John Richardson

[DJA]

Is anyone going to post about actual evidence or are we just whining?

[FISHY1118]

I say it Fishy because it’s the truth. You’ve repeated your “unsafe ,ambiguious , uncertain , contradictory,” mantra at least 6 times but I suspect more. This isn’t debate. I discuss the details and assess them but you repeat the above.

And is this comment for real or an error?



Its not me who is disputing what the forensic experts tell us, it’s you and the few that agree with you. Every single expert quote supports wha I’ve been saying for weeks. You are the one who should be admitting the obvious but you don’t seem to be able to bring yourself to. The medical evidence doesn’t help us in any way Fishy. This isn’t an opinion. It’s a fact.

Yes herlock and why is that , ill tell you why, its very simple right from the start it was my opinion as to t.od and thats the way i interepreted the evidence but you wouldnt allow it . We went back and fourth over and over. You new what you were doing all along.

Just like my recent response to Et , thats all it would have taken , but you couldnt do that , and you still wont do it. the evidence is just that herlock, ''evidence'' . We all read and form opinions on it, no one can be proven wrong in this case .

[FISHY1118]

No. The testimony of medical experts cannot and should not be disputed by laymen. The fact that it has been illustrates the desperation of one side.

Yes . It can be and it has been shown to be already . I dont see any desperation on any side herlock just detailed examination of medical expert opinions that support doctors estimates on t.o.d

[FISHY1118]

That poor high horse. It must be straining under the weight of you and George.

Not really worth a comment, except is that supposed to make people laugh ?

[FISHY1118]

Is anyone going to post about actual evidence or are we just whining?

Why would they ,you wouldnt accept it anyway.

[FISHY1118]

Although to be fair you did say this back in post #260


We can disagree on anything but if there’s one thing that everyone should accept it’s that TOD estimations we’re unreliable and so Dr. Phillips could have been wrong. There appears to be a resistance to this demonstrable fact. Why?

''I accept that he could have been right''.
I accept the (minute imo) physical possibility that Richardson could have missed the body.
I accept the possibility that Richardson might have been able to have seen the lock without sitting down.
I accept that Richardson might not have mentioned repairing his boot to Chandler.

So why the resistance to a fact that that has been demonstrated by a procession of respected modern day medical experts?

My reply post #261

''Yes of course he could have been wrong ,i agree with that . I just dont think there enough overwhelming evidence to say he wasnt right ''.


Your reply post #262

Ok, no problem.

So based on these post right back at the start of this thread ,you shouldnt have had any problem with me or anyone for that matter when we gave our opinion that supported an earlier t.o.d. You agreed Dr Phillips could have been right just like i do , i made a case for it to show how an earlier t.o.d might come about based on all the evidence both witness and medical .

I dont see the problem with that based on what you said .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Although to be fair you did say this back in post #260


We can disagree on anything but if there’s one thing that everyone should accept it’s that TOD estimations we’re unreliable and so Dr. Phillips could have been wrong. There appears to be a resistance to this demonstrable fact. Why?

''I accept that he could have been right''.
I accept the (minute imo) physical possibility that Richardson could have missed the body.
I accept the possibility that Richardson might have been able to have seen the lock without sitting down.
I accept that Richardson might not have mentioned repairing his boot to Chandler.

So why the resistance to a fact that that has been demonstrated by a procession of respected modern day medical experts?

My reply post #261

''Yes of course he could have been wrong ,i agree with that . I just dont think there enough overwhelming evidence to say he wasnt right ''.


Your reply post #262

Ok, no problem.

So based on these post right back at the start of this thread ,you shouldnt have had any problem with me or anyone for that matter when we gave our opinion that supported an earlier t.o.d. You agreed Dr Phillips could have been right just like i do , i made a case for it to show how an earlier t.o.d might come about based on all the evidence both witness and medical .

I dont see the problem with that based on what you said .

Because it’s wrong. The medical evidence shouldn’t be used. We have the witnesses only.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes . It can be and it has been shown to be already . I dont see any desperation on any side herlock just detailed examination of medical expert opinions that support doctors estimates on t.o.d

And there you go again Fishy. You are repeating a myth. There is no medical evidence that supports and earlier TOD (or a later one)

So why do you keep falsely claiming that medical evidence exists that supports Phillips. Please post it. It doesn’t exist. Why can’t you just accept this fact and move on? This is why we can’t discuss openly. Because you won’t admit a FACT. How can we get past that?

Its not opinion. It’s not interpretation. It’s not a case of anyone’s opinion on the subject is equal because it’s not. We go to the experts only. We aren’t qualified to contradict them. None of us are. They tell us that Phillips TOD was totally unreliable so why do you keep mentioning mythical evidence that supports him?

Why?

[GBinOz]

Nice piece of sleight-of-hand George but it won’t work. He didn’t mention that he knew her because he obviously didn’t know her. Off down the conspiracy route again I see.

Nice piece of head in the sand Herlock. It was in the same Lloyd's interview from which you derived your information. Exercising that biased attention again I see.

[FISHY1118]

Because it’s wrong. The medical evidence shouldn’t be used. We have the witnesses only.

Who could have been wrong if Dr phillips could have been right as you suggested. Right? .

[FISHY1118]

And there you go again Fishy. You are repeating a myth. There is no medical evidence that supports and earlier TOD (or a later one)

So why do you keep falsely claiming that medical evidence exists that supports Phillips. Please post it. It doesn’t exist. Why can’t you just accept this fact and move on? This is why we can’t discuss openly. Because you won’t admit a FACT. How can we get past that?

Its not opinion. It’s not interpretation. It’s not a case of anyone’s opinion on the subject is equal because it’s not. We go to the experts only. We aren’t qualified to contradict them. None of us are. They tell us that Phillips TOD was totally unreliable so why do you keep mentioning mythical evidence that supports him?

Why?

No myth, no false claim as you like to put it . But clearly not . Fishermans post has cover that in great detail, your free to interpret any way you see fit .

[GBinOz]

I just don’t see what you are trying to prove on this point. All that Long said was:

“Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.”


She clearly wasn’t stating that there were a lot of couples their that day; only that she often saw couples in the mornings.

Ahh, I see. There were lots of couples there, at 5:30am, on every day except market day.

I notice you are engaging in your biased attention again in avoiding addressing Amelia's "bustle".

[GBinOz]

No myth, no false claim as you like to put it . But clearly not . Fishermans post has cover that in great detail, your free to interpret any way you see fit .

Ahhh, Fishy, don't mention the war, err, Fisherman I mean.

[FISHY1118]

Ahhh, Fishy, don't mention the war, err, Fisherman I mean.

Hi George , ill use the information contained in his recent post to support my opinions regarding Dr Phillips ,just as others have used and quoted modern day medical experts to dispute it .

[GBinOz]

Hi George , ill use the information contained in his recent post to support my opinions regarding Dr Phillips ,just as others have used and quoted modern day medical experts to dispute it .

I agree Fishy. I found Fisherman's conclusions on the forensic analysis to be the most persuasive. His departure is a great loss to this forum.

Cheers, George