Originally Posted by Elamarna
"Were the abdominal wounds enough to kill? Probably, but in a timescale that would be longer than the neck"
That is in line with what I posted in #1749.
What Paul actually said was that potentially they could kill.
"However he doubted that the Aorta and Vena Cava would have been cut because of the depth of wound needed.
The other major vessels would in his opinion not kill fast enough to fit the time frame.
Basically he considers death by the abdominal wounds more unlikely than the neck."
How does that indicate an inability to read?
Okay, this is in line with observations made by Dr Biggs. Thus in respect of Nichols Dr Biggs opined:
"A severe abdominal wound would 'contribute' to the rapidity of bleeding to death, but this effect could range from almost negligible (if the neck wounds were so bad that death would have been very quick, and the abdominal wounds didn't hit anything major) to very great (if the neck wounds miraculously missed all the major vessels, and the abdominal wounds pranged something big.)" (Marriott, 2013.)
Now, Paul has expressed doubt that something big was pranged, which I wrongly interpreted to mean unlikely, although, of course, doubt can simply mean uncertain.
Nonetheless, as far as I'm aware, Dr Llewellyn doesn't mention serious damage to major vessels in the abdomen, I.e. the aorta and the inferior vena cava, which suggests to me that death was as a consequence of the neck rather than the abdominal wounds.