Chapman’s death.

[PaulB]

if its no matter to you , why then are you making such a big thing about it ? typing in bold is not rude, there just bold letters, how on earth you can tell it reveals anything at all about me is staggering

I'm not making a big thing out of anything. I simply pointed out typing in bold is regarded as shouting and that shouting at people is rude. I haven't made this up. It is long established nettiquet. It's not my fault if you don't know that. And there is nothing staggering about drawing conclusions about someone who says they don't care if their behaviour is perceived as rude, it's simple common sense. But forget about it, shout away.

[FISHY1118]

i like the bold type , and no not shouting . as far as the ''no'' and the noise codosch heard, i guess it depends on whether you believe that at that precise moment of the ''no'' is when Annie met her demise. so do you ?

''i guess it depends on whether you believe that at that precise moment of the ''no'' is when Annie met her demise. so do you ''?

neither was this a difficult question , but i got no answer .

[PaulB]

Good.

Do you agree or not with Herlock's :

5.25-5.30 beyond all reasonable doubt


?!



The Baron

Oddly enough, I just said that I didn't know when Annie Chapman died, from which one could infer that I don't agree or disagree with Herlock. However, if Dr Phillips's estimated time of death is untenable, and there seems to be good reasons for supposing that it is, then it is necessary to consider the time of death suggested by the witness testimony. Don't you consider that that is the proper approach to take? It is certainly the approach I have taken, and I think it is also the approach Herlock has taken, although he has presented medical opinion which he finds acceptable but on which I am not qualified to comment and he has accordingly reached a firmer conclusion that I have. He has further argued, plausibly I think, that some commentators want Dr Phillips' estimated time of death to be correct because it suits theories they already hold.

[FISHY1118]

I'm not making a big thing out of anything. I simply pointed out typing in bold is regarded as shouting and that shouting at people is rude. I haven't made this up. It is long established nettiquet. It's not my fault if you don't know that. And there is nothing staggering about drawing conclusions about someone who says they don't care if their behaviour is perceived as rude, it's simple common sense. But forget about it, shout away.

Ooooh im fully aware thats what the bold type is interpreted as , i just choose not to play along with such a ridiculous notion that bold type is in some way offensive , i type in bold because i like it , simple . if people have a problem with it thats their problem not mine .

[PaulB]

-


So the killer wasn't on Annies right ?


The rest of your post was just more gibberish, already explained to you ,so ill just pick and choose to avoid wasting my time

Would the murderer have always been on Annie's right from the moment they entered the yard? Would there always have been a meter gap between Annie, her murderer, and the fence? If the answer is no, don't you think it is entirely possible that Annie or her murderer could have bumped against the fence at some point before Annie was prostrate on the ground and the murderer began to mutilate her?

[PaulB]

''i guess it depends on whether you believe that at that precise moment of the ''no'' is when Annie met her demise. so do you ''?

neither was this a difficult question , but i got no answer .

I did answer you question, although your question was a diversionary attempt to evade answering my question. For your clarification, I wrote, 'I don't know when Annie Chapman was murdered'. That means I have no belief about when Annie was killed. I also observed that you hadn't explained why it is 'almost impossible' for the murderer to have bumped against the fence. You're still silent on that and evading the question.

[PaulB]

Ooooh im fully aware thats what the bold type is interpreted as , i just choose not to play along with such a ridiculous notion that bold type is in some way offensive , i type in bold because i like it , simple . if people have a problem with it thats their problem not mine .

I have explained that it is long-established netiquette. You don't give a fig. Fine. I have better things to do than bat the matter back and forth. As said, shout away...

[The Baron]

one could infer that I don't agree or disagree with Herlock

Good , so you don't agree or disagree with him!

Very good to know indeed.

if Dr Phillips's estimated time of death is untenable, and there seems to be good reasons for supposing that it is, then it is necessary to consider the time of death suggested by the witness testimony.

Likewise there are good reasons to consider the TOD given by Dr. Phillips, so why this (beyond all reasonable doubt) ?!

Who is the one driven by his bias here?!

he has presented medical opinion which he finds acceptable

All those opinions don't say that the (at least two hours, probably more) was wrong, and you admitted this yourself before.

but on which I am not qualified to comment

Neither him!




The Baron

[PaulB]

Likewise there are good reasons to consider the TOD given by Dr. Phillips, so why this (beyond all reasonable doubt) ?!
Who is the one driven by his bias here?!

It may be the case that there are good reasons to consider the time of death given by Dr Phillips, and if he was supported by an independent and qualified expert who has assessed the evidence on both sides, I'm sure people would accept it. I cannot speak for Herlock, of course, but he has assessed the medical evidence and is apparently satisfied that it overwhelmingly points to the conclusion Dr Phillips' estimated time of death is likely to be wrong by a significant margin. On the basis of that assessment, Herlock has concluded that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that the witness statements give a time of death about 5.30 am. His conclusion is apparently based on an assessment of the evidence, not on the need for the an early time of death to fit a preconceived theory. Where's the bias in Herlock's conclusion?

All those opinions don't say that the (at least two hours, probably more) was wrong, and you admitted this yourself before.

Those opinions don't refer specifically to Dr Phillips, but they do seem to refer to and be critical of the methods he would have employed to estimate the time of death

Neither him!

Herlock may not be qualified, but he seems to understand what the sources say and is persuaded by them. Other commentators agree with him.

[DJA]

Good , so you don't agree or disagree with him!

Very good to know indeed.


The Baron

Certainly not what Herlock puts out.

Netiquette ...... fishpeople ........

[Herlock Sholmes]

I

Well when you do know something about Annie Chapman ill be sure and let you know why .

Try answering Paul’s very reasonable question instead of your usual waffle.

Why is it almost impossible that Annie’s killer to have brushed against the fence? You won’t answer it because you cannot answer it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

-


So the killer wasn't on Annies right ?

What I’m saying, if you’d bothered reading and understanding, is that you cannot say that she must have been on Annie’s right. You weren’t there. I wasn’t there. We have absolutely no way of knowing where the killer positioned himself or whether he changed positions whilst he was mutilating her.

Has that sunk in Fishy? We cannot know. And so.....

why are you assuming that you do know?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The rest of your post was just more gibberish, already explained to you ,so ill just pick and choose to avoid wasting my time

I debate every single point that you make. You use tactics like the above just to avoid answering.

You actually know that you are wrong Fishy and all reasonable posters can see this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

''i guess it depends on whether you believe that at that precise moment of the ''no'' is when Annie met her demise. so do you ''?

neither was this a difficult question , but i got no answer .

I’ve answered this repeatedly and you’ve repeatedly and dishonestly posted otherwise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From Professor Baron of Narnia.

Likewise there are good reasons to consider the TOD given by Dr. Phillips, so why this (beyond all reasonable doubt) ?!

Who is the one driven by his bias here?!

Name one reason?

Every single Forensic experts says that a TOD estimate using the methods that Phillips employed was unsafe and unreliable.

Every single one Baron.

If I’m wrong name the Forensic expert that disagrees.