Chapman’s death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The reason this argument persists is that some on here,and you in particular will not fully accept that the TOD cannot be firmly established. You keep stamping your feet in your posts stating that the TOD was 5.20am. As has been stated there are so many issues with all the witnesses, which we cannot bottom out, which in my opinion lead us into having to accept that TOD is inconclusive.

Is there any reason for this argument to continue. Even if we could positively ascertain a time of death would it further the investigation, or is it the case that some just want to argue for the sake of arguing !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Pure nonsense I’m afraid.

If you had followed the thread fully you would see that I have, more than anyone else, argued that Dr Phillips could not have accurately predicted the TOD (in the face of posters like Fishy and The Baron who have mocked this suggestion and tried to claim that simply because Phillips was a Doctor then he must have been correct)

The fact that you have decided, as you pretty much do with anyone connected to the case, that the witnesses are all unsafe. And on what basis? That Cadosch was cautious about where the ‘no’ came from, even bough he was absolutely certain about the noise. That Richardson possibly didn’t actually go into the detail of sitting on the step during an impromptu, unrecorded and uncorroborated discussion with Inspector Chandler in the passageway and despite the fact that in that conversation and under oath at The Inquest he was absolutely certain that the body wasn’t there at 4.50. And that Long’s timing doesn’t accord with Cadosch (something that no one denies as we accept that there has to be a chance that she might have been mistaken) But as we all know the undoubted issue with timing amongst people that didn’t own watches it cannot be unreasonable to postulate an error of a mere 7 or 8 minutes on hers and Cadosch’s part. If these timing errors occurred then the three witnesses tie up neatly.

Any sensible, reasonable poster, must arrive the very obvious and overwhelming likelihood that Phillips was wrong and that three creditable witnesses (or even two if we elect to disregard Long) point to a TOD of around 5.25. As the poll indicates and from posts on here that is indeed what the majority of reasonable, unbiased posters suggest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All we need to recognize is that palpation is a much more exact technique than you have tried to lead on, Herlock. Any idea that we can feel subtle differences in living people but not in dead is just silly. Actually, the paper is not concerened with living people, something you would know if you read it. It relates to palpating SIMULATED skin.
The one thing that matters here is nevertheless how we are well equipped to identify temperature differences by way of feeling with our hands. And as the paper points out - there is less than a 5 per cent chance that a therapist will get things three degrees wrong or more.

It is all about how exact the method is, and the method is reasonably exact. Exact enough for the writers of the paper to recognize it as a useful tool. Whether the results were reached with simulated skin or not and whether it was directed at being able to feel temperature differences in pathological conditions is neither here nor there.

Fisherman, it's been pointed out to you by a number of sensible people that you've misunderstood the paper yet you still plough ahead with this nonsense. You are totally wrong in saying that "there is less than a 5 per cent chance that a therapist will get things three degrees wrong or more". The way that you've deliberately and carefully changed the language of the paper shows that you must know this and that you are being disingenuous. The paper says that there is a more than 95% chance that a therapist will DETECT DIFFERENCES of three degrees or more. In other words, in controlled temperature conditions, they touch one pad which is 3 degrees warmer than another and they can sense the difference between the two pads with 95 percent accuracy. That's it. No application whatsoever to a pathologist assessing the body temperature of a corpse.

You say "Any idea that we can feel subtle differences in living people but not in dead is just silly" but the issue is nothing to do with feeling "differences" between temperatures on a dead body. It is about being able to assess whether a dead body is objectively cold or warm. This is what we are told by experts cannot be done. The paper has no bearing whatsoever on this issue.

As I've mentioned, palpation is a technique used to diagnose certain conditions on living people whose tissues are generating heat, and the paper is only concerned with how well therapists can do this. The paper has no application to assessing body temperature of a dead person in conditions faced by pathologists, which is an entirely different issue. You are making a whole series of assumptions from this paper which, as a lay person, you are not entitled to make (and the assumptions are clearly false).

What is amusing is that you seem to now be taking it as read that Dr Phillips palpated the dead body of Nichols. I don't remember seeing this in the evidence!

But it doesn't matter how he did it because Jason Payne-James will be fully aware of all the possible methods of assessing body temperature of a corpse. Yet he still says loud and clear that the "perceived warmth" of a corpse is both "unreliable" and "useless" as an "INDICATOR" of time of death. I don't think there can be any doubt that Dr Phillips was using the perceived coldness of Nichols' body as an indicator of the time of death - but do feel free to challenge that statement if you wish.

It's striking that you didn't mention Payne-James' comments once in your reply to me, despite me underlining that what he said was the definitive answer. Are you going to address his comments? Could you clarify if you disagree with what Payne-James said?

If you agree with him, as you surely must, is your position that, despite the perceived warmth of a dead body being useless as an indicator of time of death, it was still reasonable for Dr Phillips to use the perceived warmth (or otherwise) of Nichols' dead body to indicate a time of death as being no later than 4.30am? If so, on what possible scientific basis do you make such a statement?

[FISHY1118]

If you had followed the thread fully you would see that I have, more than anyone else, argued that Dr Phillips could not have accurately predicted the TOD (in the face of posters like Fishy and The Baron who have mocked this suggestion and tried to claim that simply because Phillips was a Doctor then he must have been correct)

Another Herlock lie .

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Fisherman

You've misinterpreted the paper's conclusions as to what Philips would have been able to detect. Perhaps you should reread it and amend what you've proudly "proved".

Also, you are using the article to compare a senior Victorian physician with 21st century manual physical therapists. Would their workdays be very similar, do you think?

Likin' that post Kat.

[The Baron]

Another Herlock lie .

Fisherman had destroyed all of his 'arguments' , that's why he is lying, to give the false impression that he is at a better position in this debate.

When you see him using words like swedish, you don't understand english, troll, dishonest, you know he is lost.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

The conversation that took place in the passageway between Chandler and Richardson was unrecorded therefore we only have Chandlers version - do you disagree with this Professor Baron?

This is a typical Herlock statement, ive notice he does this when it suits his argument, with no regard for posters who believe otherwise ,

Why is it that because Richardson told his story about the sitting on the step and cutting his boot at the inquest and a different version to chandler, we should believe his inquest version? , can we then not use the same argument for chandler who was also under oath when he told his version of what Richardson told him in the passageway?

It has to work both ways if your going to use this form of argument , but then again it is Herlock were talking about.

So basically your calling Chandler a liar for his inquest statement ?

The difference is that the conversation in the passageway was uncorroborated and unrecorded. So from the conversation (based purely on Chandlers word) we have four possible explanations (feel free to add any if you or anyone else can think of something that I’ve missed):

• Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the steps because he didn’t sit on the steps.
• Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the steps because (possibly due to the shortness of the conversation) because he felt that the information that there was no body there was all that mattered and all that Chandler was interested in.
• Richardson did mention it but Chandler misunderstood or misheard him.
• Richardson deliberately withheld the information because he was concerned about placing himself at the scene of a murder with a knife.

None of us, neither myself, yourself, Trevor or anyone can possibly know which one of these is correct because we cannot know what words actually came out of Richardson’s mouth. I hope that you accept this Fishy?

Now we get to The Inquest. Richardson had no reason as far as we can see to alter his version of events. He testified before Chandler so we can’t say that he was reacting to his version. He wasn’t reacting to the Coroner as he just asked him what happened. And so under oath Richardson gave a fuller version of what went on. This wasn’t a conversation on the spur of the moment like the one in the passageway. This was a statement given calmly and after the chance to recall events fully.

And so which version would any reasonable person say was the most trustworthy? One where we only here one person’s version of what another person said (under difficult circumstances) or, one where we hear that person’s own version; from his own lips (albeit via the Press)

Its obviously the latter Fishy. It’s desperate to keep bringing up the passageway conversation. And apart from this, in both versions, Richardson is 100% certain that he could not have missed a mutilated corpse had it been there. The idea that he could have missed a mutilated corpse around a foot from his own feet is laughable.

Id suggest that you ditch the Knight/Sickert bias and look at the facts. Look at the likelihood’s and overwhelming likelihood’s which point to a TOD around 5.25.


Its also very noticeable Fishy that you never responded to my earlier question. If you have such a high level of confidence in Phillips and the complexities of determining TOD why do you dismiss him in the much simpler discipline of checking where a body was killed?

[Coroner] In your opinion did she enter the yard alive? - I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard.


Strange that Phillips is a magician when it comes to establishing a TOD but a complete incompetence when deciding where a body was killed.

[Michael W Richards]

The reason this argument persists is that some on here,and you in particular will not fully accept that the TOD cannot be firmly established. You keep stamping your feet in your posts stating that the TOD was 5.20am. As has been stated there are so many issues with all the witnesses, which we cannot bottom out, which in my opinion lead us into having to accept that TOD is inconclusive.

Is there any reason for this argument to continue. Even if we could positively ascertain a time of death would it further the investigation, or is it the case that some just want to argue for the sake of arguing !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't think anyone on the "Phillips Was Incorrect" team is saying we can establish a TOD,... at least for me, I believe we can establish the window of time that the murder occurred within. We have, once again and for my last time, we have 3 witnesses... just before 5, and 1 at quarter past 5, and 1 just before 6am at the scene of the crime that establish that window that Annie was killed within. Its also established within those 3 witness statements that at the 5:15 time a voice was heard from the location of the murder, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that someone was alive on that spot at 5:15. It is irrational to imagine that the cry was made by someone standing over a murdered woman. A scream would have been an argument, but we don't have that.

So....Annie is killed between 5:15 and 5:30 most probably, with some time left before Davis comes in to do the mutilating.

We have the evidence here, why are people questioning what is clearly established by those 3 accounts? Establishing TOD wasn't exact science, and Phillips had never been asked to establish that under the same circumstances. If you don't see that that obviously physicians were beyond their ability to establish much of anything in these cases, beyond cause of death, then you haven't been at this study long enough.

In Pollys we have from last sighting to discovery a TOD window, with Annie we have the 3 witnesses on the scene to establish the window, in Strides case we have from the last moment she is seen on the street until Louis finds her as the window, with Kate we have the square PC Watkins passes to mark the TOD, and we are all over the map with Kelly because some people cling to Maxwells statement, one that was chastised for disagreeing with all the other evidence submitted.

Its the people studying these crimes that makes answers impossible, not the evidence itself.

[FISHY1118]

Strange that Phillips is a magician when it comes to establishing a TOD but a complete incompetence when deciding where a body was killed.

ITS ALSO STRANGE WHEN ''YOU'' COMPLETED DISMISS THE MODERN MEDICAL EXPERTS WHO SAY THAT EDDOWES UTERUS AND KIDNEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVE IN 5 MINS IN THE DARK. BUT YOU'LL GO WITH DR SEQUEIRAS MEDICAL EXPERT ADVICE WHEN IT SUITS YOU

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman had destroyed all of his 'arguments' , that's why he is lying, to give the false impression that he is at a better position in this debate.

When you see him using words like swedish, you don't understand english, troll, dishonest, you know he is lost.



The Baron

Fish’s latest argument has been destroyed by myself, Jeff, Kattrup and Etenguy. But you wouldn’t know that because you only make silly comments.

I used the word Swedish (actually Swedish Journalist), not in a derogatory way but in a descriptive way because, guess what, Fish is a Swedish Journalist.

I use the word Troll because you exhibit all the attributes of one and I’m not the only poster to have pointed this out Baron. You overwhelmingly target me with your posts. I post on a thread and you turn up in opposition.


This argument was over weeks ago. Only the bias of posters allows it to continue. I remember the time when you and Fishy used to mock my suggestion that TOD estimates were unreliable. As if I was making it up. Now evidence upon evidence has been posted to back up this obvious fact. Experience, knowledgeable posters like Sam Flynn, Paul Begg, Jeff Hamm, JohnG, Kattrup, Etenguy, Trevor Marriott, Michael Richards, Steve Blomer and others have confirmed what we all knew. Even Fish himself has confirmed the unreliability.

Do I now get an apology from you and Fishy or do you dishonestly keep ploughing on with your utter desperation?

Let me guess?

[PaulB]

The reason this argument persists is that some on here,and you in particular will not fully accept that the TOD cannot be firmly established. You keep stamping your feet in your posts stating that the TOD was 5.20am. As has been stated there are so many issues with all the witnesses, which we cannot bottom out, which in my opinion lead us into having to accept that TOD is inconclusive.

Is there any reason for this argument to continue. Even if we could positively ascertain a time of death would it further the investigation, or is it the case that some just want to argue for the sake of arguing !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Aren't you causing this argument to persist by stamping your feet and stating that the witness testimony is unreliable?

Positively ascertaining the time of death probably wouldn't further the investigation, but it would possibly tell us a lot about the reliability of the testimony of Richardson, Cadosch and Long, and nobody knows what bearing that could have on the investigation. Some people think it is important to give full and proper consideration to a scenario that includes the testimony of Richardson, Cadosch and Long. They're right to do that? Are you right to block it?

And you are blocking it.You have stated that Dr Phillips' estimated time of death cannot be relied on, yet you prefer it to the time of death indicated by the testimony of three witnesses. You object to the witness testimony because it is potentially unreliable, but it has not been proven to be wrong. You have insisted that you are not dismissing the witness testimony, but you have not offered any balancing scenario in which that testimony is used or suggested how it should otherwise be treated. Basically, you are dismissing the witness testimony - and as Herlock has stated, your stance on pretty much everything is to go against the accepted assessments of the evidence, everything from Eddowes' apron to the Swanson marginalia, which strongly indicates an inherent and strong bias in your arguments and conclusions.

What you are missing is that the likes of Herlock are prepared to accept that time of death cannot be firmly established, they are prepared to accept that Dr Phillips' estimated time of death cannot be relied upon on with any degree of certainty, and they are therefore considering the alternatives, namely the time of death suggested by the witness testimony. Why isn't that the right thing to do?

[Herlock Sholmes]

ITS ALSO STRANGE WHEN ''YOU'' COMPLETED DISMISS THE MODERN MEDICAL EXPERTS WHO SAY THAT EDDOWES UTERUS AND KIDNEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVE IN 5 MINS IN THE DARK. BUT YOU'LL GO WITH DR SEQUEIRAS MEDICAL EXPERT ADVICE WHEN IT SUITS YOU

And as I’ve pointed out about 500 times you are taking the opinion of a couple of experts. Experts can and do disagree. The vast majority of experts over the years appear to have no issue with this. And, as we know that Eddowes was killed where she was found because only a loony would think otherwise, then we know that this did happen in the time available.

And, as you well know but choose to ignore, is that in the case of the estimation of TOD every single medical expert agrees. There is a massive, massive difference Fishy.

Two dissenting voices versus uniform agreement.

I can see this, every other poster can see this, why can’t you?

[JeffHamm]

All we need to recognize is that palpation is a much more exact technique than you have tried to lead on, Herlock. Any idea that we can feel subtle differences in living people but not in dead is just silly. Actually, the paper is not concerened with living people, something you would know if you read it. It relates to palpating SIMULATED skin.
The one thing that matters here is nevertheless how we are well equipped to identify temperature differences by way of feeling with our hands. And as the paper points out - there is less than a 5 per cent chance that a therapist will get things three degrees wrong or more.

It is all about how exact the method is, and the method is reasonably exact. Exact enough for the writers of the paper to recognize it as a useful tool. Whether the results were reached with simulated skin or not and whether it was directed at being able to feel temperature differences in pathological conditions is neither here nor there.

Hi Fisherman,

No, being able to detect that A is warmer than B doesn't tell you the temperature of either A or B, just the relative temperature. Hence, he could tell there was more "heat" under the intestines than elsewhere. Second, the temperature at the surface of the body, even if he could measure it, is not a measurement that could be used to estimate the ToD anyway. If you're hands are exposed to the winter air, they get cold. The surface of them will feel cold to another person. That doesn't mean you've been dead for a few hours. To get anything even close to meaningful, you have to take a temperature with a rectal thermometer (or from the liver), and even then, all the calculations are based upon having an intact body, which Chapman's wasn't. So, even though the paper isn't about estimating the actual temperature, only the relative difference (making it irrelevant to our purposes), the measurement one would get by touching the body is useless with regards to estimating the ToD, particularly under the circumstances in which hers was found.

This was noted even at the time by the corner at her inquest, where during summing up he states "It was true that Dr. Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6:30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr. Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces.” So even the contemporaries recognized Dr. Phillips' estimate was questionable.

You're a journalist, and you live in a country with cold winters. Go interview your local coroner (or the equivalent) and ask them. You can even show them the paper you found and ask if that changes their mind.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

i can see this, every other poster can see this, why can’t you

stop speaking for other posters to make your point as if they agree with you.

[Trevor Marriott]

Aren't you causing this argument to persist by stamping your feet and stating that the witness testimony is unreliable?

I am stating a proven fact by highlighting the flaws

Positively ascertaining the time of death probably wouldn't further the investigation, but it would possibly tell us a lot about the reliability of the testimony of Richardson, Cadosch and Long, and nobody knows what bearing that could have on the investigation Some people think it is important to give full and proper consideration to a scenario that includes the testimony of Richardson, Cadosch and Long. They're right to do that? Are you right to block it

you tell me why conclusively ascertaining TOD would further the investigation.we know that there are conflicts in the witness testimony. We also cannot fully determined the conclusive TOD in the other murders.

And you are blocking it.You have stated that Dr Phillips' estimated time of death cannot be relied on, yet you prefer it to the time of death indicated by the testimony of three witnesses. You object to the witness testimony because it is potentially unreliable, but it has not been proven to be wrong. You have insisted that you are not dismissing the witness testimony, but you have not offered any balancing scenario in which that testimony is used or suggested how it should otherwise be treated. Basically, you are dismissing the witness testimony - and as Herlock has stated, your stance on pretty much everything is to go against the accepted assessments of the evidence, everything from Eddowes' apron to the Swanson marginalia, which strongly indicates an inherent and strong bias in your arguments and conclusions.

if anyone is biased it has to be you and how many more times do I have to tell you I am not dismissing the testimony I am saying it is unsafe

What you are missing is that the likes of Herlock are prepared to accept that time of death cannot be firmly established, they are prepared to accept that Dr Phillips' estimated time of death cannot be relied upon on with any degree of certainty, and they are therefore considering the alternatives, namely the time of death suggested by the witness testimony. Why isn't that the right thing to do?

There has to be a TOD and I like many others do not know what that is and based on what I know and how I interpret the fact and the witness testimony I believe Phillips could have been right

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I made the point that you and Baron have consistently mocked the suggestion the TOD estimates are unreliable.

You made the response below:

. Another Herlock lie .

From the TOD thread, post # 12 you said:

. That TOD estimations were unreliable and could be wildly inaccurate?......... rubbish

I can find more if you want me too?

So, surprise, surprise, I was telling the truth and you were lying.....again.

Any apology Fishy?

Didnt think so