John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

Aye. In the end, his argument isn't a compelling one.

Well its pointless really isnt it , the evidence allowes for both sides of the arguement, the fact he cant see that after 2895 post is truly remarkable in itself .


Stand by for another long winded, drawn out same old same old rhetoric thats been covered already over and over again tho.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're wilfully ignoring the fact that Professor Thiblin drew his conclusion on that which Dr Phillips stated, i.e. the body was cold except for some remaining warmth under the intestines. You're casually ignoring the fact that Professor Thiblin didn't ask for clarification on the 'warmth', which should tell you that it wasn't necessary. The fact there was warmth was sufficient information for Professor Thiblin. As I said to you previously, Sherlock, you're engaged in preposterous and irrelevant scrutiny such as: "cold" versus "all cold" and "the appropriate intestinal warmth", all of which is a redundant exercise and designed to evade that which Professor Thiblin put before you.

And then we have Dr Biggs. I have absolutely no idea what you mean in your previous post, it's garbled. When you read Trevor's post it again, you will see that Dr Biggs stated that a wider timeframe should prove more accurate, and so there is an acknowledgement that some estimates are more accurate than others. What Dr Biggs is telling you, is that Dr Phillips was more likely to have been right in the event he said between 2 and 3 hours or 2 and 4 hours as opposed to 5.20am to 5.30am which you're proposing. As I said, you can only assess the value of an option by comparison with other options.

Ultimately, Professor Thiblin commits to 3-4 hours being more likely, while Dr Biggs doesn't commit to either of the two scenarios.

And then of course, we have a real-life example to support Professor Thiblin's conclusion. That being Catherine, whose body was quite warm with no sign of rigor and murdered in a similar manner in similar environmental conditions. You're proposing that Annie had been dead only 20 minutes longer than Catherine when first examined, yet Annie's body was cold except for some remaining warmth under the intestines and rigor was 'commencing of the limbs'. It doesn't add up, Sherlock, and of course this difference in body temperature (comparing Annie and Catherine) tells you exactly what Professor Thiblin meant when he made a distinction between the central and outer parts of the body and that your focus on the "appropriate intestinal warmth" is of no consequence.

You're wilfully ignoring the fact that Professor Thiblin drew his conclusion on that which Dr Phillips stated, i.e. the body was cold except for some remaining warmth under the intestines. You're casually ignoring the fact that Professor Thiblin didn't ask for clarification on the 'warmth', which should tell you that it wasn't necessary. The fact there was warmth was sufficient information for Professor Thiblin. As I said to you previously, Sherlock, you're engaged in preposterous and irrelevant scrutiny such as: "cold" versus "all cold" and "the appropriate intestinal warmth", all of which is a redundant exercise and designed to evade that which Professor Thiblin put before you.

And then we have Dr Biggs. I have absolutely no idea what you mean in your previous post, it's garbled. When you read Trevor's post it again, you will see that Dr Biggs stated that a wider timeframe should prove more accurate, and so there is an acknowledgement that some estimates are more accurate than others. What Dr Biggs is telling you, is that Dr Phillips was more likely to have been right in the event he said between 2 and 3 hours or 2 and 4 hours as opposed to 5.20am to 5.30am which you're proposing. As I said, you can only assess the value of an option by comparison with other options.

Ultimately, Professor Thiblin commits to 3-4 hours being more likely, while Dr Biggs doesn't commit to either of the two scenarios.

And then of course, we have a real-life example to support Professor Thiblin's conclusion. That being Catherine, whose body was quite warm with no sign of rigor and murdered in a similar manner in similar environmental conditions. You're proposing that Annie had been dead only 20 minutes longer than Catherine when first examined, yet Annie's body was cold except for some remaining warmth under the intestines and rigor was 'commencing of the limbs'. It doesn't add up, Sherlock, and of course this difference in body temperature (comparing Annie and Catherine) tells you exactly what Professor Thiblin meant when he made a distinction between the central and outer parts of the body and that your focus on the "appropriate intestinal warmth" is of no consequence.[/]


This is the most nuts thing you've written yet. Are you seriously suggesting that there should have been no warmth under the intestines one hour after death, no warmth under the intestines two hours after death, so that warmth under the intestines means, for Thiblin, that Chapman had been dead for 3 or 4 hours? Do you think intestines are cold at time of death and only become warm three hours after death then?

You need to think about what you are writing. Fisherman has already told us that what Thiblin meant is that Phillips had felt "a warmth that has subsided over a significant number of hours" (#2180). Do you know what "subsided" means? It means that there must have been more warmth after one hour than after three hours. So how could the existence of warmth alone have told Thiblin anything about the time of Chapman's death?

Look at what Fisherman said when he explained it again in #2193: "And he [Phillips] had [found] some little warmth in the abdominal cavity, under insulating intestines. It was apparently the last of the discernable body warmth, leaving the body." Fisherman makes the mistake of using the word that you, yourself, used earlier in this thread which isn't in the evidence: "little". So he's probably told Thiblin that Phillips only found a little warmth under the intestines. That's not the evidence in this case. So it's hypothetical only.

And then we have Dr Biggs. I have absolutely no idea what you mean in your previous post, it's garbled. When you read Trevor's post it again, you will see that Dr Biggs stated that a wider timeframe should prove more accurate, and so there is an acknowledgement that some estimates are more accurate than others. What Dr Biggs is telling you, is that Dr Phillips was more likely to have been right in the event he said between 2 and 3 hours or 2 and 4 hours as opposed to 5.20am to 5.30am which you're proposing. As I said, you can only assess the value of an option by comparison with other options.

As I've already told you, I'm not proposing an estimated time of death of "5.20 to 5.30". No one is proposing such a nonsensical and impossibly precise time estimate. Are you not reading what I'm writing?

I'm saying - and Dr Biggs is saying - that the estimated time of death provided by Dr Phillips should have been between 2am and 6am (or 2.30 to 5.30, if you prefer).

I already quoted what Dr Biggs said in #2826: "Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted... I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

Look at what I've underlined: He was saying that the estimate of Dr Phillips needed to be wider than 2 hours or more, and he says that Annie could have been killed at 5.30, so that's why the estimation needed to wider.

Your response to that when I first quoted it was to say "I've no further comment".

Now you want to re-open your nonsensical argument which I've disproved with that quote from Biggs who says that Dr Phillips' estimate needed to be wider to include 5.30.

Just think about the logic of what you are saying. According to you, an estimated time of death for Chapman of between 8pm on the Friday night and 2am on Sunday morning would have been more accurate than between 2.30 and 4.30 because the former has a range of 6 hours while the latter has a range of only 2 hours. It shows how nonsensical your belief is that a wider range is automatically more accurate than a narrow range. It all depends on what that range includes. If you omit relevant time periods it's not accurate at all.

Ultimately, Professor Thiblin commits to 3-4 hours being more likely, while Dr Biggs doesn't commit to either of the two scenarios.

As I've already said, Professor Thiblin doesn't commit to 3-4 hours being more likely in the Chapman case. He was discussing a hypothetical example in which a doctor had tested for warmth under the armpits of a dead body and in which only a little warmth had been found in the body's core from an internal examination. That cannot be said to have happened in the Chapman case, so Thiblin didn't commit to anything in the Chapman case other than to say that a body left out in September could feel cold in an hour.

And then of course, we have a real-life example to support Professor Thiblin's conclusion. That being Catherine, whose body was quite warm with no sign of rigor and murdered in a similar manner in similar environmental conditions. You're proposing that Annie had been dead only 20 minutes longer than Catherine when first examined, yet Annie's body was cold except for some remaining warmth under the intestines and rigor was 'commencing of the limbs'. It doesn't add up, Sherlock, and of course this difference in body temperature (comparing Annie and Catherine) tells you exactly what Professor Thiblin meant when he made a distinction between the central and outer parts of the body and that your focus on the "appropriate intestinal warmth" is of no consequence.
Aside from the fact that even Fisherman accepts that a warm living body can become cold in 15 minutes (so that 20 minutes would be a doddle), different bodies take different times to cool or develop rigor. Did Eddowes have a wasting disease? Was she malnourished in the same way as Chapman? Did she have the same body as Chapman? All you're doing here is desperately trying to find a sneaky way around Dr Biggs who has stated categorically that you can't rule out that Annie died at 5.30 from the facts of the case.

THIS POST IS AN ERROR AND HAS BEEN CORRECTED.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The nature of human beings is that they like to choose a side, use that side to argue with strangers on message boards, and once chosen there is no way back for the majority no matter what information is put before them.

There are very few of us who approach the discussion thinking: all possible scenarios have obstacles, but which of the scenarios requires the least in terms of leap of faith, and from there forming a conclusion as to which one is most likely while not being anywhere near a foregone conclusion.

In know that you claimed that I was English but can we now say that you’re not a human being? You’re the one focusing on bending over backwards to promote a fallacy. That Phillips could make an accurate TOD estimate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, it has all been explained to you.

The notion that Dr Phillips intended: the minimum time possible is two hours but possibly less, is a contradiction in terms and not in line with an education man's grasp of the English language. In the event 17 people agree with you, it doesn't reconcile this glaring contradiction in terms: it simply means that, like you, there are 17 other people on the board who do not understand the concept of a contradiction in terms.

And, the coroner understood exactly what Dr Phillips intended. Take note of: "miscalculated". The scenario you're proposing, which includes possibly less than two hours, leaves no room for Dr Phillips miscalculating.

Through the passage, not through the yard.

No. Your interpretation makes no sense. That’s why only 3 people agree with you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One thing is for sure for anyone who reads the witnesses testimony , there is nothing ''overwhelming'' all about it , its ambiguious uncertain unsafe to rely on, contradictory. If some wish to use that as 5.30 t.o d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aye. In the end, his argument isn't a compelling one.

The argument for a later TOD is overwhelming.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're wilfully ignoring the fact that Professor Thiblin drew his conclusion on that which Dr Phillips stated, i.e. the body was cold except for some remaining warmth under the intestines. You're casually ignoring the fact that Professor Thiblin didn't ask for clarification on the 'warmth', which should tell you that it wasn't necessary. The fact there was warmth was sufficient information for Professor Thiblin. As I said to you previously, Sherlock, you're engaged in preposterous and irrelevant scrutiny such as: "cold" versus "all cold" and "the appropriate intestinal warmth", all of which is a redundant exercise and designed to evade that which Professor Thiblin put before you.


This is the most nuts thing you've written yet. Are you seriously suggesting that there should have been no warmth under the intestines one hour after death, no warmth under the intestines two hours after death, so that warmth under the intestines means, for Thiblin, that Chapman had been dead for 3 or 4 hours? Do you think intestines are cold at time of death and only become warm three hours after death then?

You need to think about what you are writing. Fisherman has already told us that what Thiblin meant is that Phillips had felt "a warmth that has subsided over a significant number of hours" (#2180). Do you know what "subsided" means? It means that there must have been more warmth after one hour than after three hours. So how could the existence of warmth alone have told Thiblin anything about the time of Chapman's death?

Look at what Fisherman said when he explained it again in #2193: "And he [Phillips] had [found] some little warmth in the abdominal cavity, under insulating intestines. It was apparently the last of the discernable body warmth, leaving the body." Fisherman makes the mistake of using the word that you, yourself, used earlier in this thread which isn't in the evidence: "little". So he's probably told Thiblin that Phillips only found a little warmth under the intestines. That's not the evidence in this case. So it's hypothetical only.

And then we have Dr Biggs. I have absolutely no idea what you mean in your previous post, it's garbled. When you read Trevor's post it again, you will see that Dr Biggs stated that a wider timeframe should prove more accurate, and so there is an acknowledgement that some estimates are more accurate than others. What Dr Biggs is telling you, is that Dr Phillips was more likely to have been right in the event he said between 2 and 3 hours or 2 and 4 hours as opposed to 5.20am to 5.30am which you're proposing. As I said, you can only assess the value of an option by comparison with other options.

As I've already told you, I'm not proposing an estimated time of death of "5.20 to 5.30". No one is proposing such a nonsensical and impossibly precise time estimate. Are you not reading what I'm writing?

I'm saying - and Dr Biggs is saying - that the estimated time of death provided by Dr Phillips should have been between 2am and 6am (or 2.30 to 5.30, if you prefer).

I already quoted what Dr Biggs said in #2826: "Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted... I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30".

Look at what I've underlined: He was saying that the estimate of Dr Phillips needed to be wider than 2 hours or more, and he says that Annie could have been killed at 5.30, so that's why the estimation needed to wider.

Your response to that when I first quoted it was to say "I've no further comment".

Now you want to re-open your nonsensical argument which I've disproved with that quote from Biggs who says that Dr Phillips' estimate needed to be wider to include 5.30.

Just think about the logic of what you are saying. According to you, an estimated time of death for Chapman of between 8pm on the Friday night and 2am on Sunday morning would have been more accurate than between 2.30 and 4.30 because the former has a range of 6 hours while the latter has a range of only 2 hours. It shows how nonsensical your belief is that a wider range is automatically more accurate than a narrow range. It all depends on what that range includes. If you omit relevant time periods it's not accurate at all.

Ultimately, Professor Thiblin commits to 3-4 hours being more likely, while Dr Biggs doesn't commit to either of the two scenarios.


As I've already said, Professor Thiblin doesn't commit to 3-4 hours being more likely in the Chapman case. He was discussing a hypothetical example in which a doctor had tested for warmth under the armpits of a dead body and in which only a little warmth had been found in the body's core from an internal examination. That cannot be said to have happened in the Chapman case, so Thiblin didn't commit to anything in the Chapman case other than to say that a body left out in September could feel cold in an hour.

And then of course, we have a real-life example to support Professor Thiblin's conclusion. That being Catherine, whose body was quite warm with no sign of rigor and murdered in a similar manner in similar environmental conditions. You're proposing that Annie had been dead only 20 minutes longer than Catherine when first examined, yet Annie's body was cold except for some remaining warmth under the intestines and rigor was 'commencing of the limbs'. It doesn't add up, Sherlock, and of course this difference in body temperature (comparing Annie and Catherine) tells you exactly what Professor Thiblin meant when he made a distinction between the central and outer parts of the body and that your focus on the "appropriate intestinal warmth" is of no consequence.

Aside from the fact that even Fisherman accepts that a warm living body can become cold in 15 minutes (so that 20 minutes would be a doddle), different bodies take different times to cool or develop rigor. Did Eddowes have a wasting disease? Was she malnourished in the same way as Chapman? Did she have the same body as Chapman? All you're doing here is desperately trying to find a sneaky way around Dr Biggs who has stated categorically that you can't rule out that Annie died at 5.30 from the facts of the case.

I messed up the previous post because I typed it out first then didn’t insert the responses in the relevant places.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm not proposing an estimated time of death of "5.20 to 5.30". No one is proposing such a nonsensical and impossibly precise time estimate.

Well, this is new and unexpected. What are you proposing?

I'm saying - and Dr Biggs is saying - that the estimated time of death provided by Dr Phillips should have been between 2am and 6am (or 2.30 to 5.30, if you prefer).

Given Dr Phillips gives us a window of 2 to 3 hours or 2 to 4 hours, it was a pretty wide timeframe considering the most he could reasonably have said is 1 to 4 hours.

This diminishes the whole 'wide timeframe' point.

[Fleetwood Mac]

No. Your interpretation makes no sense. That’s why only 3 people agree with you.

I suppose that's a reply of sorts.

Regardless: "the minimum time possible is two hours but possibly less", is a contradiction in terms and nonsensical.

By all means, the 17 others are entitled to believe that to be a perfectly ordinary statement in the English language.

It would be disputed by the custodians of the English language and assorted linguists, but never mind.

[Fleetwood Mac]

can we now say that you’re not a human being?

You can say what you want, Sherlock. Put some emojis on the end, some in bold and underline some of it. Do as you please.

That Phillips could make an accurate TOD estimate.

Well of course he could.

Two options: the least time possible is 2 hours; the most time possible is 2 hours. One of them would have been correct. You're essentially saying whatever timeframe Dr Phillips suggested would have been incorrect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, this is new and unexpected. What are you proposing?

It can only be new and unexpected if you haven't been reading my posts.

What I've always been saying is that the medical circumstances of Chapman's case are consistent with death having occurred any time between about 2am and about 6am (i.e. from the moment she was last seen to the time her body was discovered).

It's not possible to narrow down an estimate, on the basis of the medical evidence alone, to anything more specific than this.

That's why Dr Phillips was wrong to say "at least 2 hours and probably more". He couldn't properly do this. But at least he qualified his opinion - and the coroner accepted this.

Given Dr Phillips gives us a window of 2 to 3 hours or 2 to 4 hours, it was a pretty wide timeframe considering the most he could reasonably have said is 1 to 4 hours.


This diminishes the whole 'wide timeframe' point.

It doesn't matter if it was "a pretty wide timeframe" or not. It didn't include a whole hour which Dr Biggs tells us should have been included for a proper estimate of the time of death. That's why it was a faulty estimate.

What is it about this that you're not understanding? A child of six could comprehend it without any problem.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can say what you want, Sherlock. Put some emojis on the end, some in bold and underline some of it. Do as you please.



Well of course he could.

Two options: the least time possible is 2 hours; the most time possible is 2 hours. One of them would have been correct. You're essentially saying whatever timeframe Dr Phillips suggested would have been incorrect.

No, I'm not actually. If he said she'd been murdered at some time between 2am and 6am he would certainly have been correct (although we would only know this due to Chapman having been seen alive at 2am, so he would have had to have taken non-medical, witness evidence into account when forming such an estimate).

What I'm saying he couldn't do was exclude 5.30 from his timeframe.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suppose that's a reply of sorts.

Regardless: "the minimum time possible is two hours but possibly less", is a contradiction in terms and nonsensical.

By all means, the 17 others are entitled to believe that to be a perfectly ordinary statement in the English language.

It would be disputed by the custodians of the English language and assorted linguists, but never mind.

Of course it makes no sense when you apply a bit of manipulation. But that’s not what Phillips said.

Your interpretation is that Phillips was saying - at least 2 hours or probably more but, due to the weather and conditions, probably more than probably more.


How can you possibly put this forward to a group of adults and expect to be taken seriously. The minimum that he gave was concrete. ‘Probably more’ isn’t concrete. Therefore he couldn’t have been adding a caveat to something that wasn’t concrete in the first place.

Clearly, obviously, transparently, categorically, unmistakable, indisputably, Phillips was saying “I believe that the likeliest conclusion is that she was killed a minimum of two hours earlier but probably more, but due to the conditions that were in existence at the time, my estimation could have been affected adversely by this and the victim could have died earlier.”

This is the only interpretation that makes sense. You know that this is the case but it doesn’t fit your agenda.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It doesn't matter if it was "a pretty wide timeframe" or not. It didn't include a whole hour which Dr Biggs tells us should have been included for a proper estimate of the time of death. That's why it was a faulty estimate.

What is it about this that you're not understanding? A child of six could comprehend it without any problem.

This is illogical and quite frankly ludicrous.

What you're suggesting is that in any given TOD estimate, the examiner should give a PMI timeframe from the last known sighting to the examination of the body.

What would be the point of doing this? How would such an estimated TOD aid crime resolution? It's not an estimated TOD anymore; it's simply the timeframe between last sighting and examination of the body.

I think you need to revisit and re-evaluate your assessment of Dr Bigg's/Trevor's post.

[Fleetwood Mac]

What I've always been saying is that the medical circumstances of Chapman's case are consistent with death having occurred any time between about 2am and about 6am (i.e. from the moment she was last seen to the time her body was discovered).

I could have sworn you've spent the last 180 pages insisting on a TOD timeframe of around 5.20am to 5.30am. Do I have this right?

Do you want to answer this question as to opposed one I didn't put in front of you?