John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

This isn’t equivocal

Again, stripping out all of the nonsense there remains the above:

When Dr Phillips states: "at least two hours....", that is unequivocally at least two hours in his opinion. As said, from the Oxford Dictionary: unequivocal (formal), expressing your opinion or intention very clearly and firmly.

At this juncture, in the event you cannot accept the Oxford Dictionary definition of 'unequivocal' then there's nothing more to say on this.

So, we're left with your one and only fact:

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

Very true, but then Dr Phillips did not attempt to give an exact time. He gave you a window of possibility.

Your own quote acknowledges rigor is useful as a means of estimating TOD, and it does not in any way, shape or form negate Dr Phillips' ability to give a reasonable estimate.

I take from the above that while having next to no facts, the one fact you do have is cynically manipulated by you in order to prop up your theory.

Conclusion:

One fact; unable to apply reason to this one fact. 'Not much of a theory, Sherlock Holmes.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

I can stretch to addressing you as a fictional character.

A fictional character who can't spell his own name is a bridge too far, however.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can stretch to addressing you as a fictional character.

A fictional character who can't spell his own name is a bridge too far, however.

Well, I never thought that I’d run into someone that believed that my username was an accidental mis-spelling. But here you are.

[Doctored Whatsit]

For clarity, I think you're saying it is doubtful that Dr Phillips said: "two hours and probably more". Is this correct?

No, of course not. I am saying that you cannot take a small portion of a statement, and pretend it is the full statement, when you omit the beginning and the important part that explains why the bit that you chose to quote is very likely incorrect.

If you take the trouble to read what I wrote, you will see that I actually quoted Phillips word for word.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, stripping out all of the nonsense there remains the above:

When Dr Phillips states: "at least two hours....", that is unequivocally at least two hours in his opinion. As said, from the Oxford Dictionary: unequivocal (formal), expressing your opinion or intention very clearly and firmly.

At this juncture, in the event you cannot accept the Oxford Dictionary definition of 'unequivocal' then there's nothing more to say on this.

”Unequivocal’ is a word that you’ve used, not Phillips, and I know what it means. YOU can apply any words that you like, it’s irrelevant. What are relevant are Phillips own words. And when he spoke he added a caveat. You can’t be equivocal if you feel the need to add a caveat. Like you don’t wear a parachute if you feel that you have absolutely no chance of falling from a plane.

Pleeeese, someone explain this to him!

So, we're left with your one and only fact:

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

Very true, but then Dr Phillips did not attempt to give an exact time. He gave you a window of possibility.

YES but a window of POSSIBILITY doesn’t mean that something is certain! Are you for real? No one is doubting that he estimated - no one has doubted that an estimation could be correct - what I’m saying (and what any toddler would be able to comprehend) is that an estimation could have been wrong.

Your own quote acknowledges rigor is useful as a means of estimating TOD, and it does not in any way, shape or form negate Dr Phillips' ability to give a reasonable estimate.

Unless you happen to listen to the opinion of every single modern day experts on forensics who will tell you to a man and entirely free from EQUIVOCATION that these estimations are NOT reliable.

I take from the above that while having next to no facts, the one fact you do have is cynically manipulated by you in order to prop up your theory.

Nothing that I’ve said is wrong.

Conclusion

One fact; unable to apply reason to this one fact. 'Not much of a theory, Sherlock Holmes.

Your post amounts to 1) stating the obvious - something that no one has ever questioned.
2) the continued effort to give Phillips superpowers.
3) The said and babyish refusal to use my proper username revealing the level of your debating skills.

Conclusion: cluelessness.

Are you going to waffle forever with your smoke and mirrors or will you answer my questions? Do you want me to make the font bigger?

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi Wickerman,

I agree that if he only used his hand, which is all we have evidence for him doing, his estimate is going to be associated with a much larger error range than if he used body temperature measured with a thermometer. However, even if we accept the assumption he used an objective body temperature reading, and that he factored in his observation of Rigor Mortis (which again, he never mentions in reference to estimating the ToD), the error range is still wide enough that it does not contradict with the witnesses (I've been discussing the error ranges associated with actual readings; and those are more than sufficient to show that his 2 hours statement does not conflict with the witnesses', as the difference is between 1 to 1.5 hours, pending on what Dr. P. was using as the starting point of his 2 hour previous statement). The thing is, one does not look at the stated "time" alone (in this case the stated interval) but has to view that in conjunction with the margin of error. And the witnesses and Dr. P. fall within that margin of error, so there is no basis for saying Dr. P's estimate contradicts the witnesses.

Now, if research shows the margin of error decreases to the point they differ, then sure, but so far I've not seen that to be the case. Moreover, it would require Dr. P. record things such as surface area exposed (numerically record, not subjective description), temperature of the environment (ideally over the hours in question), and factor in wind/breeze, etc. There is no evidence he did any of those things, and if he consulted standard tables, or used standard equations, given Annie's murder involves opening up the gut cavity, those equations are going to overestimate how long she's been dead because her internal temperature will drop more quickly due to her being disembowled.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, of course not. I am saying that you cannot take a small portion of a statement, and pretend it is the full statement, when you omit the beginning and the important part that explains why the bit that you chose to quote is very likely incorrect.

If you take the trouble to read what I wrote, you will see that I actually quoted Phillips word for word.

He can and does Doc. There’s no reasoning here. We simply have someone that has made his mind up that John Richardson has to be dismissed and is now doing so much twisting and turning and wriggling that I’m surprised he isn’t in the UK gymnastics team at the Commonwealth Games. Let’s face it, this is someone who actually feels that he knows better than the worlds authorities on the subject. I honestly don’t know why they bothered writing textbooks without first consulting Professor Flatwood Mick here.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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?

Actually there is one very useful witness here whose evidence might be helpful in deciding whether Phillips could be wrong - he is, of course, Dr Phillips himself! He said, having quoted his original estimate, voluntarily, and under no pressure from any source, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cold morning,and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood". Doctor Phillips said he could have been wrong, so why argue with him - he was there, we weren't!!!!

[JeffHamm]

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.

It doesn't even matter if he did. I'm just holding you to your insistence we not put words into the witness's mouth. Dr. P., when estimating ToD, only mentions her body temperature. While he notes Rigor Mortis in the initial portion of his testimony, when asked much later by the coroner as to his opinion on the time of death he only mentions the body cooling, indicating his estimate appears based upon temperature alone.

[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - 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.

There is no mention of Rigor Mortis, and where he states he could be wrong he only mentions how cold it was that morning, and how the body may have cooled more rapidly due to the loss of blood. He only mentions the body temperature, there is no indication he used his observation of Rigor commencing to come to his 2 hour statement. If you can show me where he does mention Rigor in relation to estimating the ToD then that would be great, otherwise, you're putting words into his testimony that are not there.

Now you can insist he must have used Rigor Mortis as well, which is fine, you can make that assumption, but nothing he says indicates he did.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Rigor Mortis is also a very imprecise measure, in part because it is a subjective observation. Rigor Mortis can be complete in 2 hours, or less, at times, with the most cases showing complete rigor at 4 hours (the mode), though some cases drag out quite a while (it's a skewed distribution, hence the median is 5 hours and the average is 5.7). The 95% Confidence Interval (which is the range used for evaluations like this), 95% of cases will reach full rigor between 2.5 and 12.5 hours; that's full Rigor, so the 95% CI for Rigor starting is obviously less than 2.5 hours. Sadly, the research I've found hasn't documented that range and has only looked at time to reach full Rigor. Regardless, the error range (which spans 10 hours) is, as I would hope everyone would agree, a pretty wide margin that isn't going to help us here.

Basically, given the crudity of the tools, even combined, Dr. P's estimate is not at odds with the witnesses'. There is no conflict in the testimony to resolve.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually there is one very useful witness here whose evidence might be helpful in deciding whether Phillips could be wrong - he is, of course, Dr Phillips himself! He said, having quoted his original estimate, voluntarily, and under no pressure from any source, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cold morning,and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood". Doctor Phillips said he could have been wrong, so why argue with him - he was there, we weren't!!!!

Exactly Doc, but what is being suggested in certain quarters is that what Phillips actually meant by this caveat was “ it is likely that she had been dead for 2 hours but probably longer but due the conditions and the fact that the body might have cooled more rapidly then I’d say that it was likely that she had been dead for two hours.” That is being passed off as ‘sense!’

Thats the ‘logic’ that we are dealing with here. Phillips couldn’t of course have been talking about the other direction (more than 2 hours) because there wasn’t a time attached to it. So he must, according to some, have meant what I said in the above paragraph.

Clearly this wasn’t the case as we can see. He wouldn’t have said 2 hours plus and then added a caveat that didn’t allow for a variation in his original range. He clearly meant that due to the conditions it could have been less than 2 hours although his preferred estimate was 2 hours plus.

[JeffHamm]

Actually there is one very useful witness here whose evidence might be helpful in deciding whether Phillips could be wrong - he is, of course, Dr Phillips himself! He said, having quoted his original estimate, voluntarily, and under no pressure from any source, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cold morning,and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood". Doctor Phillips said he could have been wrong, so why argue with him - he was there, we weren't!!!!

Hi Dr. W.

I agree, I think Dr. P. is clearly indicating that his opinion of 2+ hours should not be viewed as infallible and that he's pointing to the very real possibility she could have been killed in under that time if he misestimated the influence of blood loss on how cold she felt (I would suggest if he's not taken objective readings of the temperatures of her body and the environment that there are many more factors he could misestimate).

However, there are those who are arguing that his qualification is meant to indicate he thinks his 2 hours could be too short an interval. This, of course, goes against Dr. Baxter's summing up, where he says, "It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces."

And Dr. Baxter gives us the time Dr. Phillip's appears to be referencing (6:30, so 2 hours previously is ToD of 4:30, making the difference between Dr. P's ToD and the Witness ToD 55 minutes to an hour; that is so far inside the margins of error that we really have nothing to talk about; all statements agree).

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

No, of course not. I am saying that you cannot take a small portion of a statement, and pretend it is the full statement, when you omit the beginning and the important part that explains why the bit that you chose to quote is very likely incorrect.

If you take the trouble to read what I wrote, you will see that I actually quoted Phillips word for word.

I read your post. Then and now, I'm not following what point you're making. No offence intended.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You can’t be equivocal if you feel the need to add a caveat.

no one has doubted that an estimation could be correct - what I’m saying (and what any toddler would be able to comprehend) is that an estimation could have been wrong.

Unless you happen to listen to the opinion of every single modern day experts on forensics who will tell you to a man and entirely free from EQUIVOCATION that these estimations are NOT reliable.

Again, stripping out the nonsense:

I was about to reply for the final time but I've thought better of it, Sherlock Holmes.

My final conclusion is that you have one fact, and you've cynically manipulated that one fact in an attempt to bolster a theory devoid of any facts.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It doesn't even matter if he did. I'm just holding you to your insistence we not put words into the witness's mouth. Dr. P., when estimating ToD, only mentions her body temperature. While he notes Rigor Mortis in the initial portion of his testimony, when asked much later by the coroner as to his opinion on the time of death he only mentions the body cooling, indicating his estimate appears based upon temperature alone.

I'm happy to explain why I think it's likely that Dr Phillips used rigor mortis as one of the tools in his estimation.

Before that, can you clarify what you mean when you say: "it doesn't even matter if he did".

You see, I think your whole proposition rests on body temperature being the sole means of estimating TOD, but in the above you state: "it doesn't matter even if he did".

Can you clarify. Happy to respond after the clarification.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I read your post. Then and now, I'm not following what point you're making. No offence intended.

I am not offended, but I am confused. I have no idea why my post #1283 is so unclear to you. Perhaps some other obliging reader would take a look at it, and tell us both why it is apparently impossible to understand. Someone "liked it", so someone understood it.