Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Sam Flynn 17 minutes ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Batman 36 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - by Batman 39 minutes ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by J6123 49 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - by Bridewell 2 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - (64 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - (52 posts)
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - (48 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (18 posts)
Abberline, Inspector Frederick: Hinting at something? - (16 posts)
Catherine Eddowes: Eddowes V-shape wounds are scissors I think - (12 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #331  
Old 07-14-2016, 11:23 AM
Columbo Columbo is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
We actually do know that this was what Llewellyn suggested - he believed that he damage to the abdomen came forst, and was enough to kill.
As such, we should expect that the blood coming from the neck wound would be a small amount of blood, if Nichols had been killed by the abdominal damage. There would be no jet of blood from the neck in such a case, and the blood would not pump out or gush out from the neck wound. It would instead run rather peacefully for as long as there was any blood left that had a reason of gravity to leave the body. The blood collected in the abdominal cavity would reasonably stay there if it was closer to the ground than the arch of her neck.The body would therefore not be drained of blood, but the examining medico would find a lot of it in the abdominal cavity. The blood leaking out via the neck wound woulf predominantly come from the chest area, I believe.
That would've been brutal if he did that first. I do remember discussing this before.

Columbo
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 07-14-2016, 11:42 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
David Orsam: Sorry Fisherman but this doesn't make any sense at all.

So you are sorry? How touching! Thank you!

If there was blood running from Nichols into a pool, as Mizen says, that pool could not possibly be completely congealed could it? It doesn't matter how long Nichols had been dead.

True. But according to Payne-James, there would not be any running blood for half an hour or so, which would be requried to move Mizens observation to the stage when Nichols was put on the ambulance and carried off. And at that stage, when Mrs Greens son washes the blood away, it had turned onto a large clot of blood. It was not a wet pool with some little congealed blood in it.

The whole issue at stake is how long blood can run or ooze from a dead body.

No, the whole issue is how long blood can run or ooze (Neil said both, by the way) from different bodies with different levels of damage.

But we haven't properly resolved this.

We? Jason Payne-James said that three or five minutes were better suggestions than seven. He also said that a decapitated person will bleed out completely in a minute or less.
Once again, we are speaking of probabilitites. And once again, that offers a perfect possibility for you to do your defense lawyer thing again. There is little I can do about that. I am not saying that she could not bleed for 20-30 minutes. But I am saying that it would be completely unexpected if the blood could flow freely from the neck, and as far as we know, it could. The much better suggestion is therefore that she would not bleed for 20-30 minutes.
Instead of trying to show off verbally out here, I would recommend that you delved into the issue and spoke to specialists, the way I have done.

If it's 20 minutes or half an hour then the fact that blood congeals completely after seven minutes is irrelevant bearing in mind that it was still coming out of the body (and therefore must have been fresh) when Mizen saw it.

The blood must not be fresh when running, Im afraid. There was blood coming from a severed surface of the Pinchin Street torso, presumably when it was moved. That blood was not fresh, it would have been smelly and dark. And if you think it proves that you can actively bleed for days on end, no, you cannot. But stale blood can be left in a liquid (but NOT fresh) state for a very long time if the surrounding conditions allow for it.

So we have fresh blood running into a pool which at the time Mizen saw it would be mixture fresh, partly and fully congealed blood making that pool "somewhat congealed". Isn't that right?

Yes, that is right. And it was when he first met Neil he saw it. Twenty minutes later, even if we suggest that blood had been running all the time, the pool would have been heavily congealed, not somewhat congealed. And with thirty minutes of bleeding, why would there only be a very small pool of blood?
Again I'm sorry, Fisherman, but the only thing that made sense to me in that post was your one word response of "True".

That seemed to deal with it, the rest seemed irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if Mizen was talking about seeing a pool of congealed blood 8 minutes after the murder or 30 minutes after the murder because he is also telling us that blood was running from the body into that pool of blood. If blood was running from the body then whether you want to call that "fresh" blood or not it was certainly not congealed. So that uncongealed blood would be running into a pool of blood, some of which would have congealed. So that pool of blood could be described as "somewhat congealed" could it not?

Perhaps I'm missing something but Mizen's evidence doesn't seem to get us anywhere at all.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 07-14-2016, 11:49 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Again I'm sorry, Fisherman, but the only thing that made sense to me in that post was your one word response of "True".

That seemed to deal with it, the rest seemed irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if Mizen was talking about seeing a pool of congealed blood 8 minutes after the murder or 30 minutes after the murder because he is also telling us that blood was running from the body into that pool of blood. If blood was running from the body then whether you want to call that "fresh" blood or not it was certainly not congealed. So that uncongealed blood would be running into a pool of blood, some of which would have congealed. So that pool of blood could be described as "somewhat congealed" could it not?

Perhaps I'm missing something but Mizen's evidence doesn't seem to get us anywhere at all.
Us, David? It has gotten me a very long way.

And it does matter a whole lot if Mizen spoke of a "somewhat congealed" (not congealed) pool 8 minutes (very exact, being you, but possibly a bit too much) or 30 minutes after the murder.

If the latter applies, Nichols was a very odd exception to the rule, according to Jason Payne-James. If the former, everything is in place, medically speaking, and she follows the ordinary pattern.

You must excuse me for not always replying the way you want me to. Its because I dont agree with you.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 07-14-2016, 11:56 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbo View Post
That would've been brutal if he did that first. I do remember discussing this before.

Columbo
The signs are very clearly there.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 07-14-2016, 12:11 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
And it does matter a whole lot if Mizen spoke of a "somewhat congealed" (not congealed) pool 8 minutes (very exact, being you, but possibly a bit too much) or 30 minutes after the murder.

If the latter applies, Nichols was a very odd exception to the rule, according to Jason Payne-James. If the former, everything is in place, medically speaking, and she follows the ordinary pattern.
But Fisherman that just takes us back to the point about whether blood can ooze or run out of a body after, say, 10 minutes (or whatever cut-off point Payne-James has pronounced as the maximum amount of time).

Neil saw the oozing when he examined the body which, if Mizen was talking about blood when he first arrived in Bucks Row, would have been pretty much the exact same time as Neil was referring to.

So the question remains: how long can blood ooze or run out of a body after death?

Isn't that right? And if that's the question, Mizen doesn't add anything to what Neil has told us. Isn't that also right?

(Or, if anything, he tells us it was a less recent murder than one would understand from Neil's evidence alone because some of the blood had already congealed).

Forget whether you agree with me or not, I just want to understand the basics of what you are saying.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 07-14-2016, 12:36 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,316
Default

This is an interesting, and well referenced, site on blood analysis: http://science.howstuffworks.com/blo...-analysis1.htm

Apparently, "clotting begins within 3 to 15 minures, but actual times vary by amount, surface type and environment."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 07-14-2016, 03:50 PM
Columbo Columbo is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But Fisherman that just takes us back to the point about whether blood can ooze or run out of a body after, say, 10 minutes (or whatever cut-off point Payne-James has pronounced as the maximum amount of time).

Neil saw the oozing when he examined the body which, if Mizen was talking about blood when he first arrived in Bucks Row, would have been pretty much the exact same time as Neil was referring to.

So the question remains: how long can blood ooze or run out of a body after death?

Isn't that right? And if that's the question, Mizen doesn't add anything to what Neil has told us. Isn't that also right?

(Or, if anything, he tells us it was a less recent murder than one would understand from Neil's evidence alone because some of the blood had already congealed).

Forget whether you agree with me or not, I just want to understand the basics of what you are saying.
There is no way blood is going to run out at a consistent rate for 4 or 8 or 10 minutes from a body that is lying flat on the ground. That's basic physics people.

Columbo
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 07-14-2016, 04:24 PM
Errata Errata is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tennessee, U.S.
Posts: 2,937
Default

Wasn't the clot on the ground under her body? Because clothing absorbing the liquid components of blood that has started to separate could in theory rapidly accelerate the amount of time it takes for clot to appear.

Plus, everybody stops bleeding once the level of their blood goes below the level of the wound. Like poking a hole near the top of the milk carton, it's not going to empty the carton, just leak out to level of the hole. Now in this case her throat was badly damaged and she could lose a lot. But not more than a couple of liters. Which is significant. Lethal even. But she was never going to drain dry.

There are millions of tiny factors that could have affected her blood loss, from her internal temperature before her death to the size of her breasts. So i think trying to nail that down may be futile at this point. But she would bleed faster while still alive than dead, so an estimate of how much blood she actually lost is probably going to be the best way to estimate (with a lot of wiggle room) how long she bled.
__________________
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 07-14-2016, 06:29 PM
Billiou Billiou is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 101
Default

[quote=Fisherman;387870
Here, we can see that the coroners question is once again missing. What happened was that Mizen got as far as to the ambulance part before the coroner asked the question, backing Mizen up to the moment when he first arrived by Neils side, and Mizen then says that there was blood running from the neck AT THAT STAGE.[/QUOTE]

After looking at all the newspaper reports of Mizen's statement, I think anyone should reasonably be in agreement with Fisherman's position.
This, to me, is a reasonable reconstruction of what was said during Mizen's Inquest evidence:

Policeman George Mizen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron).
The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?
The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.
Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. Witness went to the spot, found Policeman Neil there, and by his instruction witness went for the ambulance.
The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.
On returning with the ambulance, he helped to put the deceased upon it.
A Juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness: No; I only finished knocking up one person.

I agree with Fish that the Coroner's question "was there anyone else there then" was directed towards when Mizen first met Neil, not when he returned with the ambulance. And I also agree that there is no other mention by anyone of the flow of blood from the body when it was moved, and this is because some newspapers re-ordered the sequence of the statement, the questions and the answers of Mizen, giving a false impression. People can presume things, but there is no evidence of this. It is easy to get wrong - I did - but if you look logically at the reports you can make sense of it.
BTW This is why when I first came onto the site I proposed (in my naivety) that one version of all the newspaper accounts would make things more clear and may help prevent people from misreading and misconstruing things in future. But seemingly wiser heads seemed to think otherwise.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 07-14-2016, 08:25 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 980
Default

Hello John,


>>Lechmere as a Ripper suspect is frankly a joke.<<

The irony is I actually think Xmere is a person of interest and well worth some research.


What I dislike, is the attempts to frame him that people like Christer keep muddying the waters with. It impedes serious research.


Do I think he is a likely suspect? No, using the kind of criteria cited to judge Xmere by, Id place Deimshitz higher in that category which, incidentally, is not very high, but still worth a look, when it's done properly.
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.