John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is wrong!

According to the record of the inquest as published in the Daily Telegraph, Doctor Phillips indicated that the first thing he did upon arriving at the scene of the murder was to examine the body.

Id say that we can’t really be certain on that point…..and I wasn’t expressing it as a certainty. Most tend to consider The Times the most reliable as it uses direct quotes although no one should expect them to have been anything like verbatim. The Times version is the one used in the documents section on here. In that version it says:

“I found the body of the deceased lying in the yard on her back, on the left hand of the steps that lead from the passage. The head was about 6in in front of the level of the bottom step, and the feet were towards a shed at the end of the yard. The left arm was across the left breast, and the legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen. The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder. I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there. I also discovered various other articles, which I handed to the police. The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat,”

So from this version he has a look over the body, checks the yards, lists and collects the items, hands them to an officer, then finds that the body is cold to the touch of his magic hands.

All that I was pointing out PI is that we can’t assume that he made his examination at 6.30 as this was just the time that he arrived at the scene. It doesn’t make much difference to the discussion at all to be honest. It would just mean that he would only have been ‘out’ in his minimum estimate by around 50 minutes. No Doctor can be that accurate in those circumstances. Not even in 2023.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have always agreed that he never said he was wrong, merely that he has had second thoughts and could be wrong. I also have always wondered why he chose not to give a revised opinion as to the ToD.

The evidence for the earlier time of death was only ever his estimate, and after his inquest statement, the evidence for an earlier time of death became weaker. But he could still be right. It is his slightly weakened estimated ToD versus several witnesses, so there will always be disagreement as to which is the more likely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Why would there be evidence of this Fishy? Do you think that a Doctor is going to stand up at an inquest and say ‘I arrived at my ToD because witness A said that the body wasn’t there at….’ Of course not.

In an earlier post I quoted two examples from David Barrat’s The Temperature of Death where a Doctor had blatantly changed his ToD estimation in the face of new witness testimony so it clearly happens Fishy. Especially when a Doctor is only giving an estimated range. If a Doctor said “I’d say that the victim died sometime between 3.00 and 6.00,” and two witnesses came forward who could prove that they were with the victim, alive, at 1.45, surely you can’t believe that a Doctor wouldn’t alter his estimate in light of this new information? Or do you think that he would stamp his feet and say ‘no! I’m a doctor so I must be right!”

[Herlock Sholmes]

And would you agree that Doctor Phillips MAY or MAY NOT have been wrong in his estimation of the time of death?

Yes. As I’ve said about three million times but some people see what they want to see and not what I’ve actually written.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Your stumped pal and you know it.

The evidence always get you herlock.

Another masterpiece.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

You know the one .

A link?

Feeble Fishy.

Even without you having the common decency to post a link to this post (expecting me to trawl through months of posts) I know for a fact that no one would say that witnesses that can’t be right. You’re claiming that someone would have is another embarrassment. How can anyone think this.

Add this to Trevor’s ‘may not’ post.

A man who doesn’t know that ‘may’ doesn’t mean uncertainty and man who thinks that all witnesses are wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

And Fishy now tops of the madness.

ATTENTION ALL POSTERS!!

Fishy actually thinks that a man can get from the passageway to a position where he’s sitting on the middle step with his feet on the flags ‘without actually going down the steps.’

Has anyone ever heard anything like this?

Again……people wonder why I get irritated. Because I’m constantly faced with points like this!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We’re falling into no ‘trap’ Trevor. All that we’re stating is exactly what you’ve just said. No one is saying that Phillips was wrong every time he made a ToD estimate or even that he was usually wrong. He’s clearly not ruling out an earlier ToD as you say. Indeed he favours it. But he also accepts the possibility that it could have been later and that’s what we are saying. It could have been later. So this clearly, of itself, doesn’t get us closer to a ToD either way……

But three witnesses do. Unless you have a secret witness that proves an earlier ToD? No…..you’re back to Phillips and his unreliable estimate and to bolster this you have to try and demonise three witnesses by pointless nitpicking. Three witness trump what was little more than an educated guess every time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes. As I’ve said about three million times but some people see what they want to see and not what I’ve actually written.

The problem with you is that you are on a mission to prop up a later TOD come what may and you wont take the blinkers off

I have just logged back onto this site and what do I see a plethora of your posts replying to various posters all repeating what you have said a hundred times or more. By this you are encouraging repetitive posts all saying the same things which you have said before, it's now getting boring.

All that can be said on this topic of the TOD has been said so instead of constantly stamping your feet saying you are right take a step back let this topic settle down for a time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

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"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I asked you to explain the quote, not repeat it.
What do you hope to gain by repetition?

The first line suggests the onset of rigor could have been delayed by external considerations, so if the victim had died 1 hour ago, the state of rigor will look like she died 30 minutes ago. That is what the line seems to say.
Do you agree or not?
If not, then explain why.

Now, assuming you agree that the condition of the body has led to the false conclusion that she died not so long ago, then explain how that same condition "may" indicate she had died further back in time?

The meanings are in opposition - they contradict each other.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem with you is that you are on a mission to prop up a later TOD come what may and you wont take the blinkers off

I have just logged back onto this site and what do I see a plethora of your posts replying to various posters all repeating what you have said a hundred times or more. By this you are encouraging repetitive posts all saying the same things which you have said before, it's now getting boring.

All that can be said on this topic of the TOD has been said so instead of constantly stamping your feet saying you are right take a step back let this topic settle down for a time.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Give it a rest Trevor. If this discussion annoys you so much then you’re free not to post in it. But you keep posting don’t you?

The only ‘propping up’ that’s being done is by you and you do it constantly. I follow the evidence you selectively edit it to suit. You are completely and dogmatically committed to pushing an earlier ToD because it suits your own interpretation of events.

It’s difficult to take seriously a former police officer who admits that a ToD estimate is unsafe and yet he still favours it. That’s your ‘thinking.’ That’s your ‘reason.’

It’s you who have blinkers on. I can say I’m right if I am right. And I am right about the unreliability of Phillips estimate. It’s not my opinion……it’s not an interpretation…..it’s fact. Arrived at by taking heed of what experts tells us. I know that the police have, in the past, been accused of ‘fitting up’ suspects but this is exactly what you do with the witnesses. You manufacture doubt. You create issues.

Three witnesses over a Doctors guess every time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I asked you to explain the quote, not repeat it.
What do you hope to gain by repetition?

The first line suggests the onset of rigor could have been delayed by external considerations, so if the victim had died 1 hour ago, the state of rigor will look like she died 30 minutes ago. That is what the line seems to say.
Do you agree or not?
If not, then explain why.

Now, assuming you agree that the condition of the body has led to the false conclusion that she died not so long ago, then explain how that same condition "may" indicate she had died further back in time?

The meanings are in opposition - they contradict each other.

You’re hoping in vain for a reasoned response Wick. But then again, experience has already told you that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Id say that we can’t really be certain on that point…..and I wasn’t expressing it as a certainty. Most tend to consider The Times the most reliable as it uses direct quotes although no one should expect them to have been anything like verbatim. The Times version is the one used in the documents section on here. In that version it says:

“I found the body of the deceased lying in the yard on her back, on the left hand of the steps that lead from the passage...

The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth...

I searched the yard...

The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat,”

So from this version he has a look over the body, checks the yards, lists and collects the items, hands them to an officer, then finds that the body is cold to the touch of his magic hands.

I had a feeling, Herlock, that you were going by the report from a different newspaper, which is why I mentioned the Telegraph.

However, the account that you have quoted appears to be identical to the one in the Telegraph!

I do not see how you can deduce that Doctor Phillips meant that he did not check the temperature of the body until after he had searched the yard and collected various items.

It is possible that the order in which he gave information about his visit was determined by the order in which he was asked questions by the coroner, which in that part of the summary may have been omitted.

[Trevor Marriott]

I asked you to explain the quote, not repeat it.
What do you hope to gain by repetition?

The first line suggests the onset of rigor could have been delayed by external considerations, so if the victim had died 1 hour ago, the state of rigor will look like she died 30 minutes ago. That is what the line seems to say.
Do you agree or not?
If not, then explain why.

Now, assuming you agree that the condition of the body has led to the false conclusion that she died not so long ago, then explain how that same condition "may" indicate she had died further back in time?

The meanings are in opposition - they contradict each other.

My interpretation of Dr Biggs comment is that he is indicating by the example of how Chapmans body was described that her condition could have slowed down the condition of rigor., and might indicate an earlier TOD. I think he has made that clear, again you like Herlock seem to want to interpret the evidence in a way that suits your theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I had a feeling, Herlock, that you were going by the report from a different newspaper, which is why I mentioned the Telegraph.

However, the account that you have quoted appears to be identical to the one in the Telegraph!

I do not see how you can deduce that Doctor Phillips meant that he did not check the temperature of the body until after he had searched the yard and collected various items.

It is possible that the order in which he gave information about his visit was determined by the order in which he was asked questions by the coroner, which in that part of the summary may have been omitted.

Yes it is possible PI. With ‘possible’ being the word. This is why I didn’t claim it as a fact. I only mentioned it as a possibility. So it is possible that he did things in that order. If he arrived at 6.30 however, we can’t assume that he made his estimate at 6.30. So we can say that possibility exists that he might actually have checked the factors relating to ToD estimation at around 6.40. It makes little difference of course except to point out that his minimum estimate might only have been ‘out’ by a mere 50 minutes instead of a mere hour.

It has to be pointed out though that Phillips appears at least to be relating events as he did them.