John Richardson

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I appreciate you're responding to a post solely involving Mrs Richardson.

At the same time, you're putting two and two together and getting five.

My reliance is on the series of evidence, i.e. that which is known, including Mrs Richardson's statement; as opposed to bending what is stated/known into something that is not recorded.

Mrs Richardson's statement is one of around 10 pieces of known information that lend towards an earlier time of death. 1 in 10 being the operative phrase, as opposed to 'relying on Mrs Richardson'.

See post 1974 for more details and feel free to get back to me.

Hi Mac, I appreciate you don't solely rely on Mrs Richardson.

We have many bits of the puzzle, and we naturally tend to assume that they'll make a complete picture. But they can make several pictures, any one which might more accurately match what's on the box. I think it's important to understand this. While I strongly lean towards the 5:30 TOD, I also try to see the picture from other directions too. Phillips is a good witness, consistent and professional, so it's folly to dismiss him outright.

It's a case of fence sitting for me with the TOD. Either option is equally plausible, so I can work with either depending on what possible outcomes I'm exploring.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If he wanted to insist on two hours as an absolute minimum regardless, he'd have said so.

He did say so.

Dr Phillips said: "at least two hours". That means a minimum of two hours.

He couldn't have been any clearer.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Invention.

You're just here for an argument, Sherlock, aren't you. It's as clear as day you're not here for an honest and reasonable assessment of the witness statements.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem being, we've been through all of this.

You were asked, more than once, to explain your links, i.e. sample size, food that had been digested and so on. You declined.

They are links to scientific evidence. I’m not a scientist. You’re the one who feels qualified to question the conclusions of the experts. If you want to ignore it that’s up to you. It’s hardly a surprise.

We spoke about John Richardson's cutting of the boot, and in the end you resorted to falling back on "we can't be sure the newspapers reported the inquest accurately".

Because you are basing your opinion not only on Richardson spewing meaningless gibberish but also the coroner and the jury ignoring it.

Taking an example from your most recent post, when put to you that Dr Phillips' left us some valuable observations, your reply is: "guesses".

They were estimates. Estimate is another word for guess. You continue to feel qualified to debate the whole forensic science establishment and you expect people to take that seriously.

You refuse to acknowledge that "at least two hours" means the minimum time possible, even though this is widely understood according to English diction.

And you are in the minority on this interpretation.

There is no reasoning with you, Sherlock. You carry on bending the witness statements to promote that which they aren't recording as stating.

I won’t take seriously the biased opinion of a poster that has to childishly resort to giving me an incorrect username purely out of a sense of kindergarten name-calling. You have found your level.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Mac, I appreciate you don't solely rely on Mrs Richardson.

We have many bits of the puzzle, and we naturally tend to assume that they'll make a complete picture. But they can make several pictures, any one which might more accurately match what's on the box. I think it's important to understand this. While I strongly lean towards the 5:30 TOD, I also try to see the picture from other directions too. Phillips is a good witness, consistent and professional, so it's folly to dismiss him outright.

It's a case of fence sitting for me with the TOD. Either option is equally plausible, so I can work with either depending on what possible outcomes I'm exploring.

Neither option is devoid of obstacles, but upon assessing the statements I don't think they are equally plausible.

For me, it boils down to which scenario requires most in the way of leap of faith. I feel that scenario is the 5.30am TOD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An assessment based on what?

What is your criteria for assessing them?

The only criteria I see is bending their words to fit a 5.30am TOD.

Your tactic of getting me to a point where I get too bored to post is close to working.

Any poster that goes against every single forensic science expert in the world purely to desperately try and prove an earlier TOD has already lost the argument.

[Dickere]

He did say so.

Dr Phillips said: "at least two hours". That means a minimum of two hours.

He couldn't have been any clearer.

That's where this debate can carry on Jack interminably. In my view, if someone is insistent on two hours minimum, he repeats that after the caveat. He did not, he wasn't fixated on it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Estimate is another word for guess.

An estimate is not the same as a guess.

Just as "at least two hours" means a minimum of two hours.

Your theory is underpinned by your sub-standard grasp of the English language.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That's where this debate can carry on Jack interminably. In my view, if someone is insistent on two hours minimum, he repeats that after the caveat. He did not, he wasn't fixated on it.

The problem here is that you're moving away from what Dr Phillips stated in order to form a conclusion: "in my view, if someone is insistent on two hours minimum, he repeats that after the caveat. He did not, he wasn't fixated on it." This is speculation.

We have the option to leave speculation aside and consider what Dr Phillips actually stated: "at least two hours", i.e. the minimum time that is possible.

There you are, he actually tells you in his own words. You don't need to speculate, unless of course you wish to turn his statement into that which he didn't state.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“I should say at least two hours, and probably more; So he establishes his estimate - a lower estimate of 2 hours and an unlimited upper estimate. This would have been more than ample for any coroner’s inquest. Does he stick with this though? No……because we get a BUT which some will have us believe led to a pointless caveat. A caveat is only introduced when it allows for something that might affect or alter the original statement. This is simply a fact and not opinion.


but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.” He is now clearly and unequivocally stated that there is a chance that the conditions that morning might have led to an extension of his lower estimate.

He clearly can’t have been talking about his upper estimate because his upper estimate wasn’t fixed. So it would have made no sense for him to have said - and probably more but because of the conditions even more!

So he had to have been talking about his lower estimate.

There can be no other conclusion drawn, if we eliminate the bias, than what Phillips was saying was - I believe that the likeliest TOD death was a lower estimate of 2 hours but it was probably more but we have to accept that the conditions meant that it could have been under 2 hours.

And what did someone who was actually there at the time say? Someone who was absolutely focused on getting at the truth? Like the coroner…

It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces”

On this point it should be case well and truly closed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or is it?

[Fleetwood Mac]

“I should say at least two hours, and probably more; So he establishes his estimate - a lower estimate of 2 hours and an unlimited upper estimate. This would have been more than ample for any coroner’s inquest. Does he stick with this though? No……because we get a BUT which some will have us believe led to a pointless caveat. A caveat is only introduced when it allows for something that might affect or alter the original statement. This is simply a fact and not opinion.


but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.” He is now clearly and unequivocally stated that there is a chance that the conditions that morning might have led to an extension of his lower estimate.

He clearly can’t have been talking about his upper estimate because his upper estimate wasn’t fixed. So it would have made no sense for him to have said - and probably more but because of the conditions even more!

So he had to have been talking about his lower estimate.

There can be no other conclusion drawn, if we eliminate the bias, than what Phillips was saying was - I believe that the likeliest TOD death was a lower estimate of 2 hours but it was probably more but we have to accept that the conditions meant that it could have been under 2 hours.

And what did someone who was actually there at the time say? Someone who was absolutely focused on getting at the truth? Like the coroner…

It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces”

On this point it should be case well and truly closed.

Firstly, that which Dr Phillips stated is of more consequence than the coroner's interpretation. Dr Phillips stated: "at least two hours", i.e. the minimum time possible. There you have it, in his own words.

Secondly, the coroner understood perfectly that which Dr Phillips stated:

1) The coroner repeated: "at least two hours", i.e. the minimum time possible.
2) The coroner stated that Dr Phillips may have miscalculated. In the event the coroner believed Dr Phillips meant: "two hours but possibly less", then Dr Phillips couldn't have miscalculated and so the coroner wouldn't have stated such. Again, here the coroner is telling you that Dr Phillips meant the minimum time possible.

You're bending the statements; it's mere speculation on your part. The actual words of both Dr Phillips and the coroner tells us: a minimum of two hours.

[Trevor Marriott]

“I should say at least two hours, and probably more; So he establishes his estimate - a lower estimate of 2 hours and an unlimited upper estimate. This would have been more than ample for any coroner’s inquest. Does he stick with this though? No……because we get a BUT which some will have us believe led to a pointless caveat. A caveat is only introduced when it allows for something that might affect or alter the original statement. This is simply a fact and not opinion.


but
It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces”[/B]

On this point it should be case well and truly closed.

You are clearly misinterpreting Phillips he states at least 2 hours and probably more, but it is the caveat that is being misinterpreted in my opinon.

You are taking it to mean that as a result of what he said and the misleading plethora of percentages posted on here, you are basing your counter arguments that what he said could support a later time of death.

When in fact it could be that what he said could be interpreted to have been an even longer time of death than the 2 hours he stated

And the witness testimony is all over the place so as I have stated many times it is not as clear cut as you keep suggesting

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dickere]

The problem here is that you're moving away from what Dr Phillips stated in order to form a conclusion: "in my view, if someone is insistent on two hours minimum, he repeats that after the caveat. He did not, he wasn't fixated on it." This is speculation.

We have the option to leave speculation aside and consider what Dr Phillips actually stated: "at least two hours", i.e. the minimum time that is possible.

There you are, he actually tells you in his own words. You don't need to speculate, unless of course you wish to turn his statement into that which he didn't state.

It's opinion, rather than speculation. Hence the "in my view, ...". It's down to interpretation which is of course subjective. Taking his statement as a whole, mine differs from yours, which is fine.

[FISHY1118]

It's opinion, rather than speculation. Hence the "in my view, ...". It's down to interpretation which is of course subjective. Taking his statement as a whole, mine differs from yours, which is fine.

Finally a common sense approach,

"Its down to interpretation which is subjective "
"Which is fine.".... indeed it is.