View Single Post
Old 02-17-2017, 02:08 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,550

Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Steve,

The problem is PC Neil effectively contradicted himself at the inquest. Firstly, he said blood was "oozing" from the wound, but then he described it as "running from the wound in her neck." It's also worth noting that Paul said he believed she was still breathing when he examined her, i.e. after he placed his hand on her heart.
Yes! But nobody wants to read the word "running", since it dissolves the wanted picture produced by "oozing". As I have said before, the initital interviews - discareded by people who prefer "oozed" - have Neil saying that the wound bled "profusely".

Plus we have Neil saying the blood was running. And we have Mizen saying the blood was running.

But non of these parameters are allowed to come into play.

We have scores of examples on the net of people writing "oozed profusely".

But that parameter is also disallowed. We only want Neils "oozed" to rule the day, and it MUST have meant trickled very slowly, it can NOT have meant "welled out of the neck with no underlying pressure", in spite of how Neil says that the blood was running in the next sentence.

Itīs a game of pick and choose, and just the one word is picked, and the right to interpret it belongs to those who will never accept that the blood was running.

There will not have been any cascade of blood when Neil and Mizen looked at her, for the simple reason that there was not much blood in the pool. It probably flowed gently but steadily. But no matter how much blood came from the wound per second, it remains that it exited the body through a gaping hole, and it would therefore for reasons of gravitation have been over in a matter of minutes, more likely three or five minutes than seven, as per Payne-James.

That is all I have to say on the issue.

Last edited by Fisherman : 02-17-2017 at 02:16 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote