Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    I thought the doctor said their was latent heat under the organs?, or something like that. So the body wasn't cold, the fingers & toes may have been cold.
    But specific parts of the body were not specified in the post.

    He said:

    The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

    He did not say cool.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


      I have the impression that not only do you think that you know more about what Biggs meant than we do, but that you think you know more about what Biggs meant than he did.
      If you have an issue with the English language then perhaps you can explain what it is.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

        What is this?

        It is an extract from the coroner's summing-up.

        But the coroner seems to have missed the significance of Phillips' use of the word more, which we were just discussing.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

          Certainly cynically manipulated, PI, which I reckon amounts to the same thing and borne of the same vested interest that I think you're suggesting.

          It's spell binding that anyone can sit there and claim with a straight face that Dr Phillips meant this: at least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than at least two hours.
          To remind ourselves what he said:


          I should say at least two hours, and probably more; (that’s all that he needed to say)


          but it is right to say (so he feels obliged to disclose the full facts and all possibilities; to add additional information)


          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. (rapid cooling can only mean that the time between death and eximation could have been shorter than the time given in the estimation)

          There was no other possible reason for adding that caveat.


          So you think the opposite is obvious and that those that disagree are somehow idiots?

          How many agree with you? PI maybe. Possibly George. Fishy. So 4.

          Against you, we have Coroner Baxter who was there at the time. Newspapers like The People who also interpreted correctly.

          Then all these people that you dismiss and deride…..most of whom haven’t even been involved in the thread and so have no ax to grind.


          Dusty (DrStrange)
          Wickerman
          Aelric
          Abby Normal
          Colin (Bridewell)
          Jeff Hamm
          Azarna
          Pat (PC Dunn)
          Kattrup
          Me
          Erobitha
          Ms Diddles
          Enigma
          Al Bundy’s Eyes
          Dickere
          Friedkidne
          Aethelwulf
          RManny
          Milchmanuk

          The person that’s being blinkered and biased is you. You have dogmatically decided that Annie must have been killed at 4.30 (in the teeth of all of evidence to the contrary) and you’re then willing to manipulate to try and desperately hold on to a clearly lost position. There have been so many embarrassing points made on here over the last few days by the Dr George Phillips Fan Club.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


            He said:

            The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

            He did not say cool.
            It’s irelevant.

            I haven’t a clue why it’s still being discussed.

            For Christ’s sake let it go!

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n821995]

              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.

              Blah blah, . Try practicing what you preach just for once.
              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Baxter wasn’t a Doctor Fishy.
                Ok Blackwell in strides case.
                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=FISHY1118;n822097]
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  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.

                  Blah blah, . Try practicing what you preach just for once.
                  ??

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                    It is an extract from the coroner's summing-up.

                    But the coroner seems to have missed the significance of Phillips' use of the word more, which we were just discussing.
                    Cheers PI.

                    I was aware of the origin of the statement, I was simply having a bit of fun with Herlock given he presented this as some revelation from an hitherto unseen source, ii.e. 'The People'.

                    Baxter was a lawyer and he certainly wasn't an investigative authority. He wasn't investigating, he wasn't challenging, he wasn't questioning. He simply cobbled together that which he thought he heard, and of course nobody was able to challenge him on his summary.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                      It is an extract from the coroner's summing-up.

                      But the coroner seems to have missed the significance of Phillips' use of the word more, which we were just discussing.
                      So Baxter couldn’t read either? An experienced Coroner.

                      The ‘more’ isn’t relevant. Phillips made it clear that his preferred ToD was 2 or more hours before. The important word isn’t ‘more’ it’s the ‘but.’

                      Why aren’t you seeing something that’s about as obvious as it’s possible to have been. In effect, what you and Fleetwood are claiming that Phillips meant was this “I think that she’d been dead for 2 hours or probably more or due to the exceptional conditions probably more.”

                      When clearly what he could only have been saying was “I think that she’d been de2 hours or probably more but due to the exceptional condition possibly less.”

                      Which of those two is the only one that makes sense?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                        Unfortunately, you and the small clique on here are intent on posting and debating points in response that were never made by the person you're responding to.

                        You know that I haven't ignored Dr Phillips' 'caveat', and you know and I know that because you've replied to my posts which stated exactly what I'm about to state below.

                        Dr Phillips stated this:

                        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.

                        In the event you believe that Dr Phillips did not mean 'at least two hours' then you're bending his words. He tells you that in his statement: 'at least two hours', which in the English language means the minimum time possible.

                        It's a perfectly ordinary statement in the English language: at least two hours, probably more, but due to the cold morning I cannot be certain on nor quantify that probably more.

                        On the other hand, you are suggesting that Dr Phillips meant this:

                        At least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.

                        There are two monumental flaws with your conclusion:

                        1) You are suggesting a nonsensical statement from an educated man.
                        2) You are ignoring the fact, not an opinion, but a fact: that Dr Phillips stated 'at least two hours', which in the English language means the minimum time possible, regardless of whatever else Dr Phillips stated.
                        The full inquest quote is repeatedly ignored by you. He said "that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, WHEN HE FIRST SAW HER". He was telling the Coroner what he said at the murder site, then he added his caveat which explained his present reservations about it.

                        As you did previously, you have quoted an incomplete statement as your evidence, and have ignored the correct version when it is pointed out to you. Phillips said of his ToD that his estimate was in respect of "when he first saw her".

                        In other words, and I'll say it yet again, what he told the Coroner was, in effect, when he first saw the body he gave a ToD of at least two hours and probably more, but he must point out that due to the coldness of the morning and the massive loss of blood, it could have been later.

                        I keep telling you that his original ToD and its meaning have never been in dispute. You keep ignoring the fact that he told the Coroner his original ToD, and then said that it could be wrong. The Coroner fully understood what he said. So I am not ignoring what he said, but you are. The full quote from the inquest is important, and you keep quoting an incomplete version.
                        Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 10-14-2023, 09:12 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          If you have an issue with the English language then perhaps you can explain what it is.

                          I have no idea what you mean, Jon.

                          I was responding to your comment,

                          It MAY or MAY NOT because Biggs does not know how much alcohol, or at what time prior to death it was consumed.
                          Is that any clearer?


                          I do not see how you can possibly read that into Biggs' statement. ​

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            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!”
                            Your creating a scenario that is not relevant in strides and Eddowes murder .
                            I think you should stick to the evidence, or in this case lack or it .
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                              Cheers PI.

                              I was aware of the origin of the statement, I was simply having a bit of fun with Herlock given he presented this as some revelation from an hitherto unseen source, ii.e. 'The People'.

                              Baxter was a lawyer and he certainly wasn't an investigative authority. He wasn't investigating, he wasn't challenging, he wasn't questioning. He simply cobbled together that which he thought he heard, and of course nobody was able to challenge him on his summary.
                              Ah, so now the game is elevate Phillips to wizard level and portray Baxter as a bumbling paper-shuffler.

                              He could have been challenged of course. Phillips could have challenged him. So according to you Gandalf hears a coroner comp,eyelet misquote his professional opinion. Then reads it being repeated in the Press and doesn’t say a peep? Unbelievable!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                                Your creating a scenario that is not relevant in strides and Eddowes murder .
                                I think you should stick to the evidence, or in this case lack or it .
                                Id forgotten that you were there and had spoken to every single person and monitored every single conversation that was had.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X