John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

Almost - I am suggesting he stated a minimum of two hours but possibly less in certain circumstances.

Well, you're honest instead of swerving the question.

I can only explore this and it will seem like I'm backing you into a corner, but I feel this discussion needs it in order to highlight exactly what Dr Phillips said and intended, and dispel what ultimately is ludicrous.

The 'certain circumstances' are the only circumstances given that Dr Phillips is talking of Annie's murder and what he observed pertaining to that. So, there are no certain circumstances, only circumstances relating to Annie.

So, am I right in thinking that in this circumstance, i.e in relation to Annie, you believe Dr Phillips stated: "a minimum of two hours but possibly less"?

[Doctored Whatsit]

He said: "at least two hours".

At least in the English language means the minimum possible.

Those are his words.

To argue anything else is to manipulate his words in his statement.

Again, the minimum possible. Not the minimum possible but possibly less (a monumental nonsensical statement). The minimum possible.

It is not "when one focuses solely on a short phrase", it is when we read his words as they were in accordance with the English language.

I walked away from this thread because the same things were being said over and over. Now I find they are still being repeated! Perhaps I can explain the pointlessness of repeating the dictionary meaning of the words in Phillips' estimated ToD - please note this, the words he used are not disputed, there is no need to explain the meaning of them. They are not complicated.

The entire problem is not the estimated time of death that he quoted. It is that he decided the coroner needed to know additional information, and he explained why his estimate might be incorrect. He then compounded the problem he had just created by not following this with a clear statement of the effect that this had on the estimated ToD. As a result, the coroner believed that he was withdrawing his estimate. This is the issue, not the meaning of his estimate that Chapman had been dead "at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her;". If he had followed the explanation of possible error with a clear statement of the effect this had on his ToD, then we would not be discussing this. There would be no need. Phillips was a very experienced man, and it is so out of character that he didn't make things absolutely clear to the coroner.

Hopefully, that is understood, and I can go back into retirement.

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n793141]

And the Press are always right.

Just as you yourself Herlock,along with Trevor George, Harry and countless others have all used articles of the press to make a point

I'll take it you already know that answer .

[etenguy]

Well, you're honest instead of swerving the question.

I can only explore this and it will seem like I'm backing you into a corner, but I feel this discussion needs it in order to highlight exactly what Dr Phillips said and intended, and dispel what ultimately is ludicrous.

The 'certain circumstances' are the only circumstances given that Dr Phillips is talking of Annie's murder and what he observed pertaining to that. So, there are no certain circumstances, only circumstances relating to Annie.

So, am I right in thinking that in this circumstance, i.e in relation to Annie, you believe Dr Phillips stated: "a minimum of two hours but possibly less"?

So following your logic, I see how you reach the proposition. You are right to point out the ambiguity in my words, perhaps the following is a better description

A minimum of two hours but possibly less in these circumstances.

[etenguy]

I walked away from this thread because the same things were being said over and over. Now I find they are still being repeated! Perhaps I can explain the pointlessness of repeating the dictionary meaning of the words in Phillips' estimated ToD - please note this, the words he used are not disputed, there is no need to explain the meaning of them. They are not complicated.

The entire problem is not the estimated time of death that he quoted. It is that he decided the coroner needed to know additional information, and he explained why his estimate might be incorrect. He then compounded the problem he had just created by not following this with a clear statement of the effect that this had on the estimated ToD. As a result, the coroner believed that he was withdrawing his estimate. This is the issue, not the meaning of his estimate that Chapman had been dead "at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her;". If he had followed the explanation of possible error with a clear statement of the effect this had on his ToD, then we would not be discussing this. There would be no need. Phillips was a very experienced man, and it is so out of character that he didn't make things absolutely clear to the coroner.

Hopefully, that is understood, and I can go back into retirement.

You are right, the thread didn't nee any more explanation/input from me -I said nothing new - but I got sucked in.

But don't retire, I enjoyed your post.

[Fleetwood Mac]

A minimum of two hours but possibly less in these circumstances.

For clarity, what circumstances?

[Herlock Sholmes]

These circumstances which Phillips added as a caveat.

“…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.”

[etenguy]

For clarity, what circumstances?

I am going to take Doctored Whatsits advice and not repeat the same conversation that has run over this thread a number of times. But the circumstances are the circumstances that Phillips quoted about temperature and blood loss.

I look forward to debating with you again on other points when I am not so late to the party.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I am going to take Doctored Whatsits advice and not repeat the same conversation that has run over this thread a number of times. But the circumstances are the circumstances that Phillips quoted about temperature and blood loss.

I look forward to debating with you again on other points when I am not so late to the party.

I see.

Well, you did come on and reply to one of my posts, 'can't blame me for following it up.

You're welcome to do as you please, but to my mind you've realised where this is going and can foresee being placed into a position where you have no answer.

[Abby Normal]

I see.

Well, you did come on and reply to one of my posts, 'can't blame me for following it up.

You're welcome to do as you please, but to my mind you've realised where this is going and can foresee being placed into a position where you have no answer.

and there you have it. seriously eten and doctored your too good for this guy. dont waste your time.

[etenguy]

I see.

Well, you did come on and reply to one of my posts, 'can't blame me for following it up.

You're welcome to do as you please, but to my mind you've realised where this is going and can foresee being placed into a position where you have no answer.

Fleetwood Mac is the man who will not be blamed for nothing. Of course I do not blame you.

I simply recognise that I am saying the same as those with whom you have debated this point before and having that pointed out makes me realise I am joining this thread too late to make an original contribution.

If you have something new or a point that was not fully discussed already, I would be happy to discuss that.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood Mac is the man who will not be blamed for nothing. Of course I do not blame you.

I simply recognise that I am saying the same as those with whom you have debated this point before and having that pointed out makes me realise I am joining this thread too late to make an original contribution.

If you have something new or a point that was not fully discussed already, I would be happy to discuss that.

You're the first person willing to have his view of Dr Phillips' statement dissected. That was pretty new. 'Problem being you backed out half way through.

I don't particularly mind whether or not you want to carry on, but in the event you do then the question is there for you and waiting to be answered.

[etenguy]

and there you have it. seriously eten and doctored your too good for this guy. dont waste your time.

Hi Abby

I think Fleetwood is enjoying the debate and just expressing his disappointment - with perhaps a little goading.

[etenguy]

You're the first person willing to have his view of Dr Phillips' statement dissected. That was pretty new. 'Problem being you backed out half way through.

I don't particularly mind whether or not you want to carry on, but in the event you do then the question is there for you and waiting to be answered.

Well if you are about later in the week and feel there is an interesting debate to be had, perhaps we can pick that up (time for me to retire tonight) - but so far having looked back at a few pages of posts, I am simply repeating Herlock, Jeff, Doctored and others points.

[etenguy]

These circumstances which Phillips added as a caveat.

“…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.”

Hi Herlock

Yes, exactly.