John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

The issue remains:

Dr Phillips stated the only remaining warmth was under the intestines. Fisherman relayed this to Professor Thilbin from which he drew a conclusion.

That is the crux of it.

Are you suggesting Professor Thilbin was incompetent when he drew that conclusion from Dr Phillips' statement?

You've done it again and added the word "only" which isn't found in the evidence. You might say but surely that's what "except" means and, sure, but, as I keep saying, Thiblin was told that the body was "all cold". What Christer means by that in his own mind is the entire surface, including the armpits and groin, so he was trying to convey to Thiblin that Phillips had felt Chapman's entire body (inside and out!) and that the only heat in the entire body was under the intestines. He hasn't, therefore, properly reported the evidence to the professor to allow the professor to interpret what Phillips said (and that's not even getting into the murky fact that the professor has been told without any qualification that Phillips put his hand inside the abdominal cavity, which can only be an assumption).

So, to repeat, Thiblin has not been given accurate information about a nineteenth century case about which he cannot be expected to have any expert knowledge which makes any conclusion he has formed about that case potentially unreliable.

As for Thiblin's "conclusion", can I remind you that I provided my thoughts about that in some detail in #2186 (to which Christer never responded) but your reply was that it had too many words, and, on that basis, you seemed to have decided that you can ignore it. Why don't you try going back to it and reading it carefully then all your questions about my views on his opinion will be answered.

[FISHY1118]

16-0

What your loaded poll?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No it's not nitpicking, George.

The focus on the abdominal cavity is an attempt to send the discussion down a rabbit hole (true to form in certain quarters), and I'm not a huge fan of the meat of discussions being lost due to page after page being devoted to secondary issues:

As I posted earlier, but didn't get a response beyond something like "we don't know exactly what the newspapers said":

Dr Phillips stated the only remaining warmth was under the intestines. Fisherman relayed this to Professor Thilbin from which he drew a conclusion.

That is the crux of it.

Are you suggesting Professor Thilbin was incompetent when he drew that conclusion from Dr Phillips' statement?

"As I posted earlier, but didn't get a response beyond something like "we don't know exactly what the newspapers said"".

No, as I posted earlier (#2234), after you claimed (in #2231) that you were told "we can't trust what the newspapers said", you were not given a response of that nature. You keep saying this, so if you really think you were told something like "we don't know exactly what the newspapers said" please quote the post number in which you were told this.

Or stop inventing things!

[Herlock Sholmes]

What your loaded poll?

So not only can’t you understand the English language around the use of a caveat but you find the question in the poll difficult?

The poll is perfectly clear to anyone who reads English and perfectly fair and the result is obvious and overwhelming. Many of those on it haven’t even posted in this thread and many have only made very few posts. So even if you took away myself, Jeff and Doc it would still be one-sided.

Noticeably neither yourself or Meetwood have voted. You know that you are in a vanishingly small minority so you both take the Donald Trump position (it’s a fix!) Up to you Fishy but everyone sees it and everyone knows what’s going on.

[Fleetwood Mac]

For anyone willing to discuss this in a reasonable manner:

According to the Daily Telegraph, which Casebook has gone with for the site, Dr Phillips stated:

The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

This quite clearly means that the only warmth Dr Phillips detected in the body, was under the intestines.

This is what Fisherman relayed to Professor Thilbin.

Thoughts?

[The Macdonald Triad]

So not only can’t you understand the English language around the use of a caveat but you find the question in the poll difficult?

The poll is perfectly clear to anyone who reads English and perfectly fair and the result is obvious and overwhelming. Many of those on it haven’t even posted in this thread and many have only made very few posts. So even if you took away myself, Jeff and Doc it would still be one-sided.

Noticeably neither yourself or Meetwood have voted. You know that you are in a vanishingly small minority so you both take the Donald Trump position (it’s a fix!) Up to you Fishy but everyone sees it and everyone knows what’s going on.

It was a fix when it came to Trump. Bad example.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was a fix when it came to Trump. Bad example.

Ok Mac but you’re also in a minority if you believe that one. Or a single word that has ever come out of Trump’s mouth.

[FISHY1118]

So not only can’t you understand the English language around the use of a caveat but you find the question in the poll difficult?

The poll is perfectly clear to anyone who reads English and perfectly fair and the result is obvious and overwhelming. Many of those on it haven’t even posted in this thread and many have only made very few posts. So even if you took away myself, Jeff and Doc it would still be one-sided.

Noticeably neither yourself or Meetwood have voted. You know that you are in a vanishingly small minority so you both take the Donald Trump position (it’s a fix!) Up to you Fishy but everyone sees it and everyone knows what’s going on.

What does that tell you herlock, the smart ones new it loaded , why dont you ask george what he thought about your trick poll, i noticed you didnt respond to his post about it huh , no of course not . You fed peanuts and the monkeys came a running.

It was so pleasing to Fisherman post this week i guess that modern day medical expert argument now extends both ways. He certainly did you on that .

All your little digs about trump comparions and minority nonsense and suggestion about not understanding the english language. There are just smoke and mirrors, no doubt for your own benifit . So continue with you silly little diversions, but in the end we both know what the evidence tells us either way. You just refuse to admit , thats all .

[FISHY1118]

For anyone willing to discuss this in a reasonable manner:

According to the Daily Telegraph, which Casebook has gone with for the site, Dr Phillips stated:

The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

This quite clearly means that the only warmth Dr Phillips detected in the body, was under the intestines.

This is what Fisherman relayed to Professor Thilbin.

Thoughts?

Another tick in the Fisherman box , thanks for that Mac. He sure did a number on some this week.

[Aethelwulf]

Do you think youll get this reply too george ?.''Sorry, but this total misuse of the English language is simply'' nonsensical........ ill be dissapointed if you dont

''defies all sanity'' even our opinions regarding the interpretation of what DR Phillips ment is being called Insane!!!!! .....Getting desperate

This caveat nonsense is a perfect demonstration of why debates on this site will never come close to advancing the subject. If people can't agree on something so unbelievably straightforward, what chance with anything else even slightly more complicated?

Also, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt once, but two misspellings in a row of 'meant' (ment) and other mistakes (new for knew) undermine your credibility when debating the correct use of English.

[FISHY1118]

So not only can’t you understand the English language around the use of a caveat but you find the question in the poll difficult?

The poll is perfectly clear to anyone who reads English and perfectly fair and the result is obvious and overwhelming. Many of those on it haven’t even posted in this thread and many have only made very few posts. So even if you took away myself, Jeff and Doc it would still be one-sided.

Noticeably neither yourself or Meetwood have voted. You know that you are in a vanishingly small minority so you both take the Donald Trump position (it’s a fix!) Up to you Fishy but everyone sees it and everyone knows what’s going on.

What part of this English language didnt you understand ?

Ill ask again as i didnt get a reply from a previous poster

. How do we know the second statement qualifies the first ? .

His expressed reservation is the second sentence only , but as ive pointed out people have suggested he ment if for the first '' At least two hours ' . not so.

Like Mac has pointed out time and time again, which mean at least two hours . Simple .

No English misuse and no nonsense just read what it says .


I didnt think youd like the that simple explaination ,im not surprized . How do you know the second statement qualifies the first ? , you dont .

His expressed reservation is the second sentence only , but as ive pointed out people have suggested he ment if for the first '' At least two hours ' . not so.

Like Mac has pointed out time and time again, which mean at least two hours . Simple .

No English misuse and no nonsense just read what it says .

Again George posted basically the same explaination will you be replying to him ?

[The Macdonald Triad]

Ok Mac but you’re also in a minority if you believe that one. Or a single word that has ever come out of Trump’s mouth.

Maybe "the minority" in the Socialist world you've created for yourself. I've been watching you twist facts for a couple of weeks now, you should work for the lamestream media.

[FISHY1118]

This caveat nonsense is a perfect demonstration of why debates on this site will never come close to advancing the subject. If people can't agree on something so unbelievably straightforward, what chance with anything else even slightly more complicated?

Also, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt once, but two misspellings in a row of 'meant' (ment) and other mistakes (new for knew) undermine your credibility when debating the correct use of English.

Wulf , dont be such a nit picker as to use a spelling error that somehow you want everyone to think i can no longer post anything that is credible , what a childish response on your behalf . if i had a dime for every spelling mistake ive seen on this thread alone, and yes some words twice, by Trevor. M no less. I wouldnt be here education the likes of you on this simple phase How do we know the second statement qualifies the first .?

The Fact that you think the condition dr phillips uses is ''unbelievably straightforward'' Is why your first sentence is absolutely correct, you proved your own point. Congrats

''This caveat nonsense is a perfect demonstration of why debates on this site will never come close to advancing the subject''.

[FISHY1118]

Maybe "the minority" in the Socialist world you've created for yourself. I've been watching you twist facts for a couple of weeks now, you should work for the lamestream media.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

I won't attempt to impugn your knowledge of the English language, or question your sanity. I'll just suggest you are misinterpreting his statement.

"He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more" is a post mortem interval (PMI). To convert it to a Time of Death, you need a starting point. Phillips saw the body at the crime scene and in the mortuary. Phillips need to define to which of of those occasions he was referring. He did that by adding that it was from "when he first saw her body" at the crime scene, about 6:30. That was to be the time to which to add "at least two hours, and probably more".

I asked you this question before, but you didn't reply. Please tell me the Time of Death from this statement alone: "the deceased had been dead at least two hours". Without the starting point, this statement is meaningless.

Phillip's was a seasoned professional, but he probably hadn't seen a case with this degree of mutilation, so it was outside his experience. Likewise with Brown and Eddowes, which is why Brown called on Phillips. IMO, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood." was an acknowledgement that this circumstance was outside his experience, so his qualification would apply to how much more over two hours. That is my opinion. It agrees with that of others, but conflicts with yours, and others. Let's just leave it at that.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Surely if you take the view that the extent of the mutilations was "outside his experience", then you must accept that his entire estimate was based on something he had never seen before, and that he felt he was was therefore not qualified to give an estimate which was reliable. This might indeed be what he was saying at the inquest.

I didn't answer your previous question because the answer was obvious. Sorry, I didn't think an answer was required. There is absolutely no dispute whatever that Phillips was quoting his estimated ToD based on his observations when he first saw the body at about 6. 30 am. The dispute is about the interpretation of what he then said.

He didn't say for example, "The body was apt to cool more rapidly ... so I withdraw the "and probably more" and stand by the "at least two hours". He didn't say that or anything like that. He didn't qualify the statement in any way, despite being well versed in giving this type of evidence. If he had wished to say what several contributors want him to have said, he would have said it. He was there, and he said only what he said.

The very experienced coroner was also there, and he clearly took the view that Phillips was expressing a doubt about his estimate and saw no suggestion of that doubt applying only to part of the estimate.

The Times reporter was also there, and given the responsibility, he was probably quite experienced too. I believe that an experienced Times journalist and his editor would have understood the basic rules of punctuation. So for anyone here who doesn't understand what I am saying, I will explain, and my apologies for all of those who know already. The journalist chose to place a semi-colon between "...when he first saw her" and "but it was right to mention...". A semi-colon is used where we have two statements, both complete in themselves, but where the second statement is directly linked to the first, and for example, explains it, adds further information, contrasts it, or provides alternatives to it. So the journalist who was there, saw the observations as two separate statements both complete in themselves, and not as if the second applied to only part of the first. There is, of course, a distinct pause represented by a semi-colon, unlike a comma, clearly making them completely separate statements.

So of those who were there at the time, Phillips did not make a clear statement of a revised ToD, the coroner obviously was of the opinion that Phillips was no longer insisting his ToD, and the journalist considered Phillips made two distinctly separate statements, the second qualifying the whole of the first by expressing doubt as to its reliability.

The evidence of those who were there is that Phillips did not say anything whatsoever to suggest that he was modifying only part of his estimate. We were not there.

Apologies once again for boring everyone with a punctuation lesson, which was surely unnecessary, even though it was relevant.