John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good to see you back from your self-imposed break, Sherlock. Don't take it all so seriously, it's only a bit crack on a message board.

So, the self-imposed weekend break materialised into approx. 10 minutes abstinence. Never mind, there are no rules here and nobody wants to bully you off the board.

I see your break hasn't done much for the quality of your posts. Never mind, it's the taking part that counts.

Whether it’s online or face to face there shouldn’t be any attempt at manipulation just to pursue an agenda. Most of us on here believe that this is important. Different interpretations are one thing and to be expected; trying to skew things by claiming to know more than the worlds experts or by distorting the English language or by taking trivial points and magnifying them in an attempt to discredit witnesses serves no meaningful purpose.

Id also ask, if we were talking face to face would you refuse to use my proper name? The rest of us manage to do it on here.

[Dickere]

The interpretation differs, aye, but some interpretations are built upon stronger foundations than others.

My interpretation is based on that which Dr Phillips actually stated: "at least two hours".

And, your interpretation is speculation given it lacks evidence: you're suggesting that Dr Phillips would have stated "at least two hours" on two separate occasions in a very short sentence in the event he meant: "at least two hours". There is no reason to believe that, i.e. speculation.

You, or anyone else for that matter, can take his words and turn them into whatever you like, but it is inescapable that Dr Phillips stated: "at least two hours", i.e. the minimum time possible, according to standard English diction.

I appreciate the response, I disagree with the interpretation, no problem though. I see where you're coming from.

[Fleetwood Mac]

trying to skew things by claiming to know more than the worlds experts

This is a glorious, hitherto unseen example of saying something but saying nothing.

Do you want to put some meat on the bones?

Id also ask, if we were talking face to face would you refuse to use my proper name? The rest of us manage to do it on here.

'Just out of idle curiosity, Sherlock, why do you say: "face to face"? What difference do you think it would make?

And, this really shouldn't come as a surprise, although wading through your incomprehensible posts I have a feeling it may well do: your 'proper name' isn't Herlock Sholmes.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I appreciate the response, I disagree with the interpretation, no problem though. I see where you're coming from.

For my part, I can appreciate and accept an alternative opinion but not when it lacks foundations.

So, I don't mean to be disrespectful nor antagonistic, and there is a lot to be said for telling it how it is: I don't see a great deal of substance in your interpretation.

There's no use in everyone in saying: "well, it's just opinions". That doesn't get anyone very far at all. Sometimes people have to say: "hold up, that opinion is pretty much baseless".

[Doctored Whatsit]

Which of course is a misrepresentation of what I've been saying over the course of a good few pages.

The two parts of his statement are irretrievably linked, obviously.

The second part of his statement does not negate: "at least two hours".

At least means the minimum time possible, regardless of what followed in his statement.

What did follow is: "and probably more hours but....."

This is where Dr Phillips is not unequivocal and volunteers that while he believed Annie had been dead for more than two hours, he was unprepared to nail it down to exactly how many hours more. You would have to infer that based on his observations and medical knowledge it would have been a meaningless statement and unprofessional.



Yes, it is known that estimating TOD is problematic.

But, let's be clear on this: Dr Phillips did not give an exact time estimate.

Dr Phillips gave a window of between 2 and 3 hours or 2 and 4 hours. We don't which of those two because he didn't quantify how many hours he had in mind when he stated: "and probably more".

Your interpretation is quite astonishing! He did not say "and probably more hours but...". He said that his opinion was , "at least two hours and probably more, when he first saw her;" He never suggested that it was more hours, just "more". Your comment about him being"unprepared to nail it down to exactly how many hours more" is totally surreal. Far from wishing to suggest it was more hours, his statement was entirely qualified by the next sentence which told the coroner that his estimate was doubtful because of the body having lost a great deal of blood. He did not give a revised estimate based on his fresh evidence, but left it up to the coroner and jury. Please note the obvious, that the decision to cast doubt on his estimate was his and his alone. No-one was pressuring him to change his point of view.

You are right that he did not give an exact time estimate - he gave an approximate one, and then explained why it might not be accurate.

[Fleetwood Mac]

He never suggested that it was more hours, just "more"

So, when Dr Phillips said: "at least two hours and probably more", more what? more biscuits?

[Doctored Whatsit]

So, when Dr Phillips said: "at least two hours and probably more", more what? more biscuits?

More time, obviously, "when he first saw her". And then he qualified this with his explanation of why he could be wrong. It doesn't matter too much what his first statement said, because he explained his potential error very clearly. So whatever he said could be incorrect - he said so.

[Fleetwood Mac]

More time

He's quantifying time in terms of hours, i.e. "at least two hours".

So, when he says: "and probably more", it follows he is talking of hours.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So whatever he said could be incorrect - he said so.

He didn't. You've made this up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a glorious, hitherto unseen example of saying something but saying nothing.

Do you want to put some meat on the bones?

You know very well what I meant. The experts that tell us that the TOD estimate of a Victorian Doctor was unreliable and you waste post after post trying to second guess this to try and show that Phillips was likely to have been correct.

'Just out of idle curiosity, Sherlock, why do you say: "face to face"? What difference do you think it would make?

That you wouldn’t just refuse to use my name properly in a face to face discussion I assume. It’s called common courtesy. Why am I explaining the obvious again?

And, this really shouldn't come as a surprise, although wading through your incomprehensible posts I have a feeling it may well do: your 'proper name' isn't Herlock Sholmes.

And, as everyone else would have assumed, I wasn’t talking about my actual name. I’m talking about my username on here. We all manage the task of addressing each other by our username. Your decision not to use mine is a deliberate tactic. Don’t tell me that you’re even denying this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

More time, obviously, "when he first saw her". And then he qualified this with his explanation of why he could be wrong. It doesn't matter too much what his first statement said, because he explained his potential error very clearly. So whatever he said could be incorrect - he said so.

I’ve tried googling it Doc but I still can’t find an alternative English language. Did you ever think that you would be trying to explain something as obvious as this?

[Fleetwood Mac]

And, as everyone else would have assumed, I wasn’t talking about my actual name. I’m talking about my username on here. We all manage the task of addressing each other by our username. Your decision not to use mine is a deliberate tactic. Don’t tell me that you’re even denying this?

As usual, you're mistaken.

Can I remind you that this is a forum to discuss the Whitechapel Murderer, as opposed to a forum discussing a fictional character who can't spell his own name.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The experts that tell us that the TOD estimate of a Victorian Doctor was unreliable

I'll tell you what it is, Sherlock, I'm curious about this one.

It seems that everyone on this thread, including those who support an earlier TOD, have accepted your proposition.

I'm not convinced and would like to hear more.

So, which experts? What did they say?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As usual, you're mistaken.

Can I remind you that this is a forum to discuss the Whitechapel Murderer, as opposed to a forum discussing a fictional character who can't spell his own name.

You can’t help yourself can you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll tell you what it is, Sherlock, I'm curious about this one.

It seems that everyone on this thread, including those who support an earlier TOD, have accepted your proposition.

I'm not convinced and would like to hear more.

So, which experts? What did they say?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/social-chat/creative-writing-and-expression/792993-on-trolls#post792993