John Richardson

[Abby Normal]

Richardson should be re named John "certain" Richardson

certain about the door
certain that the body wasnt there
certain that his boot was hurting
ceratin that he sat on the step
certain that he didnt kill Chapman

this man is infallible !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the sad thing is that you and others have been taken in by his certainty

There is no such thing as a certaintiy in these murders as far as the witness testimony is concerned because it was never tested as to its accuracy or the truthfulness of the person giving the testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.u

no you know what is certain though Trevor?, is that posters like Doctored Whatsit can find the clues and you cant.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Oh dear! Of course not. How could the addition of a very clear caveat which suggested that the time of death might be more recent, result in him giving an earlier time?

When someone who has no preconceived judgements tells me why my post #1283 is so impossible to understand, then I will happily clarify it for you.

No bother, I'll keep my eye out for your interpreter's post.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If you say so I consider the research articles I have cited and provided links to as support for my argument. I do not think you are correct in assuming the error reduces greatly from 1 to 5 hours and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.


His belief is not evidence, particularly on a non peer reviewed web site that contains clear errors of fact.

Anyway, it is becoming clear that you will not consider any studies that do not conform to Annies specific circumstances and will just claim that her circumstances result in a sudden precision in the ability to estimate ToD that is lacking when bodies are more intact and under controlled study conditions Most researchers would conclude the lack of control in Annies case woul increase the error, but you are not required to follow their lead.

- Jeff

1) The issue with your research article is that it does not apply to Dr Phillips' supposed 1 hour PMI and it is based upon utilising body temperature as a means of estimating TOD. It has been pointed out that your research relates to people who have been dead between 5 and 50 hours, and so I'm guessing some of those bodies more than a day. It has been pointed out that Dr Phillips had rigor mortis to aid his examination also. Both points have been made ad nauseam in the course of the previous 5 or 6 pages. In sum, your research does not in any way, shape or form negate Dr Phillips' ability to provide a reasonable estimate.

2) I agree that the website link I provided in no way constitutes evidence. It was an example of someone connected with that field stating: "as a general rule". There are examples of such people stating: "widely accepted". Neither constitute research and no such research applicable to Dr Phillips' situation has been undertaken (or so it seems from my digging 'round the internet). Furthermore, I am under the belief that those studies that have been undertaken where the PMI is more than the supposed 1 hour, have concluded that a shorter PMI results in a more accurate estimate.

3) I think a pertinent point has been lost in all of this. It is your contention that Dr Phillips' estimate is unreliable. The burden of proof rests with the accuser, that being you.

I have considered the following:

a) Dr Phillips observed rigor 'commencing of the limbs'. This is not where rigor is first observable. It is widely accepted that colder environmental temperatures delay the onset of rigor. Dr Phillips was an experienced doctor. So, I'm looking at this and thinking: is it likely Dr Phillips would have examined a body with a PMI of 1 hour, when he had rigor to help him as well, and be incapable of providing an accurate window?

b) The only possible means of providing evidential basis to support your conclusion is research that is comparable to Dr Phillips' situation, research that tells us Dr Phillips is unlikely to have been correct. As it stands, you haven't provided any such research, nor has anyone else.

Conclusion:

At this juncture, we have no scientific basis to discount Dr Phillips' estimate. We have a couple of posters on a message board claiming 'proof' based upon research that is not applicable to Dr Phillips' situation. On balance, I'm going with the experienced medical man until research materialises that tips the balance of probability the other way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the proof that a Victorian Doctor couldn’t have been 40-50 minutes out in his minimum estimation is?

How much desperation do we need to keep listening to on this subject?

The methods that Phillips was using were unreliable, therefore the results were unreliable. This is not opinion, it’s not conjecture or supposition, it’s fact. Some people need an injection of honesty.

[Fleetwood Mac]

1. As an authority on forensic medicine what level of confidence would you say that you have that either Phillips couldn’t have been wrong and that Chapman couldn’t have met her death at around 5.20?

2. Or, if you don’t feel certain, what kind of percentage level would you give to your own level of confidence in his accuracy?

And whether you go for 1 or 2 can you explain what criteria/evidence/forensic expertise you employed to arrive at that assessment.

'Evening Dear Sherlock,

In response:

1) Why on earth are you asking this ludicrous question?

I think I am the product of a man and a woman.

I think the four walls in my front room will not fall down tomorrow.

I think conspiracy theories are more often than not a result of the human need to control and understand everything.

I think Jack The Ripper would not have appeared a troubled man.

I think the Queen shot Dianna in the face with an upside down gun, at point blank range in a tunnel in Paris.

I think the moon once belonged to King Henry VIII and someone stole it and put it up in the sky.

We are quite clearly talking about the balance of probability in these threads. That doesn't exclude other possibilities. In the event we weren't talking about the balance of probability, there wouldn't be a 'Casebook.Org' because the case would have been solved one way or the other a long while back.

2) What kind of percentage level? Christ. You mean you want me to state 65% so you can reply: "provide the research supporting this".

I go with: "on the balance of probability". That's good enough for me, it should be for you.

[JeffHamm]

1) The issue with your research article is that it does not apply to Dr Phillips' supposed 1 hour PMI and it is based upon utilising body temperature as a means of estimating TOD. It has been pointed out that your research relates to people who have been dead between 5 and 50 hours, and so I'm guessing some of those bodies more than a day. It has been pointed out that Dr Phillips had rigor mortis to aid his examination also. Both points have been made ad nauseam in the course of the previous 5 or 6 pages. In sum, your research does not in any way, shape or form negate Dr Phillips' ability to provide a reasonable estimate.

2) I agree that the website link I provided in no way constitutes evidence. It was an example of someone connected with that field stating: "as a general rule". There are examples of such people stating: "widely accepted". Neither constitute research and no such research applicable to Dr Phillips' situation has been undertaken (or so it seems from my digging 'round the internet). Furthermore, I am under the belief that those studies that have been undertaken where the PMI is more than the supposed 1 hour, have concluded that a shorter PMI results in a more accurate estimate.

3) I think a pertinent point has been lost in all of this. It is your contention that Dr Phillips' estimate is unreliable. The burden of proof rests with the accuser, that being you.

I have considered the following:

a) Dr Phillips observed rigor 'commencing of the limbs'. This is not where rigor is first observable. It is widely accepted that colder environmental temperatures delay the onset of rigor. Dr Phillips was an experienced doctor. So, I'm looking at this and thinking: is it likely Dr Phillips would have examined a body with a PMI of 1 hour, when he had rigor to help him as well, and be incapable of providing an accurate window?

b) The only possible means of providing evidential basis to support your conclusion is research that is comparable to Dr Phillips' situation, research that tells us Dr Phillips is unlikely to have been correct. As it stands, you haven't provided any such research, nor has anyone else.

Conclusion:

At this juncture, we have no scientific basis to discount Dr Phillips' estimate. We have a couple of posters on a message board claiming 'proof' based upon research that is not applicable to Dr Phillips' situation. On balance, I'm going with the experienced medical man until research materialises that tips the balance of probability the other way.

Hmm, I think you're missing the point I've been making. I've not said Dr. Phillip's estimate is particularly unreliable, in fact, I've stated a few times that he's done a very good job of it. The method he has used, even if he took into consideration his observation that Rigor Mortis was not marked but commencing in the limbs, simply has a margin of error in the range of multiple hours. Earlier in the thread I have posted research articles on Rigor Mortirs, and showed the data from that research, and the range of error for ToD based upon reaching full rigor spans from 2-12 hours! Rigor Mortis is an even less precise tool than body temperature. So, as I've said a few times, even if he took it into account the method still has an error range in the multiple hour range.

His estimate can only be as reliable as the method employed. Moreover, all of the error ranges I've been talking about, which come from the peer reviewed literature on the topic, are based upon estimating ToD using a thermometer to measure internal body temperature, a temperature reading of the environment, a measurement of her mass, and a measurement of her surface area. WE have no evidence to indicate Dr. Phillip's did any of those, rather, we only have evidence he noted a subjective impression of her surface temperature and the environment. If we go with just what we have evidence for, surface temperature by touch, and subjective Rigor Mortis, then he simply does not have the basic information necessary to do the calculations, so his margin of error would be even wider than I've been talking about. That's not an opinion, it's how measurement works.

We also have the concern that that the equations are based upon the cooling of intact bodies - Annie being disemboweled means her internal temperature would drop more quickly, making the equations over-estimate her ToD. Again, that's just physics, not an opinion, it's how cooling works.

I've pointed you to research, both on Rigor Mortis and on the reliability of estimating ToD by internal temperature. The study involved estimating temperatures, starting at 5 hours post mortem out to 50 hours. You are claiming that the error ranges narrow dramatically between 0 and 5 hours, but have shown no basis for that claim. The webpage simply says shorter tends to be more accurate, but those are relative statements and for all we know the minimum +-3 hours for the gold standard that the peer reviewed paper states may therefore be the proper range at 0 hours, and it slowly increases out to +-7 as time increases beyond that. In the field of estimating ToD, +-3 hours may very well be considered "relatively accurate". Subjective statements are just that, subjective.

You've shown nothing that shows that the literature we've been looking at should be ignored. You've simply said "Annie's case is not like those ones", which is of course true. But Annie's case is so atypical that any literature will be different, which means if we used any of the techniques that are based upon actual research, the margin of error with regards to Annie will be bigger - because her case will have factors not accounted for. And yet, you keep stating that the error should be smaller, but present no research with data to back that up. I do not know what you're basing it on, and when I asked what studies it was based upon, you admitted it wasn't based upon studies. As such, it holds no weight.

You've pointed to no literature that shows that the margin of error can get down to less than +-1 hour, which is what you would need to show. The only article that purports to do that also requires one to have the body temperature at the time of death, and without it, even their method goes up to +-2.5 hours. I've also shown, a few times, that the simple variation in human body temperature already produces a +-1 hour error. That, and that alone, is sufficient error to make Dr. Phillip's estimated ToD of 4:30 (as per Baxter's summing up) and the witness based ToD (approx 5:25) consistent. Add to the fact there are other unknowns, and that +-1 hour minimum goes up, and as we can see, even in the literature, it ends up at +-3 as the gold standard.

So, unless you can show me research, with data, that indicates ToD can be estimated to a precision of less than +-1 hour, then Dr. Phillips estimate cannot be said to be inconsistent with a ToD of 5:25.

There is no conflict between Dr. Phillip's estimate and the Witnesses.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Evening Dear Sherlock,

In response:

1) Why on earth are you asking this ludicrous question?

I think I am the product of a man and a woman.

I think the four walls in my front room will not fall down tomorrow.

I think conspiracy theories are more often than not a result of the human need to control and understand everything.

I think Jack The Ripper would not have appeared a troubled man.

I think the Queen shot Dianna in the face with an upside down gun, at point blank range in a tunnel in Paris.

I think the moon once belonged to King Henry VIII and someone stole it and put it up in the sky.

We are quite clearly talking about the balance of probability in these threads. That doesn't exclude other possibilities. In the event we weren't talking about the balance of probability, there wouldn't be a 'Casebook.Org' because the case would have been solved one way or the other a long while back.

2) What kind of percentage level? Christ. You mean you want me to state 65% so you can reply: "provide the research supporting this".

I go with: "on the balance of probability". That's good enough for me, it should be for you.

Well, in long list of obfuscating posts this one takes the custard cream.

Ill put it in even simpler forms so that you might find it even easier to avoid providing a cogent response shall I? Here goes.

The relevance of Phillips minimum estimation is in relation to the witnesses. Were the witnesses correct or was Phillips minimum TOD (2 hours previous to his examination) correct. Are you following it so far?

If we could say for certain that Phillips minimum TOD couldn’t possibly have been out then we would have to dismiss the witnesses as either dishonest or mistaken.

Any reasonable person, looking at the evidence from the experts in the field, would have to conclude at the very least that Phillips could have been wrong in his minimal TOD.

You, however, seem reluctant to accept this because you appear to believe that your knowledge exceeds that of the acknowledged authorities.

That being said, I asked the above questions, which I’ll re-word for you.

1. Do you believe that we should have such faith in Gandalf Phillips that we should accept that his minimum TOD estimate couldn’t possibly have been out by 40 or 50 minutes?

2. If you don’t believe that we should say the above 100% certainty what kind of rough likelihood would you, in your expertise give? Would you say, around 80%, or around 60%? Any rough guide to you level of confidence in his accuracy.

3. What expertise in Forensic medicine do you have which allows you to feel qualified to disregard the worlds authorities and to even begin to inform us how likely Phillips was to have been correct?

These are very simple and very pertinent questions so I’m wondering if it will take another 2 days to come up with some further waffle?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hmm, I think you're missing the point I've been making. I've not said Dr. Phillip's estimate is particularly unreliable, in fact, I've stated a few times that he's done a very good job of it. The method he has used, even if he took into consideration his observation that Rigor Mortis was not marked but commencing in the limbs, simply has a margin of error in the range of multiple hours. Earlier in the thread I have posted research articles on Rigor Mortirs, and showed the data from that research, and the range of error for ToD based upon reaching full rigor spans from 2-12 hours! Rigor Mortis is an even less precise tool than body temperature. So, as I've said a few times, even if he took it into account the method still has an error range in the multiple hour range.

His estimate can only be as reliable as the method employed. Moreover, all of the error ranges I've been talking about, which come from the peer reviewed literature on the topic, are based upon estimating ToD using a thermometer to measure internal body temperature, a temperature reading of the environment, a measurement of her mass, and a measurement of her surface area. WE have no evidence to indicate Dr. Phillip's did any of those, rather, we only have evidence he noted a subjective impression of her surface temperature and the environment. If we go with just what we have evidence for, surface temperature by touch, and subjective Rigor Mortis, then he simply does not have the basic information necessary to do the calculations, so his margin of error would be even wider than I've been talking about. That's not an opinion, it's how measurement works.

We also have the concern that that the equations are based upon the cooling of intact bodies - Annie being disemboweled means her internal temperature would drop more quickly, making the equations over-estimate her ToD. Again, that's just physics, not an opinion, it's how cooling works.

I've pointed you to research, both on Rigor Mortis and on the reliability of estimating ToD by internal temperature. The study involved estimating temperatures, starting at 5 hours post mortem out to 50 hours. You are claiming that the error ranges narrow dramatically between 0 and 5 hours, but have shown no basis for that claim. The webpage simply says shorter tends to be more accurate, but those are relative statements and for all we know the minimum +-3 hours for the gold standard that the peer reviewed paper states may therefore be the proper range at 0 hours, and it slowly increases out to +-7 as time increases beyond that. In the field of estimating ToD, +-3 hours may very well be considered "relatively accurate". Subjective statements are just that, subjective.

You've shown nothing that shows that the literature we've been looking at should be ignored. You've simply said "Annie's case is not like those ones", which is of course true. But Annie's case is so atypical that any literature will be different, which means if we used any of the techniques that are based upon actual research, the margin of error with regards to Annie will be bigger - because her case will have factors not accounted for. And yet, you keep stating that the error should be smaller, but present no research with data to back that up. I do not know what you're basing it on, and when I asked what studies it was based upon, you admitted it wasn't based upon studies. As such, it holds no weight.

You've pointed to no literature that shows that the margin of error can get down to less than +-1 hour, which is what you would need to show. The only article that purports to do that also requires one to have the body temperature at the time of death, and without it, even their method goes up to +-2.5 hours. I've also shown, a few times, that the simple variation in human body temperature already produces a +-1 hour error. That, and that alone, is sufficient error to make Dr. Phillip's estimated ToD of 4:30 (as per Baxter's summing up) and the witness based ToD (approx 5:25) consistent. Add to the fact there are other unknowns, and that +-1 hour minimum goes up, and as we can see, even in the literature, it ends up at +-3 as the gold standard.

So, unless you can show me research, with data, that indicates ToD can be estimated to a precision of less than +-1 hour, then Dr. Phillips estimate cannot be said to be inconsistent with a ToD of 5:25.

There is no conflict between Dr. Phillip's estimate and the Witnesses.

- Jeff

Perfectly we’ll reasoned Jeff.

This post should end the debate and have any reasonable and unbiased poster saying “fair enough.” Maybe one day it will sink in but I somehow doubt it. We’re dealing with a preconception here. The best way to dismiss the witnesses is to show that Phillips minimum TOD couldn’t possibly have been out by just a few minutes. And so we see nothing but utter desperation and bottom of the barrel scraping.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The study involved estimating temperatures, starting at 5 hours post mortem out to 50 hours. You are claiming that the error ranges narrow dramatically between 0 and 5 hours, but have shown no basis for that claim.

You've shown nothing that shows that the literature we've been looking at should be ignored.

I reckon the above is the meat of your post.

It's worth reminding you that it is your research article that you're using to support your theory.

It has been pointed out to you that: a) 5-50 hours is not the same situation as 1 hour b) Dr Phillips had rigor mortis and 'commencement of the limbs' to support him. I for one have concluded that your research is not sufficient to tip the balance of probability.

From there, the burden of providing something else that will tip the balance rests with you. It is your contention that his estimate is unreliable, you provided research to prove the point, except the research didn't prove the point; and so the ball's in your court in terms of strengthening your case.

By the way, given this is your article and you're confident with its conclusion, can you tell me how many bodies were used to form the conclusion and the PMI for each one.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If we could say for certain that Phillips minimum TOD couldn’t possibly have been out then we would have to dismiss the witnesses as either dishonest or mistaken.


If you don’t believe that we should say the above 100% certainty what kind of rough likelihood would you, in your expertise give? Would you say, around 80%, or around 60%? Any rough guide to you level of confidence in his accuracy.

'Stripping out all of the nonsense, I think you're repeating the same questions.

See post 1,355 above.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The best way to dismiss the witnesses

Except that hasn't happened, Sherlock.

Another example of your inability to comprehend what is put before you.

[JeffHamm]

I reckon the above is the meat of your post.

You've reckoned wrong. The most important piece of information is the fact that based upon the methods Dr. Phillips had available (TempAtDeath - TempVictimAtScene)/1.5 = hours since death, has a margin of error of +-1 hour from the get go simply based upon not knowing the Temperature at Death. Moreover, the 1.5 is a value that varies depending upon environmental factors that need to be measured (temperature, wind), and also victim specific values that also need to be measured (exposed surface area, mass, etc), which were factors that were not accounted for in the method at the time (

It's worth reminding you that it is your research article that you're using to support your theory.

It has been pointed out to you that: a) 5-50 hours is not the same situation as 1 hour b) Dr Phillips had rigor mortis and 'commencement of the limbs' to support him. I for one have concluded that your research is not sufficient to tip the balance of probability.

From there, the burden of providing something else that will tip the balance rests with you. It is your contention that his estimate is unreliable, you provided research to prove the point, except the research didn't prove the point; and so the ball's in your court in terms of strengthening your case.

By the way, given this is your article and you're confident with its conclusion, can you tell me how many bodies were used to form the conclusion and the PMI for each one.

Hi FM,

No, you've simply stated your opinion that article is not sufficient, therefore, all I have to do to put the burden of proof back in your court is state my opinion it is sufficient and we end up in a Monty Python sketch. The burden of proof is upon you to substantiate your claim that the margin of error for estimating ToD, without knowing the deceased's initial body temperature, can be narrowed to less than +-1 hour. Until then, you have no case I need to counter.

I've posted a link to the actual article. You can find all the answers to your questions about it there.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

No, you've simply stated your opinion that article is not sufficient, therefore, all I have to do to put the burden of proof back in your court is state my opinion it is sufficient and we end up in a Monty Python sketch. The burden of proof is upon you to substantiate your claim that the margin of error for estimating ToD, without knowing the deceased's initial body temperature, can be narrowed to less than +-1 hour. Until then, you have no case I need to counter.

I've posted a link to the actual article. You can find all the answers to your questions about it there.

- Jeff

Then we've reached the end, Jeff, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Stripping out all of the nonsense, I think you're repeating the same questions.

See post 1,355 above.

Yup as I expected. No proper answer. Strip away your arrogant bluster and we’re left with a bag of fresh air. Rather sad.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then we've reached the end, Jeff, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Translated meaning - “I’ve had every one of my baseless points shredded by reason, judgment, evidence and common sense. So it’s time to cut and run.”