View Single Post
Old 02-17-2017, 07:56 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,026

Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But he doesn't say it was "flowing" either.
The problem I have with this "blood evidence", beyond the fact that no medical/scientific observations were recorded, is that these statements weren't elaborated upon. Clearly Baxter gave them little credence as he did not press Neil to expand upon them.

Neil made two statements that - I suppose - we are now labeling "blood evidence". Here is the first:

"Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat."

Neil goes on to explain the position of the body, the state of her clothing, etc. Baxter does not ask Neil to elaborate on his chosen verb (oozing). He does NOT ask any follow-up questions such as, "Do you mean the blood was actively flowing from the wound when you found the body? Is this your recollection? Or do you mean to say simply that the blood was visible, having flowed from the wound? Was the blood congealed at this point? How would you describe the consistency of the blood? The color?"

Neil goes on to say this:

"There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck."

Baxter does not stop Neil and say, "PC Neil. Earlier in your testimony you used the term "oozing". Now you say the blood was "running". These two terms create very different impressions. Which was it now? Oozing? Running? Are you simply trying to tell us that you observed that blood HAD flowed from the neck wound to this pool you describe or was it actively RUNNING, as you now say? Or was it OOZING, as you said earlier? This is important, PC Neil. Think."

Clearly, Baxter took no notice of Neil's contradiction, as he immediately (according to press reports) asked this:

"Did you hear any noise that night?"

Llewellyn was the doctor at the scene. These are his contributions to the "blood evidence" (as I've been informed that our metric for establishing "blood evidence" is , basically, any instance where someone mentions the word "blood"):

"There was very little blood round the neck. There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged."

"No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes."

Someone please inform me how we are supposed to view this "blood evidence" exactly?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote