John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor you should know as a policeman before that TOD is given as a range, 2-3 hours,with scientific instruments.Except if an old corpse.Anything within that range is possible.One of it's uses is if a suspect does not have an alibi within that range it could go against him.
As it is a range 3:30 am is as good as 5:30 am or everything in-between.We have to go the witnesses to determine which is true or likely.We have a witness that put Chapman at around 5:30 am an also a witness who observed a commotion at around that time at the no. 29 murder spot.Meanwhile witnesses that put Chapman at around 3:30 am were ghosts.

You should read the post to which my comment was made before making critical comments.

In that post Herlock suggests that Dr Phillips may have not done what he said he did at the crime scene with regards to examining the heat of the intestines

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

I haven't seen any such statement. If you think one exists, perhaps you could do me a favour and quote it for me.

Does this mean you haven't actually read Fisherman's posts from a few pages back?

If so, you probably should before commenting so that you have all of the details from which to make an informed opinion. This is standard fayre for any discussion on any subject on any message board.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As it stands:

Much of the discussion surrounding Professor Thilbin's professional opinion has been swamped in verbosity, obfuscation, drama and outright disingenuity.

To illustrate: "cold" versus "all cold"; "under the intestines" versus "in the intestines"; Fisherman manipulating in order to promote his theory.

Leaving all of that aside, Dr Phillips made this statement at the inquest: the body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. This was relayed to Professor Thilbin who drew the conclusion that it is likely Annie was murdered hours prior to 5.30am.

We have no competing post quoting another expert in the field who looked specifically at Dr Phillips' situation and disagreed with Professor Thilbin.

We did have a lad turn up called Steve, who suggested that there is contrary expert opinion. In the event Steve has been 'round this a number of times then I can understand why Steve does not feel obligated to go 'round it again. On the other hand, I see no value in interjecting comments to the effect that expert opinion exists but not give us the details. Instead Steve expected the reader to look through hundreds of pages of a thread and find his explanation for him. As of yet, Steve hasn't produced meaningful contrary professional opinion on this particular thread.

In sum: Fisherman has put his post up for scrutiny; to this point, it has stood up well to the scrutiny.

[Ms Diddles]

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.

https://youtu.be/EUvgqItrt1c

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I don't have anything remotely resembling a medical qualification, so I can only reply with my understanding as a layman.

Some "warmth under the lower back" is an external measurement. Some "warmth under the intestines" is an internal measurement which would not be available from your hypothetical body. If you cut open the abdomen you would see the coiled intestines in the abdominal cavity. Phillips didn't mention feeling the intestines for warmth. He would have put his hand between the intestines and one side of the abdominal cavity and pushed his hand under the intestines to the floor of the abdominal cavity. This enabled him to assess the residual internal body heat. That is my take on the subject, inexpert as it may be.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

You haven't answered my question about the hypothetical scenario. Any reason why not?

As for your explanation, thanks for that. I find it very interesting that you are basically saying that Phillips didn't feel the intestines for warmth. Not only am I stunned by that - why would he not do that having plunged his hands into the abdominal cavity? - but I think that most people would say that he was describing the warmth of the intestines. This reflects the ambiguity that I have been trying to draw attention to. But I'm very glad you now seem to appreciate the difference between "under" and "in" or "on". In fact, what you seem to be saying is that Phillips could have told the coroner "the body was cold except for some heat on the floor of the abdominal cavity". Not sure why he didn't say that.

But here's the thing. I accept that perhaps Phillips might have been saying what you think he might have been saying to the coroner. I really don't have enough information to know one way or the other. The crucial question is this: do you accept that he might (just might) have been saying what I think he was possibly saying, namely that he was talking about the warmth of the surface of the skin on the back of Chapman's body, under the intestines?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

My comments were meant as friendly observations, not criticisms. You mentioned in one of your recent post the pressures of your home life. I have experience of accumulated stress and burn-out, and I'll share with you something that I try to keep in mind, by Larry Eisenberg - "For peace of mind, resign as general manager of the universe".

Cheers, George

Hello George,

And I have no problem with that George but only reason that I get irritated (or irritable) is when we’re trying to discuss this case and we get a couple of posters who continue to claim that Phillips was more accurate than a modern day doctor could be when this point should simply have been conceded ages ago. Then we have one posters who exhibits such behaviour as to deliberately get my username wrong (unimportant in itself but indicative of intent) and to top it off, this same supposedly intelligent, supposedly reasonable poster tells me that I’m not English and maintains this position despite evidence. How can reasonable discussion be had with someone like that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You should read the post to which my comment was made before making critical comments.

In that post Herlock suggests that Dr Phillips may have not done what he said he did at the crime scene with regards to examining the heat of the intestines

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Herlock is merely suggesting that we ask why Phillips said what he did. We all know what the word ‘under’ means. So why did Phillips use it? Or are you suggesting that he was in the habit of using random words?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As it stands:

Much of the discussion surrounding Professor Thilbin's professional opinion has been swamped in verbosity, obfuscation, drama and outright disingenuity.

To illustrate: "cold" versus "all cold"; "under the intestines" versus "in the intestines"; Fisherman manipulating in order to promote his theory.

Leaving all of that aside, Dr Phillips made this statement at the inquest: the body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. This was relayed to Professor Thilbin who drew the conclusion that it is likely Annie was murdered hours prior to 5.30am.

We have no competing post quoting another expert in the field who looked specifically at Dr Phillips' situation and disagreed with Professor Thilbin.

We did have a lad turn up called Steve, who suggested that there is contrary expert opinion. In the event Steve has been 'round this a number of times then I can understand why Steve does not feel obligated to go 'round it again. On the other hand, I see no value in interjecting comments to the effect that expert opinion exists but not give us the details. Instead Steve expected the reader to look through hundreds of pages of a thread and find his explanation for him. As of yet, Steve hasn't produced meaningful contrary professional opinion on this particular thread.

In sum: Fisherman has put his post up for scrutiny; to this point, it has stood up well to the scrutiny.

No it hasn’t. Unless you haven’t read the content as opposed to what you want it to mean.

Thiblin:

"I can accordingly not rule out that the skin will feel cold already after some hour in a body that has been outside in September"


On what planet does that eliminate a later TOD?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just popping in to put something straight,so do not expect an arguement from me.
In post 2338 Herlock you claim my opinion? is that we shoulld accept Phillips out of courtesy.
Where have I ever wrote that.It is false claims of yours,like this one,that sets you apart.
For the record,I believe Phillips should be considered because his was Expert opinion.

When I used the word ‘courtesy’ it doesn’t mean that I’m saying that you have used that specific word Harry. It meant that many of your posts in defence of Phillips were from the angle that he was a competent professional and so wouldn’t have been out in his estimate. That because of his professionalism we should allow him some kind of ‘benefit of the doubt.’ Despite the fact that you have been shown numerous times that a modern day Doctor could make no such claims of accuracy. So to claim that Phillips was probably correct or likely to have been correct or whichever phrase you might wish to employ is to claim the impossible.

[Fleetwood Mac]

No it hasn’t. Unless you haven’t read the content as opposed to what you want it to mean.

Thiblin:

"I can accordingly not rule out that the skin will feel cold already after some hour in a body that has been outside in September"


On what planet does that eliminate a later TOD?

You have a malnourished take on the word: "scrutiny", and it's meaning.

As explained to you, the possibility that Annie was murdered at 5.30am was not discounted by Professor Thilbin.

What is being scrutinised is Dr Thilbin's conclusion that it is likely Annie was murdered hours prior to 5.30am.

Do you see the difference? Likely as opposed to possible.

Do you want to try again with this in mind, i.e. reply to what is actually being put before you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have a malnourished take on the word: "scrutiny", and it's meaning.

As explained to you, the possibility that Annie was murdered at 5.30am was not discounted by Professor Thilbin.

What is being scrutinised is Dr Thilbin's conclusion that it is likely Annie was murdered hours prior to 5.30am.

Do you see the difference? Likely as opposed to possible.

Do you want to try again with this in mind, i.e. reply to what is actually being put before you.

As I've already said to you, I am not aware of any such conclusion by Dr Thiblin.

If you continue to insist that Thiblin has ever said that it is likely that Annie was murdered in the hours prior to 5.30am please provide the quote of him saying this.

All you've said in response to me asking this question is to tell me to read an unidentified post by Fisherman. I'm not interested in Fisherman's opinions. I want to see the quote from Thiblin that you seem to be relying on saying that it's likely Annie was murdered in the hours prior to 5.30

I'm confident that he has never said any such thing.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As I've already said to you, I am not aware of any such conclusion by Dr Thiblin.

I'm confident that he has never said any such thing.

It is unfortunate that you post in a fashion that is, at its root, dishonest. It is no surprise given you have exhibited this character trait for the best part of 170 pages.

Fisherman put this before you in his post 2180, i.e. it speaks of a PMI of 3-4 hours rather than 1 hour.

It follows you either haven't read the post which you're painfully attempting to discredit, and by extension you don't know what you're arguing against page after page; or you have read the post and you're ignoring it.

You seem to be labouring under the illusion that this character trait of yours masquerades as reasonable discussion.

On the plus side, the sun is shining and so it's time to leave the house, get into nature and take some photographs. I'm confident I'll have a more sensible, reasonable and honest exchange with the owls, foxes and deer.

Good day!

[FISHY1118]

Indeed Mac , Probably the two most significant and Important post of this entire thread. 1st Fishermans #2180 and GBinOz #1320.

Proof that a modern day medical expert supporting that phillipps may have been correct with his t.o.d estimate. Also modern day experts showing that witnesses can be incorrect . Which imo is what the uncertain ,ambiguious contradictory evidence suggest.


Thanks to both those guys for their research.

There can surely be no doubt now as the t.o.d regarding the chapman murder is yet to be determine.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is unfortunate that you post in a fashion that is, at its root, dishonest. It is no surprise given you have exhibited this character trait for the best part of 170 pages.

Fisherman put this before you in his post 2180, i.e. it speaks of a PMI of 3-4 hours rather than 1 hour.

It follows you either haven't read the post which you're painfully attempting to discredit, and by extension you don't know what you're arguing against page after page; or you have read the post and you're ignoring it.

You seem to be labouring under the illusion that this character trait of yours masquerades as reasonable discussion.

On the plus side, the sun is shining and so it's time to leave the house, get into nature and take some photographs. I'm confident I'll have a more sensible, reasonable and honest exchange with the owls, foxes and deer.

Good day!

I find it astonishing that despite repeated requests, you are unable to use a simple copy and paste function and provide a complete sentence written by Thiblin. It suggests to me that you are trying to hide what Thiblin actually said.

I am fully aware of Fisherman's #2180. I replied to it in detail and at some length in #2185, although your only response to that post was to tell me it contained too many words.

I am also aware that in Fisherman's #2180 he provides a quote from Professor Thiblin about a hypothetical scenario, commencing with the word "If", referring to what would have been the case if Dr Phillips had felt something which he didn't say in his evidence that he felt, and which, in the outlined hypothetical scenario, the professor would think "speaks of a PMI of 3-4 hours rather than 1 hour".

But I thought you were saying that there is an opinion from Professor Thiblin saying it is likely that Annie was murdered in the hours prior to 5.30am.

It is now clear to me that you have imagined such an opinion. He never said any such thing.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

You haven't answered my question about the hypothetical scenario. Any reason why not?
I did. Second paragraph, sentances 1 and 2.
As for your explanation, thanks for that. I find it very interesting that you are basically saying that Phillips didn't feel the intestines for warmth. Not only am I stunned by that - why would he not do that having plunged his hands into the abdominal cavity? - but I think that most people would say that he was describing the warmth of the intestines. This reflects the ambiguity that I have been trying to draw attention to. But I'm very glad you now seem to appreciate the difference between "under" and "in" or "on". In fact, what you seem to be saying is that Phillips could have told the coroner "the body was cold except for some heat on the floor of the abdominal cavity". Not sure why he didn't say that.
I'm saying no such thing. Your judgement is not that of a doctor. There is no ambiguity at all. Under the intestines is the same place as the floor of the abdominal cavity.
But here's the thing. I accept that perhaps Phillips might have been saying what you think he might have been saying to the coroner. I really don't have enough information to know one way or the other. The crucial question is this: do you accept that he might (just might) have been saying what I think he was possibly saying, namely that he was talking about the warmth of the surface of the skin on the back of Chapman's body, under the intestines?
Not the slightest chance.

Herlock, I can't explain this in simpler terms. The doctor was specific.