Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

[Fisherman]

Interesting comments.



Very likely given that Mizen's response is in all probability related to afterLlewellyn had examined the body.
It is also possible that the gap between Neil arriving on site and Mizen doing so is far greater than you beleive to be the case, I will go further and say not only is it possible, but its very probable.

Steve

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.

[Elamarna]

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

[Fisherman]

Be short you say? Obviously not.


I posted, some of the content of post#6 was untruthful, which it was.
YOU listed 4 events which you then placed in order for the Daily News & the Daily Telegraph.
This include point 2 which said :

"2. Mizen sees q there is blood flowing, appearing fresh."

Neither the Daily News or Telegraph carry any such reports.
Therefore the section :

"The Daily News has it 1-3-2-4.
The Daily Telegraph has it 1-3-2".

Cleary claims that both papers carry point 2.

As written and posted is it Trueful?
It's really that simple.



Posting the whole text, which are very sparse and contain little detail, in no way mitigates what was posted afterwards.

The Echo is the only report which places the two questions close to each other, omiting the details of the ambulance in doing so.
In those circumstances and in that context, the order of points 1-4 has posted for those two papers, which include no reference to bleeding, in no way help your suggestion that the question about bleeding was asked in regards to any bleeding when Mizen arrived.
For that reason I am afraid that I find the alternative meaning for point 2 less than convincing.




The continual attempt to make this personal is sad.
All the written gymnastics in the world will not change the fact that point 2 was very clear, and was then used in a further statement which was misleading.



There is no shooting the Messenger involved, it is shooting the message. One that either intentionally or unintentionally was highly disingenuous and misleading.

To attack the content of the message is not to attack the Messenger, however of course a continued tendency to repeat actions may say much about the Messenger. Let us hope such does not occur



So now, using quotes lacking in detail you are able to catagorically state all the blood was fully congealed, what utter arrogance, given that at no point in those quotes supplied, (and lets stick to those so no confusion about what is meant this time) is there any indication that all the blood is fully congealed.

And of course such is completely irrelevant to the issue of "running blood", if that " running" was caused by movement of the body onto the ambulance, which dislodged any clotts, causing blood to run again. Such would in all probability be described as Fresh by the average person.
This has been mentioned several times already. It is not some vague possibility but a very real probability.
That you chose to just ignore such, one assumes because it does not fit, speaks volumes.

The "blood evidence" in total, unfortunately fails as an hypothesis, it is faulty, it cannot be tested.
Why you cannot see the failings without me pointing them out, as I will soon, I am at a loss to understand.
That is what does not wash.

Steve

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.

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.

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.

The evidence is therefore completely onesided is this respect.

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.

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

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.

[Elamarna]

Interesting comments.

One thing that is interesting here is that Mizen says (as per the Star) that blood was running from the neck wound and into the gutter. Neil says nothing about any blood running into the gutter, and Lechmere and Paul who got down beside the body says nothing about it either.

Did the stream of blood leading from the neck pool int the gutter exist as Lechmere, Paul and/or Neil took a look? Neil shone his flashlight on the scene but only mentions the pool under the neck, nothing about the stream towards the gutter. And could Lechmere and Paul have failed to see it - or even have come in contact with it?

Neil's failure to mention blood running in the gutter may not be significant, omissions occur.
Lechmere and Paul mention no blood at all so again it is not significant.
What may be significant is the actual position of the Neck in relation to the gutter, do we have a truly reliable account of that which would help?
It is possible that blood had not yet reached the gutter, but we will never know.



The amount of blood in the pool was not a large one, and Neil used both "oozed" and "running" when he spoke of the blood, implying that there was no torrential flow, but instead probably a minor one only. So maybe fillling the pool to the brim was a longish process and then maybe the stream was just a small one. But I think there would have been every chance that Lechmere and Paul would have seen it and that Neil would have mentioned it - if he saw it.

Lechmere and Paul Mention nothing at all as you know, it is dark.
Given that they mention nothing we can make no assumptions.
The size of the pool is debatable and to say it was not very large, while following the accounts is of limited use in anaylisis.
Of course that also leaves aside the considerable amounts of blood as reported at the inquest both absorbed by her clothing and clotted between it.

No certainties here, just an overall feeling that the stream only came about between Neils and Mizens first looks.

Very likely given that Mizen's response is in all probability related to afterLlewellyn had examined the body.
It is also possible that the gap between Neil arriving on site and Mizen doing so is far greater than you beleive to be the case, I will go further and say not only is it possible, but its very probable.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Be short you say? Obviously not.

I´ll be very short.

What I perceive as smearing is when you write that I am untruthful.

I posted, some of the content of post#6 was untruthful, which it was.
YOU listed 4 events which you then placed in order for the Daily News & the Daily Telegraph.
This include point 2 which said :

"2. Mizen sees q there is blood flowing, appearing fresh."

Neither the Daily News or Telegraph carry any such reports.
Therefore the section :

"The Daily News has it 1-3-2-4.
The Daily Telegraph has it 1-3-2".

Cleary claims that both papers carry point 2.

As written and posted is it Trueful?
It's really that simple.

I am not. I am, and have always been, honest. That will not change.

I published the whole texts from the papers, germane to understanding what I meant. I very clearly state that I am of the meaning that Mizens words about the blood were related to the instance when he met Neil. Therefore my point two represented this stage.

However, I should A/ have written this more clearly and B/ I should have understood what you were on about at an earlier stage - but since I knew that I had not been in any way untruthful, I didn´t..

Posting the whole text, which are very sparse and contain little detail, in no way mitigates what was posted afterwards.

The Echo is the only report which places the two questions close to each other, omiting the details of the ambulance in doing so.
In those circumstances and in that context, the order of points 1-4 has posted for those two papers, which include no reference to bleeding, in no way help your suggestion that the question about bleeding was asked in regards to any bleeding when Mizen arrived.
For that reason I am afraid that I find the alternative meaning for point 2 less than convincing.

You used these matters to shape an accusation of untruthfullness on my behalf, and since I was too lazy, very much aware that I am never untruthful, and absolutely certain that I had never written "The Daily News and The Daily Telegraph agree with me!", I left the door open for the accusations of untruthfullness.

Thereby I left you with the choice of reasoning that I

A/ referred back to the instance when Mizen met Neil for the first time, the latter being alone (which is the wording in the articles)

or

B/ was trying to pull off a scam of my own, designed to fool everybody out here.

The continual attempt to make this personal is sad.
All the written gymnastics in the world will not change the fact that point 2 was very clear, and was then used in a further statement which was misleading.

You ask me what I mean when I write about "what is going on here", and your choice is to a large degree descriptive of that matter: a far-reaching effort to make me out as a liar, a deceiver, a con artist and someone who is not fit to plead at all in the matter on account of reoccuring self-deceptions. An effort to shoot down the messenger instead of the message. I think it is deplorable.

There is no shooting the Messenger involved, it is shooting the message. One that either intentionally or unintentionally was highly disingenuous and misleading.

To attack the content of the message is not to attack the Messenger, however of course a continued tendency to repeat actions may say much about the Messenger. Let us hope such does not occur

As fot the blood issues and your answers, I don´t think you have much going for you in that department. The body was put on the ambulance and taken away from the scene as Mizen arrived with the stretcher. At that stage, the blood was already clotted. It was described by Thain, who assisted in lifting the body:
There was a large quantity of congealed blood on the pavement, near the woman's neck. (The Echo)
There was a large clot near the wall(Morning Advertiser)
This was not something Thain noticed long after the body was taken away, since the blood wass immediately removed thereafter, apparent from Emma Greens testimony:
The Coroner: Do you know that your son went out to wash the blood away. -- Witness: Yes; I thought it had better be done directly the body was moved. A constable went into my yard with my son, and they returned with a broom and washed the stains away.(Morning Advertiser)
So there was no pool of only partially congealed blood at that stage, it was fully congealed, a clot of blood as it was described. Therefore, the words of a partially congealed blood pool refer back to the first stage, and that makes it logical because the blood was described as fresh at that stage. And that stage is the only stage when the blood CAN have been fresh.
Your take? It is "meaningless" to listen to what Mizen said about a partially congealed blood pool where blood was still running into it.
We should discard that evidence.
And Mizen only said that the blood appeared fresh because he "knew no better".
So we should discard that evidence too.
And when we have discarded that evidence, your version of the events stands a better chance to be true.
You know what? It will not wash in a million years.

So now, using quotes lacking in detail you are able to catagorically state all the blood was fully congealed, what utter arrogance, given that at no point in those quotes supplied, (and lets stick to those so no confusion about what is meant this time) is there any indication that all the blood is fully congealed.

And of course such is completely irrelevant to the issue of "running blood", if that " running" was caused by movement of the body onto the ambulance, which dislodged any clotts, causing blood to run again. Such would in all probability be described as Fresh by the average person.
This has been mentioned several times already. It is not some vague possibility but a very real probability.
That you chose to just ignore such, one assumes because it does not fit, speaks volumes.

The "blood evidence" in total, unfortunately fails as an hypothesis, it is faulty, it cannot be tested.
Why you cannot see the failings without me pointing them out, as I will soon, I am at a loss to understand.
That is what does not wash.

Steve

[Fisherman]

One thing that is interesting here is that Mizen says (as per the Star) that blood was running from the neck wound and into the gutter. Neil says nothing about any blood running into the gutter, and Lechmere and Paul who got down beside the body says nothing about it either.

Did the stream of blood leading from the neck pool int the gutter exist as Lechmere, Paul and/or Neil took a look? Neil shone his flashlight on the scene but only mentions the pool under the neck, nothing about the stream towards the gutter. And could Lechmere and Paul have failed to see it - or even have come in contact with it?

The amount of blood in the pool was not a large one, and Neil used both "oozed" and "running" when he spoke of the blood, implying that there was no torrential flow, but instead probably a minor one only. So maybe fillling the pool to the brim was a longish process and then maybe the stream was just a small one. But I think there would have been every chance that Lechmere and Paul would have seen it and that Neil would have mentioned it - if he saw it.

No certainties here, just an overall feeling that the stream only came about between Neils and Mizens first looks.

[Fisherman]

And if Paul was right and she was still alive when he examined her??

Not sure what you are after here? The blood does not congeal because a person is dead, it congeals since it comes in contact with congealing substances when it leaves a wound.

If she was still alive when Paul examined her, then surely it is hard to fit another killer than Lechmere in?

[Fisherman]

All we can say is that the clot was clotted. We can't say that all the blood was.

Yes, the clot was clotted. Just as it should be, generally speaking. But Mizen said there was blood "still" running INTO THAT POOL, and that it was only partially clotted as he looked at it. And that means that he speaks of the first time he saw Nichols, not the time he arrived back with the ambulance, since the blood WAS clotted at that stage.

[Fisherman]

It can appear to flow, or ooze, for some time and for various reasons.

Besides, it's perfectly possible to describe something as "flowing from A to B" even when there's no appreciable flow to speak of, or even no flow at all, e.g. "her hair flowed from her head to her waist", "the road ran from the church to the cemetery", "a river of solidified magma ran/flowed from the crater to the village below".

Yes, that´s correct - the Morning Advertiser said that the blood was congealed and running into the gutter, for example. 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.

When Mizen arrived back with the ambulance he knew quite well that Nichols had been dead half an hour or more. Would he say "the blood was STILL running and looking fresh" at that stage? When he was 100 per cent sure that it could not be fresh?

[Sam Flynn]

All we can say is that the clot was clotted. We can't say that all the blood was.

[Fisherman]

"So there was no pool of only partially congealed blood at that stage, it was fully congealed, a clot of blood as it was described."

How can you conclude that? The fact that "a" clot happened to be mentioned doesn't mean that ALL the blood was clotted.

A "large" clot, Gareth. The clot and the "quantity of blood" spoken about was the pool under the neck. There was no other blood present on the street surface but (mentioned in one source) some little blood under her legs.

So all the blood in the pool was clotted, and indeed it should be at that stage.

[GUT]

And if Paul was right and she was still alive when he examined her??

[Sam Flynn]

fresh blood has a tendency to run in the beginning, not in the end.

It can appear to flow, or ooze, for some time and for various reasons.

Besides, it's perfectly possible to describe something as "flowing from A to B" even when there's no appreciable flow to speak of, or even no flow at all, e.g. "her hair flowed from her head to her waist", "the road ran from the church to the cemetery", "a river of solidified magma ran/flowed from the crater to the village below".

[Sam Flynn]

"So there was no pool of only partially congealed blood at that stage, it was fully congealed, a clot of blood as it was described."

How can you conclude that? The fact that "a" clot happened to be mentioned doesn't mean that ALL the blood was clotted.

[Fisherman]

Excuse me for not joining the medical stuff but can I ask...

If the blood appeared fresh....I’m not saying it did or didn’t.... why would this be surprising if CL had come upon Polly’s body a minute or two after the killer had fled the scene?

And pleeeeeeeese don’t mention Phantom killers as it’s misleading and tiresome.

It would not be surprising at all if either Lechmere or you-know-who had cut her - in such a case, the blood would have flowed for the shortest of time only and it would BE fresh.

But what Steve suggests is that Mizen spoke of looking at Nichols AFTER having fetched the ambulance. And that means that he supposedly said that he took a look and the blood was still running and looking fresh, and that the blood ran into the pool under Nichols, and the pool had started to congeal and was partially congealed - HALF AN HOUR OR MORE AFTER SHE WAS CUT!

It is like Steve Earle sings in "Snake Oil": "And if you believe THAT, we´re gonna get along just fine".

Me, I agree with you: fresh blood has a tendency to run in the beginning, not in the end.