Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • DJA
    replied
    Now see what you've done Fishy

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Just as you have misrepresent dr Phillips ,his evidence is not neutral , only in your opinion not mine, it is entitled to be judged either way ,as it has been . We know have modern day medical experts that agree.
    .
    No we don’t. Who are these experts? Please post the quotes where they agree with Phillips.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
    Ding-dong! the wicked thread is dead.
    Which old thread?

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    This thread is now dead thanks to the sanctimonious whining and manipulation of evidence of a few posters. I should have distanced myself from this nonsense ages ago.

    An unreliable guess from a Victorian Doctor exposed for what it was by the whole of the forensic medicine community gets us nowhere but a few desperately try and twist this to try and support their agendas. This leaves us 3 witnesses all pointing to a later TOD. So this is the way the evidence points. Overwhelmingly. Not a smidgeon of evidence for dishonesty. All we get are the same old manipulations and obfuscations.

    The majority on here (sensible, unbiased posters) favour a later TOD.

    I’ll leave this thread to the conspiracist fringe.
    Of course this is just " sour grapes , accusing people of manipulation and dishonesty is the act of desperation.
    phases such as " the whole of the medical community " when it has been shown medical experts agree with Dr Phillips estimate is more sour grapes and turning a blind eye to such evidence.

    As for 3 witnesses that also has been shown to be unreliable and contradictory by George great post 1320. How their testimony can be honestly judged "overwhelming" is extraordinary brave by anyone.

    Of we know that witnesses can be dishonest , but it not their dishonesty that in question as much as the uncertainty and contradictions that allowes for debate for an earlier t.od.

    All in all I think many sensible unbiased posters also favour an earlier t.o.d. .

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    The majority on here (sensible, unbiased posters) favour a later TOD. (Bandwagon Logical Fallacy)

    I’ll leave this thread to the conspiracist fringe.
    You mean you're scarpering when your nonsense was exposed.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Fisherman’s post has been explained. You clearly only hear what you want to hear.

    Why do you ignore Biggs?
    So when you claim something has been explained we should just except it ? Is that how it works?

    You have also had things explained that you won't except . So I think we need not bother going down that path.

    We have a choice now between two modern day medical experts , thats what being debated , fishermans detailed post allows that. Clearly .

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    I agree Fishy. I found Fisherman's conclusions on the forensic analysis to be the most persuasive. His departure is a great loss to this forum.

    Cheers, George
    Indeed George, most informative post on the subject I've seen so far.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    There’s no point in try to explain something so obvious that you are clearly misrepresenting the point.

    Yes, Phillips could have been right or he could have been wrong. Therefore Dr Phillips gets us no further forward. In effect, his evidence is neutral, so why do you keep talking about medical evidence pointing to an earlier TOD? There is none. I’ve never claimed that medical evidence points to a later TOD. All that I’ve asked is that you accept the fact that Phillips estimate gets us nowhere.
    Just as you have misrepresent dr Phillips ,his evidence is not neutral , only in your opinion not mine, it is entitled to be judged either way ,as it has been . We know have modern day medical experts that agree.

    The phase you keep using that Dr Phillips estimate gets us nowhere is ludicrous really. When all the evidence as a whole is examined properly it play a very important part in tod debate .imo.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Ding-dong! the wicked thread is dead.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    This thread is now dead thanks to the sanctimonious whining and manipulation of evidence of a few posters. I should have distanced myself from this nonsense ages ago.

    An unreliable guess from a Victorian Doctor exposed for what it was by the whole of the forensic medicine community gets us nowhere but a few desperately try and twist this to try and support their agendas. This leaves us 3 witnesses all pointing to a later TOD. So this is the way the evidence points. Overwhelmingly. Not a smidgeon of evidence for dishonesty. All we get are the same old manipulations and obfuscations.

    The majority on here (sensible, unbiased posters) favour a later TOD.

    I’ll leave this thread to the conspiracist fringe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    I agree Fishy. I found Fisherman's conclusions on the forensic analysis to be the most persuasive. His departure is a great loss to this forum.

    Cheers, George
    You mean when he scarpered when his nonsense was exposed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Ahh, I see. There were lots of couples there, at 5:30am, on every day except market day.

    I notice you are engaging in your biased attention again in avoiding addressing Amelia's "bustle".
    And you are being hypocritical George. You criticise me for exactly the kind of accusative post that you’ve just made.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    No myth, no false claim as you like to put it . But clearly not . Fishermans post has cover that in great detail, your free to interpret any way you see fit .
    Fisherman’s post has been explained. You clearly only hear what you want to hear.

    Why do you ignore Biggs?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post







    Who could have been wrong if Dr phillips could have been right as you suggested. Right? .
    There’s no point in try to explain something so obvious that you are clearly misrepresenting the point.

    Yes, Phillips could have been right or he could have been wrong. Therefore Dr Phillips gets us no further forward. In effect, his evidence is neutral, so why do you keep talking about medical evidence pointing to an earlier TOD? There is none. I’ve never claimed that medical evidence points to a later TOD. All that I’ve asked is that you accept the fact that Phillips estimate gets us nowhere.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X