John Richardson

[The Macdonald Triad]

Really?



or this….



or this….



You apparently don’t even know when you’re doing it.

You said I mocked your opinion of Cutbush. Now you're moving the goalposts as usual.

[Abby Normal]

Hi George,

This isn't aimed at you, yours just happens to be the last entry.

Come on guys! We have all lost the plot here. This debate has degenerated into arguments as to which side of the debate is behaving the nastiest.

We can all do better than this!

well said Doctored and I agree. and since i know im guilty of it, and not sure if i can control myself in the future ill be bowing out now. for my part i apologize to all for my part in it.
thanks for your contributions and keep up the good work!

[Doctored Whatsit]

well said Doctored and I agree. and since i know im guilty of it, and not sure if i can control myself in the future ill be bowing out now. for my part i apologize to all for my part in it.
thanks for your contributions and keep up the good work!

I didn't have you in mind, Abby!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Hello George,

I'll answer your post # 2336 first. By feeling under the intestines he was accessing the core of the body where the temperate would most likely to have exhibited a residual. The intestines above that point would be acting as an insulation shield because they are exposed to the air.

You are saying he found warmth at the back of the intestines? Have I understood you correctly?

He felt the front of the intestines and there was no heat but he then placed his hand further down the intestines, at the back of the body as it was lying on the ground, and there was heat? Yes?

If so, why did Phillips not say, "The body was cold except at the back of intestines where there was heat"? Why did he use the word "under"?

But, if I've misunderstood you, could you please state precisely which part of the anatomy, or which organ, you are saying he touched with his hand to feel warmth?


I didn't say Lynn Cates had changed his opinion recently, I said I had recently noticed the change of opinion, because I have been recently reading old threads on Chapman, and Lynn was posting here:
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...566-ac-and-tod, on a thread he created. As I read the thread I noticed that almost all the points I have raised on this thread were also being raised by Christer on that thread, particularly on pages 11 and 14, and they were all being rebuffed with similar arguments as here.

No problem.

Some of the other old threads I read contained your posts. I mean no offense when I say that you were like a different person back then. You were not combative, were tolerant of others opinions, did not repeat your arguments or speak in absolutes, but were still very knowledgeable. For reasons best known to yourself you seem now to become agitated at differences of opinion and to engage far to much in personal attacks. I don't deny that others do the same, maybe I just expect better from you. May I suggest....relax and chill...we are not going to solve anything by arguing and in 100 years no one will know the difference.

Cheers, George

I don’t think that I’ve changed in any way George and I don’t see absolutes. I’ve long accepted for example that just because the TOD estimate was unreliable it doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have gotten it right but some, on the other side, have tried to skew things in favour of it being likely that he was correct. I accept that we can’t 100% assume that witnesses couldn’t be mistaken but we have been up against some suggesting that witnesses like Richardson should just be eliminated and all because of the easily explainable ‘issue’ about the knife. I’m not trying to tar everyone with any brush but I’d say with confidence that overall far more on the one side (favouring witnesses) have taken a more honest , even-handed, unbiased approach than on the other. Again, I’m not saying that this applies to everyone though. And when faced with this kind of obvious bias it gets frustrating, especially when some of those people try and deflect by making accusations. I agree with you 100% though that we should all try to avoid ‘arguing’ and focus on ‘debate and discussion.’

There’s even someone trying to tell me that I’m not English.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm suggesting that it's not clear what he meant when he said that there was heat under the intestines because one would naturally expect him to say there was heat in the intestines.

Why is this relevant? Explain the difference between "under" and "in" in the context.

[FriedKidne]

There’s even someone trying to tell me that I’m not English.


To me, that would be a compliment!

[Fleetwood Mac]

If it was impossible to tie down a TOD in 1994 with all the advancements in medical knowledge and technology available then how the hell could a Victorian Doctor have done it.

He didn't "tie it down". You're pulling rabbits out of hats again.

Dr Phillips said: "at least two hours and probably more....."

In any language in the world, this cannot possibly be construed as: "tying it down".

[Fleetwood Mac]

There’s even someone trying to tell me that I’m not English.

I'm convinced you're not.

I can tell by your posting style.

That said, it's irrelevant to the points being made.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm convinced you're not.

I can tell by your posting style.

That said, it's irrelevant to the points being made.

A photograph of my hand with ‘Hello Meetwood’ written on it in front of a TV with You’ve Been Framed on and a copy of todays Daily Mirror in front of it.

Ill accept your apology whenever you’re ready.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is this relevant? Explain the difference between "under" and "in" in the context.

Because according to the dictionary ‘under’ and ‘in’ have different meanings. Or at least they do in England…..where I live.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Because according to the dictionary ‘under’ and ‘in’ have different meanings. Or at least they do in England…..where I live.

Stop "flanneling", in Trevor's words, and explain what you mean in relation to Annie's situation.

Professor Thilbin, qualified in forensic medicine, disagrees with you on this point. So, what are you trying to say?

[Herlock Sholmes]

He didn't "tie it down". You're pulling rabbits out of hats again.

Dr Phillips said: "at least two hours and probably more....."

In any language in the world, this cannot possibly be construed as: "tying it down".

You know very well what I meant when I used that phrase. That the range Phillips gave cannot be tied down in terms of accuracy. It cannot be stated that he couldn’t have been wrong either way. You appear to be the last man standing who believes that he could.

[Fleetwood Mac]

A photograph of my hand with ‘Hello Meetwood’ written on it in front of a TV with You’ve Been Framed on and a copy of todays Daily Mirror in front of it.

Ill accept your apology whenever you’re ready.

An observation:

You've written: "Hello Meetwood" on your hand and posted that for public consumption.

Christ.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Stop "flanneling", in Trevor's words, and explain what you mean in relation to Annie's situation.

Professor Thilbin, qualified in forensic medicine, disagrees with you on this point. So, what are you trying to say?

I’m not going to keep explaining something that you just deliberately keep pretending not to understand. Thiblin was given incorrect information. It’s there in black and white so I’m not going to keep going over it just because you fancy a bit of your usual obfuscation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An observation:

You've written: "Hello Meetwood" on your hand and posted that for public consumption.

Christ.

Yes. To show what kind of person I’m having to deal with here. An egotistical know-all who tries to tell another poster where he comes from!

No apology I see.

Thought not. Sums you up. A neverending drivel machine.