame, you know - but I really can´t guarantee it. It sounds like something I would genuinely prefer to avoid in order to look at what really happened instead.

Goodbye, and the fairest of luck.

As for "the ever weakening theory"? Allow me to laugh! Eternally criticized by a bunch of twisters? Yes. Weakened? Not for a second.

[Elamarna]

And how do you explain that he said it was "still" running? Another turn of a phrase?

The Star: "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."

If the blood had seized to flow, why was the pool only somewhat congealed?

Bleeding could have been restarted by any number of documented occurrences:

Examination by Neil.

Examination by Llewellyn

Movement of the body to the ambulance.

Therefore we have THREE possible times when bleeding, if it had stopped may have restarted. Any of which would add to the pool, fresh blood would of course not be congealed and so the pool could legitimately be described as partially congealed at any stage.
To catagorically refuse to accept that such bleeding could have, and most likely did, occur at least once is to go against known science.


Steve

[Elamarna]

If the blood had seized to flow, why was the pool only somewhat congealed? Are you aware of how the process of congealing works?

What a very good question.
Are you aware yourself?

Steve

[Elamarna]

I don´t think that your asserting me that what you think is very probably true whereas what I think is unlikely to be true is going to do the debate any favours at all. I prefer backed up statements to lofty ones like the one you make here.

The rest amounts to, drastically condensing it, your statement that Nail may have missed the stream of blood.

That is not going to take us very far, is it? I have said myself that there are no certainties so adding that there are no certainties seems a tad superfluous to me.

And saying that it was dark when Lechmere and Paul was in place is not very helpful either. The body could be seen from the opposite pavement, the carmen saw the hat and so on. It´s not like they were moles, is it?

They MAY have missed the blood, Neil MAY have missed it or forgotten to mention it, but this too belongs to the category loftily made suggestions. In the fact category we have Mizen mentioning the stream and Neil and Lechmere/Paul NOT doing so.

That´s all there is.

Of course ignoring all the points about the timing of Mizen, and of course not surprisingly or unexpected


Steve

[Fisherman]

A turn of phrase that Mizen could quite easily have used to describe the trail of blood from the neck to the pool. ‘Flowing’ instead of ‘that had flowed.’

And how do you explain that he said it was "still" running? Another turn of a phrase?

The Star: "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."

If the blood had seized to flow, why was the pool only somewhat congealed? Are you aware of how the process of congealing works?

[Elamarna]

"Lay persons"? A PC? Really?


Yes

While Mizen was no doctor, he would in all probability be acutely aware of the possible implications of the state of the blood in different cases. A very pertinent question is why he would otherwise mention it and be very specific about it.

That statement is based on what actual evidence with regards to Police Training?

PC Mizen made observations of the blood at the crime scene. He would have done this for a professional reason, not as a pastime.

We use forensic experts for a reason, that is non experts lack knowledge.
What would allow him to differentiate "fresh Blood" from a wound recently cut, from bleeding from a slightly older wound which had reopened

He then forwarded what he had seen to the inquest. For a reason.
Any suggestion to disregard this is totally out of the question. If he said the blood was running, it was running. If he said it appeared fresh, it appeared fresh. If he said that the pool was somewhat congealed, it was somewhat congealed. That´s what the serving PC tells us, that is what we work from, unless there is evidence to the contrary. And there is NOT.

what can one say, you belef in Mizen is truly surreal.
He swears in court so he must be correct. Thats not evidence, thats FAITH pure and simple
Yes there is evidence, to the contrary, all in two chapters of my book, the reason it started it in the first place in case you forgot.


If you are trying to shoehorn in an alternative truth here, it´s not going to work

I think you will find its not an alternative at all, merely the facts.
There is no problem with dismissing the "blood issue" or the fanciful "blood evidence".
The first is based on supposition, the later on bad science and faulty logic.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

A turn of phrase that Mizen could quite easily have used to describe the trail of blood from the neck to the pool. ‘Flowing’ instead of ‘that had flowed.’

Indeed, as per my earlier example: "a river of solidified lava flowed from the crater to the village below".

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve always said that Fish considers Mizen to have been some kind of ‘SuperTrouper.’

At last.........I’ve managed to fit in an ABBA joke

[Elamarna]

I told you that there is a choice for you to make a meal of the matter about the sequence numbers or just accept what I say about how I meant that number 2 was the sequence involving Mizen seeing Neil alone in Bucks Row.

I have nothing more to add to that.

And no, I don´t think that "any person" would describe blood running half an hour after a person died - if any blood would indeed run at all at such a remove - as "fresh". Nor do I think that Mizen was "any person". He was a trained officer who had no doubt seen a lot of blood in his job and who knew how to tell the difference.


In your opinion, which not surprisingly fits with the ever weakening thory.
Would you care to explain how fresh bleeding, after the heart stops would differ in apperance from say a large neck wound, which started bleeding again after movement of the body? Seriously please explain, without doing an internet search, just on your own knowledge as an educated person.
So 19th Police Officers were trained in forensics? Your ever growing beleif in the abilities of Mizen is very interesting to say the least


It is not a question of what can be tested, it is solely a question of what we have, evidencewise. And speaking of blood "still running" i speaking of blood running in a sequence. Speaking of fresh blood is speaking of blood close in time to the wound having been opened up. Speaking of a somewhat congealed blood, is speaking of blood in the process of congealing.

Once again ignoring the point that if a wound is reopened, which given the wounds to Nichols, is very likely to occur, bleeding could restart, under gravity flow of course.
Of course all hypothesis need to be tested

All of these things sit perfectly well with Mizens first seeing the victim. None of them sit well with his returning half an hour later - at the least.

30 minutes? Even I dont suggest that.
Of course they sit well if the bleeding restarts.

The evidence is therefore completely onesided is this respect.

No I am afraid it is not; what is onesided is the thinking displayed leading to that statement

Consequentially it supports the Echo´s take on matters, and it tells us that the papers who mentioned the blood after mentioning loading the body on the stretcher were the ones misrepresenting the matter. The blood issue WAS mentioned after Mizens speaking about loading the body - but only because the coroner referred him back to the earlier stage, as per the Echo.

So now we support a single press report with supposition, somehow dressing it up as unassailable fact.
The Echo, which gives an incomplete report, no point in arguing that it does not, the facts as reported make that very clear, is correct; Whilst ALL the other papers, including the DN And DT which give different accounts are wrong!
And you seriosly suggest there is no confirmation bias on your part.

The blood descriptions from Mizen, "still" running, looking fresh, somewhat congealed is the litlus paper tat seals the deal.

Please as asked before, describe the diference between blood which is fresh from blood from a wound which has reopened.(of course both are fresh in reality).
And again ignoring the probably reopening of the wounds by movement of the body

The suggestion - and it is a suggestion only - from your side has no factual legs to stand on. If you had been correct, Mizen would not have said that what he did.

My suggestions are based in fact, wounds can bleed again if a body is moved.
So yet another incorrect statement from you.

What a truly remarkable response "Mizen would not have said what he did"

Mizen is truthful, he understands forensic pathology, he never says what he does not mean, he is never mistaken, apart of course from tge time he gives for meeting Lechmere and Pauk

Your view of Mizen is so bias that it is now beyond a joke.

Like much of the pro Lechmere argument it as gone far beyond source based evidence to the level of beleif and faith, where of course evidence has no legitimate place.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

. But Mizen spoke of blood flowing from the neck down into the pool! That will always mean that it was running. And it looked fresh.

A turn of phrase that Mizen could quite easily have used to describe the trail of blood from the neck to the pool. ‘Flowing’ instead of ‘that had flowed.’

[Fisherman]

The point we appear to be overlookinhg on the congealed blood issue, is we are using reports of lay persons, and attempting to draw conclusions from these.

If we were talking of Doctors, one would accept the point but here we have different personns using descriptions of congealed or partially congealed when they could mean the samething or indeed something very different
This is a serious isuue when assesing witness statements, one often ignored and overlooked


Steve

"Lay persons"? A PC? Really?

While Mizen was no doctor, he would in all probability be acutely aware of the possible implications of the state of the blood in different cases. A very pertinent question is why he would otherwise mention it and be very specific about it.

PC Mizen made observations of the blood at the crime scene. He would have done this for a professional reason, not as a pastime.

He then forwarded what he had seen to the inquest. For a reason.
Any suggestion to disregard this is totally out of the question. If he said the blood was running, it was running. If he said it appeared fresh, it appeared fresh. If he said that the pool was somewhat congealed, it was somewhat congealed. That´s what the serving PC tells us, that is what we work from, unless there is evidence to the contrary. And there is NOT.

If you are trying to shoehorn in an alternative truth here, it´s not going to work.