John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

No lets get it right, you continunally stamp your feet stating that you are right and the witnesses could not possibly be wrong and so we should accept their testimony with out question. there lies the differenec between you and I, I simply provide alterernative explantions with facts and evidence to support for researchers to consider, but to do that they must overcome this inherrent need to readily accept that all that it is written and documented from the past is to be readily accepted without question and that is not the case history is there to be challenged.

You need to start acknowledging and accepting the conflciting newspaper reports which now questions the accuracy of the inquest testimony all of which have been pointed out to you many times.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve never suggested anything of the sort. I’ve said a numerous times that we can’t just accept witness testimony. I even said it 11 posts ago IN THIS THREAD and yet you STILL ignore it. We weigh up the points for and against and make our own assessments as individuals. Then we agree or disagree. We don’t just look at a persons testimony, find a fault, then consign it to the bin, which appears to be your method (when it suits you)

You don’t just want to suggest alternatives Trevor you want to suggest things and have people accept them as facts. This is why you constantly post “but I’ve told you….” as if that should be enough for anyone.

99% of these arguments wouldn’t happen if you would simply accept that it’s possible for someone to arrive at a different conclusion to you without them being either an idiot or so sentimentally attached to some version of events that they just refuse to be parted from it. And if you didn’t consider yourself infallible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

i am not surprsied that I made a mistake its wonder I didnt make more with all the crap thats flying around most of it from your direction.

Just goes to show that I am human whats your excuse!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So it’s my fault that you misread the evidence? Ok. And it’s my fault that you later tried to deny this fact? Ok. Given time and effort Trevor I could produce a list of occasions on her were someone has pointed out where I’ve made an error (Joshua has done it, Wickerman has done it, Abby has done it, Sam Flynn has done it, Frank O has done it, Caz has done it, to name just 6) and I’ve held my hands up to it every time.

Whenever you and I disagree it tends to be on issues of interpretation and not a specific, provable fact. I don’t claim to be infallible Trevor but you always post as if you are. This is why you keep accusing me of not listening to what you say rather than accepting that I have listened but disagree. So basically you keep throwing up a wall that makes it next to impossible to discus the case without irritation creeping in.

[Wickerman]

..... To me it makes no sense for Phillips to give his estimate and then immediately second guess it. My view is that the "caveat" referred only to the extent of the time after the two hours.

Best regards, George

In all honesty George, a bigger mystery is why you find it so difficult to understand.
You can't seriously say he wouldn't immediately second-guess his initial estimate, when it's right there in black & white, in front of you.
The debate is not whether he did second-guess it, but what he meant by doing so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the coroner didn't say that Richardson must have been mistaken because Phillips was so certain. He clearly interpreted Phillips testimony as we do.

[Wickerman]

So, are we really to believe that Dr Phillips meant this: at least two hours but I can't be sure due to the cold morning? That is nonsensical and meaningless. In effect he would have meant: I've no idea, so when I say at least two hours then just ignore that part; look, I know I'm a doctor but I'm only here for the conversation and the buffet, it was a cold morning and so your guess is as good as mine.

Yes!
Yes, and thrice Yes!
That is exactly what he told the coroner.

Why is it nonsensical?

Here, please read this, it should open up on page 38, showing chapter 6, Changes in the Temperature of the Body.

https://archive.org/details/legalmedicine00tidygoog/page/n70/mode/2up

[Wickerman]

The book I have been referring to is, Legal Medicine, vol. I, Charles Meymott Tidy, 1882.

This book reflects the standard of the time, which means we have some idea regarding the complexities considered by Dr. Phillips.
Here the reader is advised that the starting point is the average temperature of a body at death, that temperature measurements should always be done by thermometer, and that external temperature drops more rapidly
Axilla means under the arm.

[Wickerman]

Here, we read the rate of cooling is about 1 deg. F per hour.
Which doesn't do us a lot of good as Phillips gave no measurements in his testimony.

[Wickerman]

Here, we read how unpredictable the estimate of body cooling can be, and that the rate of cooling is not uniform.

[Wickerman]

Finally, as the sub-title says - The time occupied by the process of cooling, may be shortened. Meaning, the time of death may be shortened due to a few following examples.



Needless to say, Dr Tidy never envisaged the extent of mutilations that would transpire in 1888.
Totally, out of the ordinary.

[Abby Normal]

Yes!
Yes, and thrice Yes!
That is exactly what he told the coroner.

Why is it nonsensical?

Here, please read this, it should open up on page 38, showing chapter 6, Changes in the Temperature of the Body.

https://archive.org/details/legalmedicine00tidygoog/page/n70/mode/2up

hey wick
its not nonsensical. its clear as day. im not sure why people are struggling with this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Finally, as the sub-title says - The time occupied by the process of cooling, may be shortened. Meaning, the time of death may be shortened due to a few following examples.



Needless to say, Dr Tidy never envisaged the extent of mutilations that would transpire in 1888.
Totally, out of the ordinary.

I suspect that we’re flogging a dead horse here Wick

[Herlock Sholmes]

hey wick
its not nonsensical. its clear as day. im not sure why people are struggling with this.

Me neither Abby. I’m sorry to say it but it can only be because there are some that don’t want to accept it because they are just determined to discredit the witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unless they’re related to Phillips of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

Finally, as the sub-title says - The time occupied by the process of cooling, may be shortened. Meaning, the time of death may be shortened due to a few following examples.



Needless to say, Dr Tidy never envisaged the extent of mutilations that would transpire in 1888.
Totally, out of the ordinary.

I quote what Dr Biggs says, it is a quote that fits Chapmans lifestyle, and it is something Victorian doctors would not have been aware of and so it has to be seriously considered when accepting or rejecting Phillps estimated time of death

,"If the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may indicate a longer time has elapsed since death.”

Phillips stated that there was an onset of rigor

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yes!
Yes, and thrice Yes!
That is exactly what he told the coroner.

Why is it nonsensical?

Here, please read this, it should open up on page 38, showing chapter 6, Changes in the Temperature of the Body.

https://archive.org/details/legalmedicine00tidygoog/page/n70/mode/2up

Yet again someone replies to a discussion surrounding what Dr Phillips actually stated with an argument that Dr Phillips may have been inaccurate.

Nobody is claiming Dr Phillips couldn't have been inaccurate. This is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is this: was Dr Phillips confident Annie had been murdered by 4.30am at the latest. As opposed to: could Dr Phillips have been inaccurate in that assertion.

There are at least a couple of you who seem completely incapable of reading that which is put before you. I'd imagine you're not reading the posts, to which you're replying, in full and you're merely skimming them.

Dr Phillips stated that Annie had been dead at least two hours and that is supported by Inspector Chandler's statement when Dr Phillips pronounced life extinct and is supported by the coroner also who stated: Dr Philips believes at least two hours but assuming the witnesses are to be believed he underestimates the effects of the cold morning and he has miscalculated.

Whether or not Dr Phillips was correct in that assertion is not what was/is being discussed and it follows your link on 'changes in the temperature of the body' is not relevant to the conversational equivalent of a slow, painful death I was having with Sherlock Holmes.