Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


    Hmmm, Not really sure thats a answer to my question in relation to the subject matter of my post to Jeff , so untill i get one i will extend the same courtesy to Dr Phillips as the other 3 docters . Of course being the gentleman i am i will allow you your opinion .
    Ok, so we’re interpreting scientific evidence by ‘courtesy’ and allowing Phillips a skill that was 134 years before it’s time. Ok Fishy. Up to you. Dr. Phillips was clearly a magician.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Ok, so we’re interpreting scientific evidence by ‘courtesy’ and allowing Phillips a skill that was 134 years before it’s time. Ok Fishy. Up to you. Dr. Phillips was clearly a magician.
      When you want to address some of my points as ive pointed them out then maybe we can decuss it , but if your going to cherrypick a word from here or there and ignore the topic, then best you move on and let the person i addressed it to answer ,as you clearly have no intention to allow any meaningful and logical debate on the subject.
      '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

        To reiterate the facts.

        We have a Doctor in 1888, with the knowledge that existed at that time

        that he could have made an accurate TOD estimate from simply touching the body
        The monumental flaw in your theory being these aren't facts, Sherlock. I got as far as your first paragraph because I think we need to establish just how factual your 'facts' are before considering your theory.

        It is a feature of your posts that you proclaim 'facts', seemingly oblivious to the matter that these aren't facts, and then build a case.

        So, let's examine your 'facts' before we move on to your case built upon said 'facts'.

        1) What exactly was the knowledge of the time? How did it differ to today's knowledge, in relation to rigor mortis that is.

        2) Most importantly, what leads you to believe Dr Phillips estimated TOD 'from simply touching the body'?

        3) What leads you to believe that Dr Phillips gave a specific TOD demanding 'accuracy'? He didn't. He gave us a window of time.

        My view is that your entire theory can very easily be dismantled given that you use 'facts' to prop up your theory that aren't facts in any meaningful sense of the word fact.

        Lastly: between you and your friend, tell him/her to create an account and type in a reasonable sized font, otherwise there will be no reply to him/her via you.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          Hi George,

          Because Dr. P. specifically mentions touching the body and found it cold to the touch, and never at any point mentions taking temperature readings with a thermometer. Everything he says is about touch and feeling cool/cold/residual heat, etc. None of the doctors at any of the crime scenes mention taking actual temperature readings. So, unless there is evidence he took such readings, consulted some formula or set of tables, then it is just an unsupported speculation. We know he touched the body, we know he decided it felt cold, and we know those are the things he mentions when he talks about estimating the ToD (well, technically he estimates the Post Mortem Interval - PMI - as he says dead at least 2 hours, not dead at x o'clock. What he doesn't say is 2 hours earlier than what time specifically, so what time he means is something we have to estimate as well; does he mean 2 hours prior to his arrival or 2 hours prior to the time he did his examination - and if the latter, what time was that? I don't know, he doesn't say).

          So, unless there is something recorded that shows he used a thermometer, everything we have points to him not using one.

          - Jeff
          Hi Jeff.

          I must still side with the possibility that he did, though I do accept change is often resisted in seniors.

          Assuming he didn't use a thermometer, how could Phillips offer numbers (hours) without a device that provides numbers?
          Time of Death was a numerical calculation even in 1888, and he did use both body temperature with rigor to make his estimate.

          If Phillips merely used his hand to gauge body heat, then nothing he said on that score carries any real weight.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            And when discussing his estimate of ToD, nowhere does he indicate he incorporated anything with regards to Rigor Mortis

            - Jeff
            For clarity, are you claiming Dr Phillips did not use rigor mortis as a means of estimating TOD in the case of Annie?

            It would be useful to nail this down as your entire theory seemingly rests on this proposition.

            Comment


            • I though we all took these lines as references to both Algor & Rigor Mortis.

              At Hanbury St. he noticed.
              - "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing".

              At the Mortuary, he observed.
              - "The stiffness of the limbs was then well-marked."
              - "On the left side the stiffness was more noticeable, and especially in the fingers, which were partly closed."
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                The monumental flaw in your theory being these aren't facts, Sherlock. I got as far as your first paragraph because I think we need to establish just how factual your 'facts' are before considering your theory.

                Ok, so we’re back to your childish refusal to use my proper username. Grow up.

                It is a feature of your posts that you proclaim 'facts', seemingly oblivious to the matter that these aren't facts, and then build a case.

                And it’s a feature of your posts that you are so incapable of admitting error that you feel obliged to bend over backwards in defence of utter nonsense.

                So, let's examine your 'facts' before we move on to your case built upon said 'facts'.

                1) What exactly was the knowledge of the time? How did it differ to today's knowledge, in relation to rigor mortis that is.

                There really is no point in persisting in trying to drill this into you. If you believe that forensic knowledge, relating to TOD estimation, was as extensive and reliable in 1888 as it is in 2022 then you really are delusional. They were inaccurate and unreliable. This shouldn’t even be up for discussion because it’s a fact. And until you accept this we’re in cloud-cuckoo land.

                "The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

                That quote from 2011 should end the conversation stone dead. Stop moaning about it and read it.


                “can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death”


                2) Most importantly, what leads you to believe Dr Phillips estimated TOD 'from simply touching the body'?

                He didn’t use a thermometer. He checked the temperature of the body touch alone and also noticed the commencement of a stiffening in the limbs. Both unreliable methods. You can’t get reliable results from unreliable methods. That is what I call a FACT.

                3) What leads you to believe that Dr Phillips gave a specific TOD demanding 'accuracy'? He didn't. He gave us a window of time.

                He gave a window of time with only a minimum estimate and a ‘probably longer.’ He then added a caveat which an attempt has been made to twist. The question is whether that minimum can be relied upon to the extent that he couldn’t have been out by 40-50. Medical experts tell us no. You say yes. I go with the experts.

                My view is that your entire theory can very easily be dismantled given that you use 'facts' to prop up your theory that aren't facts in any meaningful sense of the word fact.

                Yours can be dismissed because you have clearly begun with an agenda. To bolster the Doctor’s guess and to discredit the witnesses that disagree with him. And to do this you’re prepared to go to any lengths. And before you say that I’m biased ‘against’ the Doctor I’ll reiterate - I’ve never questioned his competence and I’ve never said that he must have been wrong.

                Lastly: between you and your friend, tell him/her to create an account and type in a reasonable sized font, otherwise there will be no reply to him/her via you.
                Again, grow up. “I’m not responding because the font is too small!” Yeah right.



                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                  As a reminder:

                  1) At the inquest Dr Phillips stated: "at least two hours and probably more".

                  2) The Oxford Dictionary definition of probably is: likely to happen, to exist or to be true, the probable cause/explanation/outcome.

                  So, Dr Phillips is clearly stating that he believed Annie was murdered not at 4.30am but prior to 4.30am. We don't know exactly how many hours he has in mind because he doesn't clarify that. It could be 3.30am and it could be 2.30am.

                  It follows that Dr Phillips gives us a window of what is the earliest and what he believed.
                  Sorry FM, but that claim above must be challenged.

                  At the murder site Phillips told Chandler quite positively that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours. He then conducted the post mortem on a naked body, in better light, and with more time at his disposal. Maybe his more careful scrutiny resulted in some reconsideration of the ToD. At the inquest he did not give a ToD of "at least two hours and probably more" as you claim. What he is reported as having said was,

                  "He should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood."

                  There is a very distinct doubt being introduced into the ToD, and it is being introduced deliberately by the same man who provided the original estimate. His statement is capable of being interpreted in different ways, but it is clear that he has deliberately chosen to insert a potential doubt in his original estimate. Air temperature, and loss of blood are two things he would have taken into account initially, so why would he mention them at this late stage, unless he later felt he might have been wrong? His choice of words is also very relevant. He is no longer saying "he believed", or "he considered" but "He should say ... when he first saw her". Is he repeating his initial estimate, and then saying why it might not be accurate? The coroner certainly thought that this was what he meant.

                  Phillips' inquest statement on time of death is basically -
                  1.) More or less a repeat of his original estimate, but wrapped in less than positive language, and
                  2.) A clear indication of why that estimate might be wrong.

                  So, as point two was that point one might not be correct, what was obviously needed next, was point number 3.), a clear statement explaining his conclusion taking 1.) and 2.) into account. And what did he decide? It could have been "Nevertheless, I stand by my original opinion", but if that was the case, why did he choose to introduce the question of possible doubt? No, he cannot be standing firmly by his original estimate, something has changed. But what? Amazingly, Phillips deliberately chose not to restate his ToD, nor to offer a clear cut alternative time. He was a thoroughly experienced police surgeon, and a man with a reputation for choosing his words carefully. He knew what he was doing, and yet his evidence which had seemed to slam the door in the faces of Richardson, Cadosch and Long, actually threw the door wide open for their evidence to be given unchallenged. Why did he do this if he had any confidence in his original estimate?

                  I admit to being uncertain as to why Phillips chose to introduce the doubt as he was under no pressure to do so, and I am inclined to agree with the very experienced coroner, who seems to have been sure that he was no longer proposing "at least two hours". All is assumption, of course, but it cannot be correct to claim that at the inquest Phillips clearly stated that Annie was murdered prior to 4. 30 am, when Baxter reckoned that he didn't state that. It wasn't clear to Baxter, and he wasn't stupid.
                  Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 08-07-2022, 02:50 PM.

                  Comment


                  • And because this thread is about John Richardson and about whether he could have been mistaken or he could have lied or that he told the truth and was correct the discussion about Dr. Phillips is in regard to that. Does Dr. Phillips TOD estimate have any impact on Richardson’s statement.

                    So, that said, is their any poster who will stand up and claim that Dr. Phillips couldn’t have been wrong? Remember none of us who favour the witnesses are saying that Phillips couldn’t have been correct. It’s an important point. All that we are saying is that the evidence is that he could have been wrong.

                    So if no one will say that they can prove that Phillips can’t have been wrong then the witnesses could have been right.

                    And as we have no way of assessing or confirming Phillips estimation then we are clearly left with an unknown.

                    So who on here will support a point that says - if x might have been the case then we can say that y was definitely the case?
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      So, let's examine your 'facts' before we move on to your case built upon said 'facts'.

                      1) What exactly was the knowledge of the time? How did it differ to today's knowledge, in relation to rigor mortis that is.

                      "The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of rigor."

                      That quote from 2011 should end the conversation stone dead. Stop moaning about it and read it.


                      “can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death”


                      2) Most importantly, what leads you to believe Dr Phillips estimated TOD 'from simply touching the body'?

                      He didn’t use a thermometer.

                      3) What leads you to believe that Dr Phillips gave a specific TOD demanding 'accuracy'? He didn't. He gave us a window of time.

                      He gave a window of time with only a minimum estimate and a ‘probably longer.’ He then added a caveat which an attempt has been made to twist.
                      So, stripping out all of the nonsense the above are your 'facts'.

                      In response:

                      1) In your own quote/link:

                      The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process.

                      In other words, rigor mortis is useful in providing an estimated TOD.

                      According to this website below: rigor mortis also acts as a good measuring stick for estimating the time of death.

                      Estimating The Time of Death – Explore Forensics

                      2) He had rigor mortis to help him, thermometer or otherwise.

                      3) He gave you a window of time: 2 hours and probably more, meaning between 4.30am and 3.30am or 4.30am and 2.30am. He certainly didn't give a specific time that demands 100% accuracy. He was unequivocal in saying at least two hours, however.

                      Conclusion:

                      When you state: "let's look at the facts" and then build your 'run-away-horse' theory upon said 'facts', you don't have any facts, Sherlock Holmes.

                      I'm afraid, your argument is weak to the point of bordering on a shambles.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                        Sorry FM, but that claim above must be challenged.

                        At the murder site Phillips told Chandler quite positively that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours. He then conducted the post mortem on a naked body, in better light, and with more time at his disposal. Maybe his more careful scrutiny resulted in some reconsideration of the ToD. At the inquest he did not give a ToD of "at least two hours and probably more" as you claim.
                        For clarity, I think you're saying it is doubtful that Dr Phillips said: "two hours and probably more". Is this correct?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                          So, stripping out all of the nonsense the above are your 'facts'.

                          Perhaps you should just stick to reading and understanding and forget about just trying to look clever. It’s not working.

                          In response:

                          1) In your own quote/link:

                          The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process.

                          In other words, rigor mortis is useful in providing an estimated TOD.

                          Never said it wasn’t useful. Just not accurate. Another failure of reading.

                          According to this website below: rigor mortis also acts as a good measuring stick for estimating the time of death.

                          Estimating The Time of Death – Explore Forensics

                          Explaining the obvious to you is about as easy as explaining the LBW rule to a Gibbon I’m afraid. It really does feel like a waste of time and effort.

                          Try looking in the dictionary for the word estimate. I’ve repeatedly said that none of us could say that Phillips couldn’t have been correct but it doesn’t appear to have penetrated your ego. Of course he could have been correct. I’ve put that in red because I really wish that it would sink in. The whole point is that he could also have been wrong and if you can’t accept that very obvious fact you have serious comprehension issues.


                          2) He had rigor mortis to help him, thermometer or otherwise.

                          The use of a thermometer would have increased his accuracy but Gandalf Phillips chose not to because he could achieve this feat simply by the laying on of a hand which some people appear to think possible. It’s not.

                          Yes he did have rigor mortis to help him and what do we know about rigor mortis? Let’s think…..oh yeah, I remember now:

                          "The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of Rigor."


                          3) He gave you a window of time: 2 hours and probably more, meaning between 4.30am and 3.30am or 4.30am and 2.30am. He certainly didn't give a specific time that demands 100% accuracy. He was unequivocal in saying at least two hours, however.

                          He wasn’t equivocal because he added a caveat but you, for some utterly incomprehensible reason, take this to mean that he was saying, in effect “a minimum of two hours but probably longer but the conditions at the time could have meant 2 hours?!” A caveat would only be used to make an allowance within the original assessment. So even Phillips accepted a margin for error outside the range that he gave. The Coroner understood this, I understand it, other posters on here understand it, but you choose to interpret it in a way that flies in the face of reason, English language and basic common sense.

                          Conclusion:

                          When you state: "let's look at the facts" and then build your 'run-away-horse' theory upon said 'facts', you don't have any facts, Sherlock Holmes.

                          Ok Meetwood.

                          I'm afraid, your argument is weak to the point of bordering on a shambles.
                          As you are clearly (and rather embarrassingly) floundering around I’ll try asking you a question (3 actually) bearing in mind that this thread is about John Richardson (remember him, the witness that your embarrassing yourself in trying to discredit?) and any discussion of Phillips is about how his guess impacts on the validity of his evidence….

                          1. Do you believe that Dr. Phillips estimation is so reliable and accurate - that his lower estimate is so set-in-stone (and it would have to be something approaching 100%) that we have to dismiss the witnesses in its favour?

                          2. Or if you’re not close to 100% what level of certainty/confidence do you have in Phillips estimate?

                          3. And if you’ve gone for the ‘less than 100% option’ can you tell us how you arrived at that conclusion and at whatever percentage you’ve gone for?

                          ok, I’ll add one more…

                          4. Perhaps you would tell us all your own qualifications in Forensic Medicine that allows you to read the large number of quotes from other acknowledged experts (possibly your colleagues?) and to dismiss them as wrong?
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                            For clarity, I think you're saying it is doubtful that Dr Phillips said: "two hours and probably more". Is this correct?
                            No, it means that Doc can read and he knows what a caveat is.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              "The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation, as rigor is such a variable process that it can never provide an accurate assessment of the time of death. Extreme caution should be exercised in trying to assign a time of death based on the very subjective assessment of the degree and extent of Rigor."

                              He wasn’t equivocal because he added a caveat
                              I'm more than happy for my posts to be scrutinised, and I'll answer any questions. But, first, I'd like to discuss your bold claim of having the 'facts'.

                              So, again, stripping out all of the nonsense, the above are your 'facts'.

                              In response:

                              1) Your own quote states this:

                              The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation

                              Which means utilising rigor mortis as a means of estimating TOD is useful, and that is exactly what Dr Phillips did: he provided an estimate.

                              As I've said to you many times, there is a reason why rigor mortis was an indicator of TOD in Victorian times and remains an indicator today. That being: it is useful.

                              Dr Phillips did not give an exact TOD.

                              2) Dr Phillips was unequivocal in that 'at least two hours'. He believed it was earlier than 4.30am but that doesn't change the fact he was unequivocal in his statement 'at least two hours'.

                              From the Oxford Dictionary: unequivocal (formal), expressing your opinion or intention very clearly and firmly.

                              Conclusion:

                              When you boldly proclaim you have 'the facts' and implore others to accept your 'facts' and your subsequent theory, you don't have any facts, Sherlock Holmes.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                                I'm more than happy for my posts to be scrutinised, and I'll answer any questions. But, first, I'd like to discuss your bold claim of having the 'facts'.

                                So, again, stripping out all of the nonsense, the above are your 'facts'.

                                In response:

                                1) Your own quote states this:

                                The only use of assessing the presence or absence of rigor lies in the estimation of the time of death, and the key word here is estimation

                                Which means utilising rigor mortis as a means of estimating TOD is useful, and that is exactly what Dr Phillips did: he provided an estimate.

                                Did he, I hadn’t realised.

                                As I've said to you many times, there is a reason why rigor mortis was an indicator of TOD in Victorian times and remains an indicator today. That being: it is useful.

                                Pointless comment, I’ve never said it wasn’t useful in some ways. Just not reliable or accurate. And do you know how I know this? The experts tell me.

                                Dr Phillips did not give an exact TOD.

                                Then why are you expending so much energy in trying to prove that his estimate couldn’t have been wrong?

                                2) Dr Phillips was unequivocal in that 'at least two hours'. He believed it was earlier than 4.30am but that doesn't change the fact he was unequivocal in his statement 'at least two hours'.

                                It doesn’t matter how confident Phillips was (even though you ignore his inconvenient caveat of course) At one time the Pope was absolutely certain that the sun orbited the earth.

                                From the Oxford Dictionary: unequivocal (formal), expressing your opinion or intention very clearly and firmly.

                                This isn’t equivocal

                                “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. “

                                That’s saying ‘I estimate a minus of 2 hours, more likely more though, but due to the conditions it could have been less.” The Coroner agreed.


                                Caveat - an explanation to prevent misinterpretation.

                                He didn’t add his caveat for fun.


                                Conclusion:

                                When you boldly proclaim you have 'the facts' and implore others to accept your 'facts' and your subsequent theory, you don't have any facts, Sherlock Holmes.
                                Are you such a baby that you have stoop so pathetically, childishly low as to keep intentionally getting my name wrong. Is that the level of your debate. For Christ sake GROW UP.

                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X