John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's wrong ,as there is no evidence that any witnesses told the doctors at the crime scene , there movements or times ,that any doctor used this information to establish a t.od .

I.e , " the witness told me what time the body was there, so I don't need to give my expert opinion on t.od as im standing next to a mutilated corpse , ill just go home."

That basically what your saying.

I think what Lewis is saying is that in those cases, the eyewitness evidence agreed with the doctors' estimates and so we can accept their estimates, whereas in Chapman's case there is a conflict.

[FISHY1118]

Fishy, the day that I’m stumped by one of your posts is the day that I stop posting.

Great, you just did it again for all to see.

Your stumped pal and you know it.

The evidence always get you herlock.

[FISHY1118]

I missed the part where that expert said that witnesses can’t be right. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

Sure, that was the lengthy post George put up months ago which you avoided

You know the one .

[FISHY1118]

Look at Nixon’s feet Fishy.

Big question…..how did they arrive in that position without him having gone down those steps?

Newsflash, ...... conflicting evidence tells us otherwise.

[FISHY1118]

No, he doesn't say "may not" Those are your words you are again trying to manipulate the evidence to suit your own theory on the TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Bingo

[FISHY1118]

Early start in the morning so it’s off to bed for me. There’s only so much utter nonsense I can take in one day.

The barrel has well and truly been scraped again tonight.

Shape up chaps. It’s becoming embarrassing.

Ok so were the guys hey ,

High and mighty indeed

Give it a rest Herlock ....

[Wickerman]

Here is an extract from Dr Biggs input into the murders on the subject of Rigor

"As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death"

Fits Chapman to a tee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dr. Phillips speaks to the lack of alcohol in her system.
"I am convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death."

Getting back to the claim in the quote....
If the onset of rigor is delayed (less pronounced?) by outside influences, like the lack of nutrition, or alcohol consumption, then the onset of rigor may be at 25%, whereas we should have expected 50%, is that what you are saying?

Doesn't that mean a shorter time is (falsely) indicated since death?

Meaning, the 'false' state of rigor suggests (by example) she died 2 hrs ago, whereas she really died 4 hrs ago?
In the Irish Times, we read:" How long do you think the deceased had been dead? At least two hours - probably more."
So, in the D.Telegraph, where we read:
"I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."
Which must mean she may have died less than two hours ago, due to the rapid loss of heat from the abdomen being opened.

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr. Phillips speaks to the lack of alcohol in her system.
"I am convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death."

Getting back to the claim in the quote....
If the onset of rigor is delayed (less pronounced?) by outside influences, like the lack of nutrition, or alcohol consumption, then the onset of rigor may be at 25%, whereas we should have expected 50%, is that what you are saying?

Doesn't that mean a shorter time is (falsely) indicated since death?

Meaning, the 'false' state of rigor suggests (by example) she died 2 hrs ago, whereas she really died 4 hrs ago?
In the Irish Times, we read:" How long do you think the deceased had been dead? At least two hours - probably more."
So, in the D.Telegraph, where we read:
"I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."
Which must mean she may have died less than two hours ago, due to the rapid loss of heat from the abdomen being opened.

You are mirroring Herlock in manipulating the evidence it is quite clear what Dr Biggs is stating

"As an aside, if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[A P Tomlinson]

He was a very experienced doctor in his age. The most experienced of all of those doctors mentioned.

He immediately understood Liz was killed within an hour; he immediately understood that Annie had been dead for at least two hours.

It doesn't matter if he had been using the methodology for 1 year or 50, the method was flawed.
If he knew "immediatley" on the scene that death occcured "within 1 hour" or dead for over two hours, then he must have been using some method still unknown to medical science today.

It's like if a report from 1788 from a very experienced, well read doctor, suggesting that "Despite twice using the scarifiers, bleeding the patient was unsuccesful, and he succcumbed to an imbalance of the humors the following morning."
We'd know that the doctor was using bad science. Estimating ToD without even using a thermometre and recording the body temp, and its CONTINUED decline over a period of at least 6 hours, is no more trustworthy.
What people are suggesting is that the contemporary doctors' ignorance of the science makes the science go away.

In the case of Chapman he had no police guideline on ToD. Only what a couple of scruffy looking Herberts had said. If John Richardson had been Constable Richardson, checking the security of the yard at 4.50am, he would have used that as part of his estimate.

He did the same as we all do, trust the constables when they said they were diligent in their duties and never cut corners or stopped for a cup of tea with a couple of locals for half an hour. How else do we "know" that he and Brown were right on the others?
It's only when it's non coppers giving evidence of absence of a body at a certain time that people feel free to consider their evidence utterly disposable.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Aye, because of course, when Dr Phillips stated: "at least two hours", which in the English language means the minimum time possible; he didn't mean that.

I said that his estimate is "unsafe", because firstly it is only an estimate, and not a fact. An estimate is a best guess based on experience, and what is noticed at the time the estimate is made. Other things might be observed later which can change that opinion, for example at the post mortem, where a considerable amount of additional information was obtained. It is therefore obviously "unsafe" to accept an estimate as if it were a fact.

Secondly, you really must stop pretending that all that Phillips said was to reiterate his original ToD. No-one is disputing that he made the original estimate, or what it meant. You are being repeatedly told, and mysteriously choose to ignore that he also decided to advise the Coroner that his estimate might have been wrong and as a result the ToD could have been later than his original estimate.

So it is quite clear that the estimate is unsafe. Dr Phillips said so, and to pretend that he didn't is to ignore the clear evidence.

[Doctored Whatsit]

He did not tell the inquest that he thought it possible, let alone likely, that Chapman had died as late as 5:30 AM.

Correct, he told the inquest that he could be wrong, and specifically avoided giving any revised ToD whatever, which had the inevitable affect of allowing the witness evidence to be considered. If he had a clearly considered revised ToD, he would surely haver given it. That was his role in the proceedings, and he chose not to do it, for whatever reason.

[Trevor Marriott]

Correct, he told the inquest that he could be wrong, and specifically avoided giving any revised ToD whatever, which had the inevitable affect of allowing the witness evidence to be considered. If he had a clearly considered revised ToD, he would surely haver given it. That was his role in the proceedings, and he chose not to do it, for whatever reason.

I think the trap that researchers who favour a later TOD are falling into regards to what Dr Phillips has said is that they believe that where he mentions that he could be wrong, he is not ruling out an earlier TOD he is merely stating that he could be wrong, but falling short of not categorically saying he is wrong and is that not in my opinion a good reason to eliminate an earlier TOD.

Obviously, corroborative evidence is important to both suggested TOD`s and that corroborative evidence used to support a later TOD just does not stand up to close scrutiny, add to the comments I posted earlier by Dr Biggs, and in my opinion, she was killed at the earlier TOD

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, you were just wrong, and in the context of how you interpret things and responses ,its a bad habit of your .

Fishy, your response is coming from someone who sees every bit of sarcasm something as nasty and is constantly complaining about it. Can you please just focus on the subject at hand and not the individual (me) and or the perceived tone of their posts. It’s tiring to be constantly faced with a level of hysteria.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Baxter and Brown were right on the money with their estimate t.od as well.

No bad for a couple 1888 doctors who's methods can't be relied on .

Baxter wasn’t a Doctor Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, he doesn't say "may not" Those are your words you are again trying to manipulate the evidence to suit your own theory on the TOD

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor I made the mistake of employing the English language when you clearly don’t understand it. If something ‘may’ be the case it means that it ‘could possibly’ have been the case. It’s not a statement of certainty. If it was certain he wouldn’t have used the word ‘may.’ So if it’s not a case of certainty it can only have been a case of UNCERTAINTY. So me saying that it also MAY NOT have been the case is entirely accurate.

People wonder why I occasionally get irritated. Your post is a perfect example of this. I’m on a forum discussing with adults and yet I’ve had to waste 3 minutes explaining something that couldn’t have been more obvious.