Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. If you are going to say yes then that brings into question all the estimated time of death as given by all the doctors in these murders but with some we can show that their guesses were almost spot on.

And they had witnesses like police officer giving them helpful hints like “the body wasn’t there at....”

[Trevor Marriott]

If yo

Fisherman,
In answer to your post 445,I do indeed need someone to explain to me,as your replies are so lacking in explanation,but that's to be expected too.
It is Phillip's level of expertise that is in doubt,not his overall performance as a medical person,but in a situation where time of death is important.
Was he an expert in that respect? Explain.

I would imagine that Victorian doctors had a standard accepted process used by them all to determine times of death.

In the 21st Century we now know that those methods were unsafe but when we look back to 1888 can we safely rule out the times of death estimated by the Victorian doctors based on what we know now?

If you are going to say yes then that brings into question all the estimated time of death as given by all the doctors in these murders but with some we can show that their guesses were almost spot on.

So with Philips, having regards to the unsafe witness testimony to support a later time of death we have to serioulsy ask was his estimated time of death as near to being accurate as it could have been based on his observations of the body. Having regards to what Dr Biggs stated in my earlier post #358 on the topic I am of the opinion that Dr Phillips was correct.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
In answer to your post 445,I do indeed need someone to explain to me,as your replies are so lacking in explanation,but that's to be expected too.
It is Phillip's level of expertise that is in doubt,not his overall performance as a medical person,but in a situation where time of death is important.
Was he an expert in that respect? Explain.

He was a police surgeon, Harry. That means that he was the top forensic authority available in the practical field. Determining TOD was part of his work, and he would have done so innumerable times before he examined Annie Chapman.

Do you understand this, or should I try and be clearer? Iīm at your disposal.

[Fisherman]

I see no reason for doing that Fish. If I recall correctly Steve (Elamarna) has a medical background and he disagrees with you. And doesn’t Sam Flynn have a medical background too and I seem to recall him disagreeing with you. So why should a journalists opinion trump the opinion of those with medical backgrounds?

It should not. Generally speaking, I donīt think that the backgrounds of Steve and Gareth should trump any opinion I form myself on medical matters either. None of them are doctors or forensic specialists, and when it comes to Steve, I seem to remember that what he has done is to speak to people with medical experience, but I donīt know to what degree these people were forensic specialists.

As for Gareth, I remember him once claiming that he would NEVER accept that Phillips was right and the witnesses wrong, come hell or high water. That is of course. ot a medical assessment per se, but perhaps telling nevertheless. We are dealing with ripperology, and sometimes facts are pushed aside to allow for convictions.

Anybody can find information saying that feeling for warmth is an unreliable method. Many times it is dramatically worded, stating that it is a method that "should never be used since it is fraught with uncertainty". None of these pieces of information, though, state that a trained medico is going to be likely to mistke a cold body for a warm one, and THAT is the crux here.

As for my level of knowledge in these matters, I of course donīt base what I say on personal hunches.

[Fisherman]

Only that he was a Doctor using unreliable methods. Whether 1, 2, 3 or 4 of them. Unreliable is unreliable is unreliable.

There is unreliablity in every method to establish TOD. Each and every one of them. The method that is accepted as the best one today is the measurement of potassium in eye liquid, but even this method comes with a degree of unreliability. Therefore, when medicos establish TOD as best as they can, they use the potassium method together with other methods - all of them carrying on some uncertainty.

The reason they do so, is to get as many parameters as possible in line to be able to make their call with as much underlying information as possible. In other words, they do exactly what Phillips did.

The question is: Does the fact that todays methods for establishing TOD allow you to say that we can throw out any conclusion the doctors make and cry "Unreliable!"? Because we know that there IS unreliability involved.

Iīd say that it would be grossly disrespectful not to acknowledge that making a call based on multiple concurring parameters will be a fairly certain way to go about things. But I would add that the longer the body investigated had been dead, the larger the risk of getting things wrong. Which means that the shorter the period since death, the lesser the risk of getting it wrong. And Chapman offers as easy a task as could be asked for in this context, becasue she had not gone entirely cold as she was found; she was relatively recently dead, and when the body temperature is coupled with the rigor, digestion and blood clotting information, we get a picture that speaks very loudly of Phillips being absolutely correct in one department and very likely reasonably correct in the another:

Chapman very likely died a couple of hours before she was found. That is what is very likely reasonably correct.

Chapman did NOT die an hour only before she was found. That is where he is absolutely correct.

[Fisherman]

Don’t recall the exact quote but didn’t Jason Payne-James talk about the unreliability of using certain methods for assessing TOD?

I think feeling for warmth is an unreliable method for assessing TOD. My wife agrees. So do my kids. Everybody does. The problem is - and has been from day one - that this unreliability does not stretch all the way to mistaking one hour dead people for people who have been dead for three or four hours.

This is where it goes wrong all the time, over and over and over again - when we extrapolate the unreliability that lies in telling more subtle differences apart, we shoud not start believing that medico will not be able to tell all warm from all cold. But this is exactly what you do!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then take my word for it, it is your researcher friend who is wrong. Unless he speculated in Phillips being totally shitfaced that day, or somehing along those lines.

Only that he was a Doctor using unreliable methods. Whether 1, 2, 3 or 4 of them. Unreliable is unreliable is unreliable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're conflating the testimony with the newspaper quote. The later was what I was referring to, specifically this bit:

Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple.

Are you disagreeing with my subjective interpretation of that newspaper quote, or are you arguing in bad faith?
I'm suspicious of people who argue in bad faith.

Caz,
does your criticism of me using a quote as though it were spoke in the first person, also apply to Herlock here, or is he disagreeing with something I said, as though I were referring to something else (in other words, arguing in bad faith)?

I don’t understand the ‘bad faith’ point.

You were talking about Long being unreliable.

You used the Darrell quote to point out that she’d supposedly said that she’d be unable to recognise the two people.

I pointed out that the quote was suspect because she did indeed identify Annie (whether correctly or incorrectly)

I also pointed out that the reliability of the journalist might be questioned as he couldn’t even get Mr Long’s name right.

I don’t see the issue?

[harry]

Fisherman,
In answer to your post 445,I do indeed need someone to explain to me,as your replies are so lacking in explanation,but that's to be expected too.
It is Phillip's level of expertise that is in doubt,not his overall performance as a medical person,but in a situation where time of death is important.
Was he an expert in that respect? Explain.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I disagree.

Firstly, she obviously felt that she could indeed identify her because that’s exactly what she did.

and

Secondly, I’m suspicious when a journalist tells me what a person was supposed to have said when the journalist can’t even get the witnesses name right.

You're conflating the testimony with the newspaper quote. The later was what I was referring to, specifically this bit:

Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple.

Are you disagreeing with my subjective interpretation of that newspaper quote, or are you arguing in bad faith?
I'm suspicious of people who argue in bad faith.

Caz,
does your criticism of me using a quote as though it were spoke in the first person, also apply to Herlock here, or is he disagreeing with something I said, as though I were referring to something else (in other words, arguing in bad faith)?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then take my word for it, it is your researcher friend who is wrong. Unless he speculated in Phillips being totally shitfaced that day, or somehing along those lines.

I see no reason for doing that Fish. If I recall correctly Steve (Elamarna) has a medical background and he disagrees with you. And doesn’t Sam Flynn have a medical background too and I seem to recall him disagreeing with you. So why should a journalists opinion trump the opinion of those with medical backgrounds?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do expand, Herlock!

Don’t recall the exact quote but didn’t Jason Payne-James talk about the unreliability of using certain methods for assessing TOD?

[Fisherman]

Do expand, Herlock!

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are welcome to quote as many experts as you like - as long as you ask the correct experts, quote them correctly and understand what they are saying. As for the press, keep it simple - if there are two or more independent sources that agree, then you can bank on them being on the money.

Like the expert that was used in your Lechmere documentary for example? Or is he only correct some of the time?

[Fisherman]

I was consulting with a researcher friend who I have total confidence in and he is adamant that Fish is wrong and that Phillips could indeed have been that wrong.

Then take my word for it, it is your researcher friend who is wrong. Unless he speculated in Phillips being totally shitfaced that day, or somehing along those lines.