Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
It’s a bit rich to hear you unfairly accusing me of being insulting and of personal attacks and then you finish your post by calling me ‘chump. ‘Which is a personal attack and an insult combined.
![Shakehead](https://forum.casebook.org/core/images/smilies/clipart/shakehead.gif)
What I’ve done here is to stick to the evidence and not get caught up in an agenda like some but your responses have just been the simple repetition of the same phrases. Then you wait for a poster to make a comment that you like then you pop up to do a bit of cheerleading. You never discuss the detail which is the purpose of this Forum. You avoid this like the plague because you know that it’s in the facts and the details where your agenda fails.
Neither you or I get to decide when the topic is over Fishy. The actual meat of the debate certainly has been concluded though - and the verdict is overwhelmingly in favour of an earlier TOD. A fringe minority favouring an earlier one exists of course but that we always be the same. Despite the attempted manipulation we basically have this:
The worlds Forensic experts telling us to a man, and without a single exception, that even today the estimating of TOD is fraught with the possibilities for error and that this possibility was much magnified in the Victorian era with their poorer knowledge and lack of technology. Of all the opinions in this case, anyone that denies this fact cannot be taken seriously. It’s in all of the books, papers and essays. It’s all over the internet and easy to discover so there is simply no excuse but bias for denying it (as only 3 or 4 people appear to do)
From modern day experts that we can get a direct opinion from we have….
Professor 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".
Dr. Biggs:
"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".
So the medical evidence from Dr. Phillips, as we have known all along, is useless to us. It simply cannot be relied up. It tells us that Chapman could have been killed either later or earlier. So Phillips simply has to be dismissed……as I said months ago (but you, FM and Fisherman clearly have some secret knowledge which has yet to reach the Forensic Medicine community.
So then we have to ask ourselves……what re the chances of three witnesses all lying or being mistaken? Was there some kind of conspiracy to frame a later TOD?
![Rolleyes](https://forum.casebook.org/core/images/smilies/clipart/rolleyes.gif)
So the final summing up should be, and the only fair-minded, agenda-free one, is that the evidence (without being manipulated) points overwhelmingly to a later TOD. And this appears to be the opinion of the overwhelming majority of posters too.
Comment