John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Did Philips know what a cadaveric spasm was? And how as the result of examining one can be mistaken for early onset rigor?

How can Phillips have mistaken a cadaveric spasm for early onset rigor mortis, about an hour after death, when

Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing

whereas

Cadaveric spasm, also known as postmortem spasm, is a rare form of muscular stiffening that occurs at the moment of death and persists into the period of rigor mortis. Cadaveric spasm can be distinguished from rigor mortis as the former is a stronger stiffening of the muscles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaveric_spasm

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yeah, that makes sense

A familiar pattern.

You make a claim of what a poster has said in the past.

That poster informs you that actually he didn't say that at any point and clearly reiterates a point of view that is completely at odds with your claim.

You respond by ignoring that poster's reiteration and move the discussion elsewhere.

Anyone would think you're only here to have an argument with a stranger, Herlock.

[Wickerman]

At this juncture, it's clear that you're unwilling to elaborate on your ridiculous assertion that Dr Phillips meant this: at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.

Well, how's about this:
"...at least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than the least".

See, we can all turn common sense into a stupid statement.

Phillips caveat gave the reason; the morning was cold, and the body was open to the elements. The academic standards do not take these realities into account. Therefore, the accepted standards that suggest "at least two hours and probably more", could be suggesting a false estimate towards the high side.

What part of the sentence above do you not understand?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A familiar pattern.

You make a claim of what a poster has said in the past.

That poster informs you that actually he didn't say that at any point and clearly reiterates a point of view that is completely at odds with your claim.

You respond by ignoring that poster's reiteration and move the discussion elsewhere.

Anyone would think you're only here to have an argument with a stranger, Herlock.

Any chance of explaining that? I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about (but I’m guessing that you don’t either)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, how's about this:
"...at least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than the least".

See, we can all turn common sense into a stupid statement.

Phillips caveat gave the reason; the morning was cold, and the body was open to the elements. The academic standards do not take these realities into account. Therefore, the accepted standards that suggest "at least two hours and probably more", could be suggesting a false estimate towards the high side.

What part of the sentence above do you not understand?

He’s ‘misunderstanding’ deliberately Wick. He’s made his mind up on an earlier ToD and has to make everything ‘fit.’

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, how's about this:
"...at least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than the least".

See, we can all turn common sense into a stupid statement.

No, I don't see.

I asked the other poster to explain how: at least two hours, and probably more, but possibly less than at least two hours, is a reasonable statement in the English language. That is his contention and it follows it is perfectly reasonably to ask him to explain that. He declined to answer on more than one occasion, and rather replied with something about semi-colons. You can draw your own conclusion on why he'd decline and turn his attention to a 'semi-colon'.

You've replied on his behalf and it appears that you're reiterating my question. i.e. in the event somebody of education states 'at least', i.e. the minimum time possible, then how can he claim possibly less than the minimum time possible?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You've replied on his behalf and it appears that you're reiterating my question. i.e. in the event somebody of education states 'at least', i.e. the minimum time possible, then how can he claim possibly less than the minimum time possible?

That is rather like my question, in # 5703:


How can less than probably three be reconciled with less than one?

[Ms Diddles]

Hi again, F.M.!

You will be unsurprised that I still have to disagree on this point:

Hi Ms Diddles,

Before we get into the practicalities, there are three erroneous assumptions in your theory:

1) Annie wasn't homeless. She had the means to source food.

*To me a pay by the night doss house does not constitute a home.

Even today people sleeping in the City Mission are considered with good reason to be homeless.

In Annie's case she didn't have money for her bed and was evicted therefore she was both homeless and destitute.*

2) It is not human nature to steal food, no matter how desperate you are.

* I beg to differ. You do what you need to do to survive. If you're hungry and skint and there is food available you will take it. Besides which, Annie may not have stolen anything. Spuds were cheap. Someone could have baked a big batch of them in the kitchen and said "help yourself".*


3) In the event it is so easy to steal food from places and it's human nature to do so, as you suggest, then nobody would ever need to buy it; the homeless and every petty criminal from here to Afghanistan would be gorging themselves on all sorts 'til the cows come home, and nobody would ever notice or care.

* Again, I guarantee you people do this. It's not always stealing as such, but people will often request (or take if it's self service) an extra roll or whatever from soup kitchens for later consumption.

I have personally had to reprimand homeless people on behalf of hotel staff for nicking stuff from the breakfast buffet and stockpiling it in their rooms (tbh I felt a bit hypocritical about this as I'm partial to pocketing the odd pain au chocolat to dunk in a later coffee when staying in a hotel myself!).*

In terms of the practicalities:

1) No other woman in the series was found with food on their person. Was Annie alone in stealing food in this 'human nature' world of every man and his dog slying bread and whatever else from the dinner table?

*Sorry, I'm not getting how this is relevant. Again, Annie may not have stolen the food on that night, but I'm confident that in such dire straits anyone would (including the other victims) should an opportunity present itself.*

2) The doss houses were cess pits, the bare minimum of subsistence. Do you suppose that these places had food lying around at a quarter to two in the morning?

* Well I doubt lobster thermidore with a spinach and endive remoulade and jerusalem artichoke jus was on the menu, but I don't find it inconceivable that someone could have baked up a few old potatoes that were on the turn! *


3) Annie had just been out to source food. Why would she need to go out and source food in the event she had a few potatoes or whatever squirrelled away on her person. Moreover, in the event Annie had stolen food earlier, then the probability is that she would have eaten that food that she'd stolen and kept the money that she used on food at half one in the morning for a bed.

*Do we know that she had been out to source food? *


4) That was Annie's home. Get on their nerves by stealing their food and Annie would have found herself with a problem, a big problem considering that the police didn't run that area: the landlords did. Annie could well have been left with a problem that she couldn't cope with.

* Again, to me the doss house is not a home. I'd imagine that if you pissed off the manager, you'd just move on to a different doss house. I'd imagine that the lodging house owners would be too busy with their nefarious business to worry too much about a poorly middle aged woman nicking a spud or two*

It is absolutely fine to speculate and it's not my business to tell people how to approach this subject and this message board. In the event people want to come up with various possibilities no matter how unlikely, then good luck to them.

*Agree*

But, what you're suggesting is an unlikely event, and of course those of us who do not believe Annie was murdered at half five in the morning will say that you have a monumental gap in your theory in that it is propped up by at least one unlikely event.

* From my perspective, flip that.

I see it as quite a probable and completely understandable scenario, poo pooed by those who wish to prop up an earlier time of death based on the
food found in Annie's stomach.*


In sum: your explanation of how and why Annie was eating more food after two in the morning, is unlikely.

*Apologies, I'm on my phone and ballsed up the bold text so resorted to *. This is probably going to be annoying to read! *

[Fleetwood Mac]

That is rather like my question, in # 5703:


How can less than probably three be reconciled with less than one?

This question has been asked on this thread ad nauseam, PI.

At no point have they replied. Rather, they have shifted the discussion elsewhere.

Don't expect a direct answer any time soon.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi again, F.M.!

You will be unsurprised that I still have to disagree on this point:





*Apologies, I'm on my phone and ballsed up the bold text so resorted to *. This is probably going to be annoying to read! *

I wouldn't say annoying but rather more trouble than it is worth.

If you want to repost with the same words but in a decipherable format, I'll have a look.

[Ms Diddles]

I wouldn't say annoying but rather more trouble than it is worth.


*Ouch! That's a little dismissive, F.M.!


If you want to repost with the same words but in a decipherable format, I'll have a look.

*It's decipherable, just not exactly as I'd intended. *

[Fleetwood Mac]

*It's decipherable, just not exactly as I'd intended. *

No bother, Ms Diddles.

If we're gonna do it then let's do it properly, and, I'm 50 now; these days I don't have the energy to work out what is going on among the stars/asterisks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This question has been asked on this thread ad nauseam, PI.

At no point have they replied. Rather, they have shifted the discussion elsewhere.

Don't expect a direct answer any time soon.

I replied in post 5706.

I’ve responded to you’re point several times. Try opening your eyes.

[Lewis C]

That is rather like my question, in # 5703:


How can less than probably three be reconciled with less than one?

Hi PI,

As you saw, Herlock responded to your post, and as he said, it's not a question of less than probably 3, but less than 2.

I don't know why you're saying "less than one". Most of us that think the TOD was later would say that the best estimate for TOD was 5:25 or 5:30. So Dr. Phillips would have been making his estimate for TOD at least an hour later.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I replied in post 5706.

You certainly have put a few words down on a computer, but you certainly didn't reply to the question at hand.