Annie's last meal

[Herlock Sholmes]

You mean like the fact that the evidence also , which has been shown over 1000 posts points to an earlier time of death that your in denial with ? Thats also a fact.

How can the evidence point to an earlier TOD? 3 witnesses don’t point to an earlier TOD. Thiblin and Biggs both accepted in black and white that Annie could have been killed later (something that you bizarrely deny) and every single expert in every single textbook or paper written tell us categorically that Phillips couldn’t have made a completely accurate assessment when modern day experts can’t do it with all of the advances in knowledge and technology. Fishy you really need to take a deep breath on this. Your taking this as a cause that needs to be defended. As if you’re somehow defending Phillips honour. You’re not looking at the evidence calmly and rationally.

You tend to agree with Trevor a lot and that’s fine but Trevor (favours an earlier TOD) himself now accepts that Phillips simply cannot be relied upon. I can’t speak for George but it’s noticeable that he hasn’t claimed that Phillips must have been accurate. George tends toward an earlier TOD but (although I could be wrong) I don’t think that denies the unreliability of Phillips. If this is indeed the case then Fishy, that means that we now have only 2 people who believe that a Victorian Doctor could achieve an impossible level of accuracy. You should look around you Fishy.

[FISHY1118]

How can the evidence point to an earlier TOD? 3 witnesses don’t point to an earlier TOD. Thiblin and Biggs both accepted in black and white that Annie could have been killed later (something that you bizarrely deny) and every single expert in every single textbook or paper written tell us categorically that Phillips couldn’t have made a completely accurate assessment when modern day experts can’t do it with all of the advances in knowledge and technology. Fishy you really need to take a deep breath on this. Your taking this as a cause that needs to be defended. As if you’re somehow defending Phillips honour. You’re not looking at the evidence calmly and rationally.

You tend to agree with Trevor a lot and that’s fine but Trevor (favours an earlier TOD) himself now accepts that Phillips simply cannot be relied upon. I can’t speak for George but it’s noticeable that he hasn’t claimed that Phillips must have been accurate. George tends toward an earlier TOD but (although I could be wrong) I don’t think that denies the unreliability of Phillips. If this is indeed the case then Fishy, that means that we now have only 2 people who believe that a Victorian Doctor could achieve an impossible level of accuracy. You should look around you Fishy.

Simple herlock the evidence point to an earlier t.o.d if the witnesses are considered unsafe unreilable ambiguious and contradictory, and to me and other they clearly are and have been shown to be over many many post which youve have read . Trevor , George, Harry Mac agree on that , stop making up new ways to avoid this simple concept. You dont see it that way, that doesnt bother me but what does and your bigest mistake is telling others we cant

You have also read Fishermans post regarding Modern day expert and Dr Phillips . So thats done and dusted as far as Dr Phillips medical opinion goes that supports 2 hour probably more t.o.d

[Herlock Sholmes]

Simple herlock the evidence point to an earlier t.o.d if the witnesses are considered unsafe unreilable ambiguious and contradictory, and to me and other they clearly are and have been shown to be over many many post which youve have read . Trevor , George, Harry Mac agree on that , stop making up new ways to avoid this simple concept. You dont see it that way, that doesnt bother me but what does and your bigest mistake is telling others we cant

You have also read Fishermans post regarding Modern day expert and Dr Phillips . So thats done and dusted as far as Dr Phillips medical opinion goes that supports 2 hour probably more t.o.d

Thiblin:

"I can accordingly not rule out that the skin will feel cold already after some hour in a body that has been outside in September".

Biggs:

"Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted... I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

There’s no point in discussing things that you clearly don’t understand Fish. A dodgy estimate versus three aligned witnesses who cannot be shown to have lied or to have been mistaken. It’s very simple for the majority to understand. Phillips estimate is an irrelevance.

Stick to cheerleading Fishy/

[FISHY1118]

Thiblin:

"I can accordingly not rule out that the skin will feel cold already after some hour in a body that has been outside in September".

Biggs:

"Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted... I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

There’s no point in discussing things that you clearly don’t understand Fish. A dodgy estimate versus three aligned witnesses who cannot be shown to have lied or to have been mistaken. It’s very simple for the majority to understand. Phillips estimate is an irrelevance.

Stick to cheerleading Fishy/

Witnesses and Phillips points to an earlier t.od . The evidence allows for this conclusion, as you have been shown many times now. Your just going over the same old thing that other have already answered.

When you have something new that proves it doesn't you be sure to let us know herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Witnesses and Phillips points to an earlier t.do . The evidence allows for this conclusion, as you have been shown many times now. Your just going over the same old thing that other have already answered.

When you have something new that proves it doesn't you be sure to let us know herlock

You make a positive statement ‘Witnesses and Phillips points to an earlier t.do,’ then you say the evidence merely ‘allows’ for this. It’s a strange statement.

Three witnesses all point explicitly to a later TOD. Are there any witnesses that I’m not aware of? Which ones point to a later TOD? I can’t recall them.

Phillips is irrelevant and has been eliminated by evidence. His TOD has no value. Only you, FM and Fisherman don’t accept this and none of you can back up your claim with facts that pass even the mildest of scrutiny.

Ill tell you what Fishy. Let’s just ask the direct opinion of a modern day forensic expert shall we? Dr. Biggs:

"Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted... I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

The discussion needs to go no further. That ends it. Unless you wish to tell Dr. Biggs that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Do you Fishy? Either have the courage of your convictions and dismiss Biggs as wrong and lacking in knowledge or experience or accept the fact that Phillips TOD guess is surplus to requirements. It’s an A or B choice. Up to you..

[FISHY1118]

You make a positive statement ‘Witnesses and Phillips points to an earlier t.do,’ then you say the evidence merely ‘allows’ for this. It’s a strange statement.

Three witnesses all point explicitly to a later TOD. Are there any witnesses that I’m not aware of? Which ones point to a later TOD? I can’t recall them.

Phillips is irrelevant and has been eliminated by evidence. His TOD has no value. Only you, FM and Fisherman don’t accept this and none of you can back up your claim with facts that pass even the mildest of scrutiny.

Ill tell you what Fishy. Let’s just ask the direct opinion of a modern day forensic expert shall we? Dr. Biggs:

"Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted... I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

The discussion needs to go no further. That ends it. Unless you wish to tell Dr. Biggs that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Do you Fishy? Either have the courage of your convictions and dismiss Biggs as wrong and lacking in knowledge or experience or accept the fact that Phillips TOD guess is surplus to requirements. It’s an A or B choice. Up to you..

Like I said nothing new , nothing to respond too herlock , your just going over the same old ground again and again, I really don't know why you bother. Fisherman George Trevor Mac, Harry have all responded to this many times it doesn't
. prove one way or the other earlier or later .t.o.d as a certainty we just can't say for sure can we.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Like I said nothing new , nothing to respond too herlock , your just going over the same old ground again and again, I really don't know why you bother. Fisherman George Trevor Mac, Harry have all responded to this many times it doesn't
. prove one way or the other earlier or later .t.o.d as a certainty we just can't say for sure can we.

No one has claimed that we can prove things for a 100% certainty Fishy, but you (and others) have claimed that the medical evidence points to an earlier TOD. You’ve expressed your support for Phillips estimation in numerous posts on here. I’ve said that we can’t know either way when considering the medical evidence and that’s why I’ve said that Phillips evidence alone can’t help us advance toward a likelihood in either direction. So we have here an undoubted expert in Forensic medicine who has read the evidence who says:

"Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time (which it hadn’t), any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted (so Phillips estimate range was too narrow)... I would have to say that this particular victim (meaning the case that he’d specifically looked at…Chapman) could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

No one needs medical knowledge to understand this statement. There’s nothing ‘ambiguous’ about it. And so for you to be correct that the medical evidence points to an earlier TOD then you must (and I’m correct in using the word ‘must’) be saying that Dr. Biggs is wrong.

So it’s the most straightforward, easy-to-answer question ever Fishy. One that needs no ‘yes but’s,’ or ‘what if’s,’ or ‘possible’s.’ Will you answer it or duck it. My money is heavily on the latter based on previous experience.

Question: Is Dr. Biggs wrong?

[Fleetwood Mac]

No one has claimed that we can prove things for a 100% certainty Fishy, but you (and others) have claimed that the medical evidence points to an earlier TOD. You’ve expressed your support for Phillips estimation in numerous posts on here. I’ve said that we can’t know either way when considering the medical evidence and that’s why I’ve said that Phillips evidence alone can’t help us advance toward a likelihood in either direction. So we have here an undoubted expert in Forensic medicine who has read the evidence who says:

"Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time (which it hadn’t), any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted (so Phillips estimate range was too narrow)... I would have to say that this particular victim (meaning the case that he’d specifically looked at…Chapman) could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

No one needs medical knowledge to understand this statement. There’s nothing ‘ambiguous’ about it. And so for you to be correct that the medical evidence points to an earlier TOD then you must (and I’m correct in using the word ‘must’) be saying that Dr. Biggs is wrong.

So it’s the most straightforward, easy-to-answer question ever Fishy. One that needs no ‘yes but’s,’ or ‘what if’s,’ or ‘possible’s.’ Will you answer it or duck it. My money is heavily on the latter based on previous experience.

Question: Is Dr. Biggs wrong?

Will you stop clogging up the thread with the same points ad nauseam.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Will you stop clogging up the thread with the same points ad nauseam.

I’m not ‘clogging up’ anything. I’ve simply asked a very pertinent question. We have an undoubted expert, who has read Phillips evidence, telling us in black and white that Chapman could have been killed earlier or at 5.30. I realise that this is inconvenient but it’s absolutely relevant nonetheless. There’s only one legitimate response. To accept what this expert tells us. So why do some laymen feel that they can continue as if Biggs was wrong?

[FISHY1118]

No one has claimed that we can prove things for a 100% certainty Fishy, but you (and others) have claimed that the medical evidence points to an earlier TOD. You’ve expressed your support for Phillips estimation in numerous posts on here. I’ve said that we can’t know either way when considering the medical evidence and that’s why I’ve said that Phillips evidence alone can’t help us advance toward a likelihood in either direction. So we have here an undoubted expert in Forensic medicine who has read the evidence who says:

"Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time (which it hadn’t), any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted (so Phillips estimate range was too narrow)... I would have to say that this particular victim (meaning the case that he’d specifically looked at…Chapman) could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

No one needs medical knowledge to understand this statement. There’s nothing ‘ambiguous’ about it. And so for you to be correct that the medical evidence points to an earlier TOD then you must (and I’m correct in using the word ‘must’) be saying that Dr. Biggs is wrong.

So it’s the most straightforward, easy-to-answer question ever Fishy. One that needs no ‘yes but’s,’ or ‘what if’s,’ or ‘possible’s.’ Will you answer it or duck it. My money is heavily on the latter based on previous experience.

Question: Is Dr. Biggs wrong?

Well herlock I'm sure if you go back over the John Richardson thread of 3000 post you'll no doubt find the answers to your questions. ,There all there in black and white, ample evidence posters that have successfully debated over the last 2 months that when all the evidence both witnesses and medical is examined its just as likely to come to an earlier t.o.d than a 5.30am one .As its clear you haven't found anything new to add
I suggest and advise you act on macs #263 post .and do us all a favour..

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well herlock I'm sure if you go back over the John Richardson thread of 3000 post you'll no doubt find the answers to your questions. ,There all there in black and white, ample evidence posters that have successfully debated over the last 2 months that when all the evidence both witnesses and medical is examined its just as likely to come to an earlier t.o.d than a 5.30am one .As its clear you haven't found anything new to add
I suggest and advise you act on macs #263 post .and do us all a favour..

But Trevor only posted the opinion of Dr Biggs 13 days ago (on 31 August). How does any of the debate prior to this assist in answering the question as to whether Dr Biggs is wrong?

[FISHY1118]

But Trevor only posted the opinion of Dr Biggs 13 days ago (on 31 August). How does any of the debate prior to this assist in answering the question as to whether Dr Biggs is wrong?

I'm talking about the entire evidence that's been discussed as a whole over 3000 post. all the answers that suggest and shown more than once that an earlier t.od can be easily possible have been given already. So again I suggest if you want go over them in your own time go ahead, as there is nothing new to be added and the thread now closed my suggestion regarding macs post still stands .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm talking about the entire evidence that's been discussed as a whole over 3000 post. all the answers that suggest and shown more than once that an earlier t.od can be easily possible have been given already. So again I suggest if you want go over them in your own time go ahead, as there is nothing new to be added and the thread now closed my suggestion regarding macs post still stands .

The other thread isn’t closed btw.

So you won’t tell Dr. Biggs that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’m glad to hear it Fishy.

So it’s down to three witness who were all in the right place at the right time who were all very conveniently mistaken or lying. I’m more than happy with your position Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's stated as a fundamental premise in the OP of this thread that "Potato is an easily digested food, the consensus being within an hour." I've no idea where this comes from or what "consensus" is being referred to, especially as many posters in this thread have strongly disagreed with it, but may I remind the OP of something I first posted in 2019:

From "Time of Death, Decompensation and Identification: An Atlas" by Jay Dix and Michael Graham (1999):

"Some foods such as celery, onion, potato, corn and tomato skins typically take longer than meat or other foods to exit the stomach"



And just in case someone suggests that Dix doesn’t know what he’s talking about we have this, from his obituary:

Pueblo native Dr. Jay Dix, the coroner for Columbia, Mo., and one of the nation's leading teaching pathologists, died from bladder cancer Tuesday. He was 54.

[jmenges]

Please if the two of you can confine your constant bickering to one thread only, I and I’m sure many others would be very happy.

If not, Admin could step in and decide to forbid you two from ever replying to each other again? Is that what you want?

JM