Cadosch: Dismissed For Being Cautious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I accept that experts opinions will sometimes differ, but I see time and time again reseachers who are not experts blatantly disregarding what the experts are telling us in favour of their own personal non expert opinions.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have no opinions on medical matters Trevor. I’m going on the mountain of evidence provided on the other thread, from leading Forensic experts who all said that TOD estimations are fraught with danger of error or to use your favourite word “unsafe.” It was even said that some of the methods used by Phillips simply should not be used. So if someone tells me that 4 unsafe methods appear to give similar answers then you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t break into a chorus of “Its Over.”

Equally I’m not saying that Phillips could not have been correct. There is doubt. Fish would say that the doubt is so negligible as to be almost impossible. This is not meant as an insult to Fish in any way, he knows his stuff, but 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.

And so I have two researchers, one favouring Phillips and the other not. I have the evidence that I saw in black and white saying what I said above. So for me as a non-expert I’m at that stage with the medical evidence. So could anything sway the balance? Yes, 3 witnesses. All with questions to answer of course. And unless we take Phillips as absolute gospel none of those witnesses can be eliminated. Questioned - yes. Doubted even - yes. But eliminated - no.

So I think that my position is entirely reasonable. That doesn’t mean that I couldn’t be wrong but I favour the witnesses over the Doctor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But the witness was not being quoted. It was described as a statement she made 'to the effect that...'

A very different beast.

We see it all the time on these boards where direct quotes are not used, so someone's words can be interpreted subjectively as being 'to the effect that... [fill in the blank with something more, er, creative]'.

It's what journalists do, and it's not hard to see it in action anywhere.

Love,

Caz
X

Watch it Caz. Someone will send the men in white coats for you if you persist in using common sense.

[Fisherman]

Don't be like that, Fish.

Oooh yes, I will - as long as you calm efforts based on years of training and experience "guesswork".

Of course an expert medical opinion is admissible, but it doesn't automatically mean the opinion is right, does it?

I actually alread answered that one, but just for you: No, it doesnŽt.

How many times has one forensic expert directly contradicted another, in a court of law, leaving the inexpert jury members to decide between themselves which opinion is more likely to be right?

My guess is not a single time - if the issue was a doctor saying that a cold body is not compatible with an hour oif deat only. Otrherwise, you have a great point. But his is a question of telling black from white, not telling slightly gray from, well ... slightly gray.

Have there been no cases where an expert got it wrong, and the wrong person was convicted as a result, or the guilty person set free to offend again?

Not if you are asking for cases where a doctor who found a totally cold body and mistook it for a freshly dead one. Say within the hour or so. I really donŽt think so.

If the jury is given just the one expert opinion, how are they meant to know if 9 other experts would have been of the same opinion, or if 6 of them might have differed?

Love,

Caz
X

They canŽt. But if you asked all the victorian doctors whether they thought that a body that was totally cold save for a certain remaining heat under the intestines had been dead for one hour or three, four hours, there would be no disagreements.

[Fisherman]

I get criticised for questioning expert testimony and yet the opposite appears to occur when it comes to the Press. (And no, I’m not just having a dig at anyone who happens to be a journalist ) We continually see the press giving differing accounts and using varying quotes and it’s often used to discredit a witness or to suggest a version of events. Maybe we should start treating press reports with a much larger pinch of salt?

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.

[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.

[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]

Do expand, Herlock!

[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?

[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?

[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)?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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!

[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.

IŽd 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.