John Richardson

[FISHY1118]

You don’t take a side

Yes [context] Meaning i support ''A'' perticular theory regarding an earlier t.o.d based on the abundant amount of evidence that allows for that .

Allowing also to consider for a later time of death [which i have maintained all along] based on the same evidence .

Im not silly enough to think or claim one is more likely than the other ,with such ambiguious and controversial evidence that has been made available and which we have seen , oh say in the last ''2000'' post on this thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

TOD is measured in hours, that is the common standard.

So, when Dr Phillips states: "at least two hours and probably more":

1) He is talking of hours in the build up to "more", hours is his criteria for assessment in his own statement.

2) Hours is the standard measure in Dr Phillips' profession. It follows that when he states "more" he is talking of more hours, in accordance with the standard measure, as opposed to more time which is meaningless and not in line with the standards used in his profession.

This has all been done ad nauseam over the course of several pages. For further details, see the previous pages on this thread.

Or see the Poll on this subject, which you’ll mock in some way of course because people that disagree with you appear to all be stupid in your eyes. Current count, those who agree with the only reasonable interpretation 9, those who agree with your interpretation 0. All English speakers. None of them idiots.

At this juncture I'm much more interested in the claim: 'modern experts say Dr Phillips' assessment is unreliable'. This has been repeated ad nauseam and accepted by everyone on this thread. Sherlock Holmes is the latest to repeat it, and when asked for examples he has gone quiet (as per usual).

I'm pretty confident there will be experts in the field who have looked at Dr Phillips' assessment, although I can't find any examples online.

So, who were these experts and what exactly did they say in relation to Dr Phillips' estimate?

You know exactly what I meant. I wasn’t talking about medical experts who commented specifically on Chapman’s murder but obviously that’s the way that you’re trying to spin it. I’m talking about the medical experts that tell us how unreliable a TOD estimate would have been using the methods that he used. The ones that talk about rigor and the ones that talk about temperature or digestion. These experts who, without a single dissenting voice, tell us that we cannot rely on the accuracy of such an estimation. The ones that you think are all wrong. Those experts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes [context] Meaning i support ''A'' perticular theory regarding an earlier t.o.d based on the abundant amount of evidence that allows for that .

Allowing also to consider for a later time of death [which i have maintained all along] based on the same evidence .

Im not silly enough to think or claim one is more likely than the other ,with such ambiguious and controversial evidence that has been made available and which we have seen , oh say in the last ''2000'' post on this thread.

Nothing ambiguous or controversial Fishy. That Phillips estimate was unreliable is a fact. Experts tell us this so there should be no further mention of it. Why is the subject still being considered? It’s black and white.

John Richardson is a very strong witness that requires manipulations and baseless accusations for any attempt to try and discredit him. Add Cadosch. Add Long. Not even remotely close. Just because 2 positions are disputed it doesn’t mean that it’s 50-50. It just means in this case that those favouring an earlier TOD are far more likely to be wrong. I’m confident that if we put this case in front of a jury, giving the case for and against a later time of death, it wouldn’t be a close verdict. If it was 8-4 in favour of a later TOD I’d be disappointed that it was that close. I’d go 10-2 or 11-1.

[Dickere]

For my part, I can appreciate and accept an alternative opinion but not when it lacks foundations.

So, I don't mean to be disrespectful nor antagonistic, and there is a lot to be said for telling it how it is: I don't see a great deal of substance in your interpretation.

There's no use in everyone in saying: "well, it's just opinions". That doesn't get anyone very far at all. Sometimes people have to say: "hold up, that opinion is pretty much baseless".

I disagree of course, when "that opinion is pretty much baseless" is simply an opinion too.

Just because one person doesn't see much substance doesn't make it wrong when it's an opinion of an interpretation.

I'm happy to accept your viewpoint of course, I simply disagree with it here. Nobody can be proven right or wrong regardless.

[Dickere]

Nothing ambiguous or controversial Fishy. That Phillips estimate was unreliable is a fact. Experts tell us this so there should be no further mention of it. Why is the subject still being considered? It’s black and white.

John Richardson is a very strong witness that requires manipulations and baseless accusations for any attempt to try and discredit him. Add Cadosch. Add Long. Not even remotely close. Just because 2 positions are disputed it doesn’t mean that it’s 50-50. It just means in this case that those favouring an earlier TOD are far more likely to be wrong. I’m confident that if we put this case in front of a jury, giving the case for and against a later time of death, it wouldn’t be a close verdict. If it was 8-4 in favour of a later TOD I’d be disappointed that it was that close. I’d go 10-2 or 11-1.

That would depend who is on the jury.

[FISHY1118]

Nothing ambiguous or controversial Fishy. That Phillips estimate was unreliable is a fact. Experts tell us this so there should be no further mention of it. Why is the subject still being considered? It’s black and white.

John Richardson is a very strong witness that requires manipulations and baseless accusations for any attempt to try and discredit him. Add Cadosch. Add Long. Not even remotely close. Just because 2 positions are disputed it doesn’t mean that it’s 50-50. It just means in this case that those favouring an earlier TOD are far more likely to be wrong. I’m confident that if we put this case in front of a jury, giving the case for and against a later time of death, it wouldn’t be a close verdict. If it was 8-4 in favour of a later TOD I’d be disappointed that it was that close. I’d go 10-2 or 11-1.

Just as the witnesses are also unreliable for all the reason that have already been posted.

Just because its'' your'' belief or understanding of the evidence that favours them over phillips for a 5.30am t.o.d, doesnt mean other here who chooses a different version are wrong . When we can accept that as the case, only then can there be constructive debate. Otherwise theres no point .

The contoversial and ambiguious nature of the entire evidence as a whole makes for a much more 50/50 outcome than anything else, one way or the other .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just as the witnesses are also unreliable for all the reason that have already been posted.

Just because its'' your'' belief or understanding of the evidence that favours them over phillips for a 5.30am t.o.d, doesnt mean other here who chooses a different version are wrong . When we can accept that as the case, only then can there be constructive debate. Otherwise theres no point .

The contoversial and ambiguious nature of the entire evidence as a whole makes for a much more 50/50 outcome than anything else, one way or the other .

There’s nothing controversial or ambiguous about John Richardson. He was there. He saw the body in situ. He said that he couldn’t possibly have missed a body had it been there. If we didn’t have Phillips unreliable estimate no one would have questioned his credibility. Some are determined to try and prove that Phillips 2.00 minimum as set-in-stone reliable. That can’t be done unless things are invented. So defend the indefensible the next step is to enter conspiracist thinking. Imaginary, pointless and self-incriminating lies, invented disagreements to try and make him look dishonest, claims of utter gibberish not noticed by anyone at the time because they didn’t happen. We’re even seeing a disgraceful attempt to subvert the English language. These things shouldn’t be brushed under the carpet simply to arrive at some pointless equilibrium.

[FISHY1118]

There’s nothing controversial or ambiguous about John Richardson. He was there. He saw the body in situ. He said that he couldn’t possibly have missed a body had it been there. If we didn’t have Phillips unreliable estimate no one would have questioned his credibility. Some are determined to try and prove that Phillips 2.00 minimum as set-in-stone reliable. That can’t be done unless things are invented. So defend the indefensible the next step is to enter conspiracist thinking. Imaginary, pointless and self-incriminating lies, invented disagreements to try and make him look dishonest, claims of utter gibberish not noticed by anyone at the time because they didn’t happen. We’re even seeing a disgraceful attempt to subvert the English language. These things shouldn’t be brushed under the carpet simply to arrive at some pointless equilibrium.

Aagin thats your right to think that about richardson , however others and myself have a different view of his evidence and its interpretation, which is our right to think that way also .

We have covered all this befor tho , so i wont into the details except to say there is more than enough information to make a judgement call on the witness testimomy together with dr phillipps to suggest an eariler t.o.d , we just dont ''know'' ,and we cant prove anywhere near 100% one way or the other . Like i said imo 50/50 .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aagin thats your right to think that about richardson , however others and myself have a different view of his evidence and its interpretation, which is our right to think that way also .

We have covered all this befor tho , so i wont into the details except to say there is more than enough information to make a judgement call on the witness testimomy together with dr phillipps to suggest an eariler t.o.d , we just dont ''know'' ,and we cant prove anywhere near 100% one way or the other . Like i said imo 50/50 .

No problem. I go for the witnesses between 80-20 to 90-10.

[FISHY1118]

No problem. I go for the witnesses between 80-20 to 90-10.

Well, we disagree , so be it .

[The Macdonald Triad]

Hi all,

I've been having a bit more of a look at the cooling of internal body temperatures over time from the article I mentioned awhile back.

From looking at the limited data set, it generally looks like bodies cool following an exponential decay function until they reach the environmental temperatures. The drop in temperature from time A to time B will be larger the greater the difference between the body temperature and the environment. Except in the very early time period, where it seems it takes some time before a fairly stable cooling function forms.

I was wondering if the cooling rate (the constant k) is related to the body mass. And found that it appears to be, so if you know the BMI you can get a good estimation of that body's cooling rate. It also appears that the amount of time required to reach that stable cooling function is related to the BMI (I'll call that the "delay" period).

That got me thinking, it should be possible, using only the BMI, to produce a cooling function profile. Basically, estimate the k parameter from the BMI, and if the PMI for which you're estimating the temperature, just reduce k (cool a bit slower) by Time/Delay, so a simple linear function, where k just increases until it reaches stability.

Once you have those, if you have the environmental temperature, and set the initial body temperature to be 98.6 F, you should be able to plot the estimated temperature over time. That could then be used to produce an estimated ToD.

And while the results are certainly not better than current methods, I'm actually pretty pleased with how it's looking. The blue lines are the estimated cooling functions derived from the BMI, and the orange circles are actual temperatures at a known PMI. When the blue line is above the data, it means the PMI would be overestimated, and if the blue line is under the data, then the PMI is underestimated. Case 1 and 2 show quite a bit of overestimation (Case1 we're talking multiple hours, as in 3+ at times; Case 2 is over estimated by 1h 45min type thing; Case 4, underestimates by about 1h 45m at some of the longer PMI, etc). I've not fully calculated the error values, but for now I'm actually pretty pleased with the general fits.

What I now need to do is see if this works with a couple of cases that I've not used already as the equations I'm using are derived from these cases. It sort of has to work for this data set, the next step is to see if it produces a reasonable fit to cases not used to produce the BMI based model.

Anyway, with respect to Annie and Kate, given Kate was not as stout as Annie, she would be expected to cool faster.

- Jeff

A totally pointless experiment. I'm starting to think posters on this forum are more interested in pissing contests on how smart they are.

[DJA]

As someone with an IQ well within the half percentile,I agree.

[The Macdonald Triad]

As someone with an IQ well within the half percentile,I agree.

Are we talking fluid or crystallized intelligence? I can do a chart, factoring in what planets are in retrograde and whether or not Chapman had a high fiber diet.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You know exactly what I meant. I wasn’t talking about medical experts who commented specifically on Chapman’s murder but obviously that’s the way that you’re trying to spin it. I’m talking about the medical experts that tell us how unreliable a TOD estimate would have been using the methods that he used. The ones that talk about rigor and the ones that talk about temperature or digestion. These experts who, without a single dissenting voice, tell us that we cannot rely on the accuracy of such an estimation. The ones that you think are all wrong. Those experts.

I see.

So, when you claim 'all of the experts in the world', it turns out you can't point to one expert who has looked at Dr Phillips and his situation and concluded his estimate is unreliable.

The experts you mention state that an exact TOD can't be established. Dr Phillips didn't give an exact time: he gave us a window.

All that said, you've answered my question: you don't know of any experts who have looked at Dr Phillips and taken the factors specific to him into account.

At this juncture, what we need is some evidence as opposed to unsubstantiated bold claims.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see.

So, when you claim 'all of the experts in the world', it turns out you can't point to one expert who has looked at Dr Phillips and his situation and concluded his estimate is unreliable.


Phillips isn’t an exception. Unreliable and inaccurate apply to him as well as to any Doctor at the time. No specific research is required. He assessment was unreliable, inaccurate and easily prone to error. No one could give a minimum time of 2 hours which couldn’t be wrong.

The experts you mention state that an exact TOD can't be established. Dr Phillips didn't give an exact time: he gave us a window.

And as I said, his minimum time cannot be relied upon.

All that said, you've answered my question: you don't know of any experts who have looked at Dr Phillips and taken the factors specific to him into account.

At this juncture, what we need is some evidence as opposed to unsubstantiated bold claims.

Nothing bold about it.