Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Pathetic.
    Is that supposed to something new?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


    I don't need too herlock ,its already been done. .The real truth is you can't and haven't come up with anything new on the subject worth debating about. You need to get past what has already been shown regarding expert medical opinion where Dr Phillips is concerned . We all know now that inconclusive witness testimony and expert medical evidence combined in the Chapman murder can lead to establishing an earlier t.o.d . There is nothing you can do
    to disprove this, you can disagree all you like ,but in the end you know you cant dismissed or prove it ,
    Pathetic.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    There’s no compromise on truth. Provide a reasonable response to post #3325 and you’ll get a big

    But we all know that you can’t respond to or refute this post don’t we?

    I don't need too herlock ,its already been done. .The real truth is you can't and haven't come up with anything new on the subject worth debating about. You need to get past what has already been shown regarding expert medical opinion where Dr Phillips is concerned . We all know now that inconclusive witness testimony and expert medical evidence combined in the Chapman murder can lead to establishing an earlier t.o.d . There is nothing you can do
    to disprove this, you can disagree all you like ,but in the end you know you cant dismissed or prove it ,

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    It's been claimed that Fisherman has already explained Thiblin's opinion. So I've been back over what Fisherman actually said by way of explanation and here it is, in full:

    FISHERMAN EXPLANATION 1 (#2177) - Prior to posting Thiblin's own words:

    "Basically, he said that if the core of the body can be compared to the surface temperature, and if there is a significant difference between the temperatures in these regions, then it speaks for a longer period of death. This was in response to how I told him that Phillips had put his hand inside the abdominal cavity and found warmth remaining under the intestines, wheras the surface of the body was all cold. Having heard that, Thiblin stated that it spoke for a number of hours having passed instead of just a single hour. And he stated that the other parameters of the case were in sync with this, reinforcing the overall impression of an early TOD."

    Note: He uses the expression "significant difference" which, it transpired, Thiblin didn't say. Note also the misleading and incorrect information given to Thiblin which I've highlighted. And note the omission of the hypothetical nature of what Thiblin actually said which began with the word "if". Finally, note the complete failure to explain why a "significant difference" in temperature will speak for "a number of hours having passed instead of just a single hour".

    FISHERMAN EXPLANATION 2 (#2180) - When posting Thiblin's own words:

    "Thiblin essentially tells us that the remaining warmth under the intestines in Chapmans abdomen is arguably a warmth that has subsided over a significant number of hours."
    Note: This is based on a "subsided" warmth which is something Phillips did not testify about. Note also that there is no explanation provided here as to why, in Thiblin's actual words, an "obvious difference" between the skin and core temperature would have led Phillips to any sort of conclusion about the time of death at all. On the contrary, if the abdomen warmth had subsided, it is the fact that the internal temperature is becoming closer to the external temperature which seems to be what is behind Thiblin's opinion - pretty much the opposite of "an obvious difference" because the temperature difference in this circumstance is being reduced not increased!

    FISHERMAN EXPLANATION 3 (#2193) - Responding to my summary post #2192, having dodged my more detailed #2185:

    "So what Phillips had was a body where all of the skin, exposed skin as well as unexposed skin, had gone cold. And he had some little warmth in the abdominal cavity, under insulating intestines. It was apparently the last of the discernable body warmth, leaving the body."

    Note: Fisherman claims that there was only "little warmth" in the abdominal cavity, being "the last of the discernible body warmth", which is not what Dr Phillips said at all, so he's just invented that. We also see that Fisherman has further augmented the evidence of Phillips by claiming that "all" of the skin, both exposed and unexposed, had gone cold, whereas Phillips didn't say anything of the sort.

    From all three posts, we still have no explanation for what Thiblin meant by "an obvious difference", although Fisherman added gratuitously at the end of his #2193:

    "Again, professor Thiblin understands these things far better than any upset and desperate layman with a closed agenda out here. In Herlocks case, he has failed to grasp why cold skin in exposed positions does not present the whole picture. And he has failed to understand the importance of the temperature differences between core and surface of the body."

    But Fisherman never once explained what the significance is, or possibly could be, of any "temperature difference" between the core and surface. Surely Thiblin was talking about an absolute temperature of the core (i.e. whether it was very warm or not) which stands alone against the skin temperature and, indeed, has nothing to do with the skin temperature, so any difference between the two is irrelevant.


    Is anyone going to attempt to get to grips with explaining this problem or are you all going to simply pretend that it's already been explained in a mythical, non-existent and unidentified post somewhere within this 3,000+ post thread?
    When and if fisherman responds to your repetitive post with his own interpretation you'll have an answer im sure then we will be at 3001 + post on this topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    I wonder how much longer this regurgitating of old worn out repetitive line of questioning that now has surpassed 3000 post and responses to can go for? Absurd that anyone could be that unwilling to see compromise and accept a difference of opinions based on all the information on this topic so far . Staggering to say the least.
    There’s no compromise on truth. Provide a reasonable response to post #3325 and you’ll get a big

    But we all know that you can’t respond to or refute this post don’t we?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    It's been claimed that Fisherman has already explained Thiblin's opinion. So I've been back over what Fisherman actually said by way of explanation and here it is, in full:

    FISHERMAN EXPLANATION 1 (#2177) - Prior to posting Thiblin's own words:

    "Basically, he said that if the core of the body can be compared to the surface temperature, and if there is a significant difference between the temperatures in these regions, then it speaks for a longer period of death. This was in response to how I told him that Phillips had put his hand inside the abdominal cavity and found warmth remaining under the intestines, wheras the surface of the body was all cold. Having heard that, Thiblin stated that it spoke for a number of hours having passed instead of just a single hour. And he stated that the other parameters of the case were in sync with this, reinforcing the overall impression of an early TOD."

    Note: He uses the expression "significant difference" which, it transpired, Thiblin didn't say. Note also the misleading and incorrect information given to Thiblin which I've highlighted. And note the omission of the hypothetical nature of what Thiblin actually said which began with the word "if". Finally, note the complete failure to explain why a "significant difference" in temperature will speak for "a number of hours having passed instead of just a single hour".

    FISHERMAN EXPLANATION 2 (#2180) - When posting Thiblin's own words:

    "Thiblin essentially tells us that the remaining warmth under the intestines in Chapmans abdomen is arguably a warmth that has subsided over a significant number of hours."
    Note: This is based on a "subsided" warmth which is something Phillips did not testify about. Note also that there is no explanation provided here as to why, in Thiblin's actual words, an "obvious difference" between the skin and core temperature would have led Phillips to any sort of conclusion about the time of death at all. On the contrary, if the abdomen warmth had subsided, it is the fact that the internal temperature is becoming closer to the external temperature which seems to be what is behind Thiblin's opinion - pretty much the opposite of "an obvious difference" because the temperature difference in this circumstance is being reduced not increased!

    FISHERMAN EXPLANATION 3 (#2193) - Responding to my summary post #2192, having dodged my more detailed #2185:

    "So what Phillips had was a body where all of the skin, exposed skin as well as unexposed skin, had gone cold. And he had some little warmth in the abdominal cavity, under insulating intestines. It was apparently the last of the discernable body warmth, leaving the body."

    Note: Fisherman claims that there was only "little warmth" in the abdominal cavity, being "the last of the discernible body warmth", which is not what Dr Phillips said at all, so he's just invented that. We also see that Fisherman has further augmented the evidence of Phillips by claiming that "all" of the skin, both exposed and unexposed, had gone cold, whereas Phillips didn't say anything of the sort.

    From all three posts, we still have no explanation for what Thiblin meant by "an obvious difference", although Fisherman added gratuitously at the end of his #2193:

    "Again, professor Thiblin understands these things far better than any upset and desperate layman with a closed agenda out here. In Herlocks case, he has failed to grasp why cold skin in exposed positions does not present the whole picture. And he has failed to understand the importance of the temperature differences between core and surface of the body."

    But Fisherman never once explained what the significance is, or possibly could be, of any "temperature difference" between the core and surface. Surely Thiblin was talking about an absolute temperature of the core (i.e. whether it was very warm or not) which stands alone against the skin temperature and, indeed, has nothing to do with the skin temperature, so any difference between the two is irrelevant.


    Is anyone going to attempt to get to grips with explaining this problem or are you all going to simply pretend that it's already been explained in a mythical, non-existent and unidentified post somewhere within this 3,000+ post thread?

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    I wonder how much longer this regurgitating of old worn out repetitive line of questioning that now has surpassed 3000 post and responses to can go for? Absurd that anyone could be that unwilling to see compromise and accept a difference of opinions based on all the information on this topic so far . Staggering to say the least.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Another cop out. As ever when you can’t contribute.

    Biggs ends it.

    "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".

    No just your inability to listen what your told . We have 3000 post and counting with answers to the same questions you asking over and over , you really need to get a grip on this topic herlock .its embarrassing.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    No it wasn’t. You clearly haven’t understood it. You comments demonstrate the. Thiblin was responding the false information.
    I clearly have, , and your the resident expert in understanding everything arnt you herlock ? Obviously not.
    My comments are related to the topic at hand which you haven't added anything new to , so stop wasting my time .

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Perhaps another question we could ask Thiblin is - do you disagree with Dr. Biggs assessment?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Go back over the post that relates to your question, thats the resonse youll get from me , you know you have already been given, shown and debated the biggs issue , Now do you have anything new to add to this debate ? ill be extremley surprized if you do .
    Another cop out. As ever when you can’t contribute.

    Biggs ends it.

    "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".

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    No i agreed with it, you didnt understand it . Thats the whole point , Fisherman showed you and explained it to , it was all there in black and white .
    No it wasn’t. You clearly haven’t understood it. You comments demonstrate the. Thiblin was responding the false information.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Simple question then Fishy.

    Do you disagree with this statement from 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.”

    And could you explain why Biggs was wrong?

    I’ll be amazed if you respond to this.
    Go back over the post that relates to your question, thats the resonse youll get from me , you know you have already been given, shown and debated the biggs issue , Now do you have anything new to add to this debate ? ill be extremley surprized if you do .

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    And refuted. You clearly don’t understand it Fishy. That’s why you won’t discuss the detail.
    No i agreed with it, you didnt understand it . Thats the whole point , Fisherman showed you and explained it to , it was all there in black and white .

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Rubbish.
    Typical response when you have been shown evidence that doesnt agree with your way of thinking . Seen it all before

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X