John Richardson

[Abby Normal]

unfortunatly this is what we often get from some members.

for people truly intererested in determining TOD in the 19th Century, there are many scientific papers about such avaliable on the web.

Indeed we have a good thread Here with various links

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...718125-chapman

Sadly it seems that many have either forgotten this thread or not read it.

HI El
good to see you here and another voice of reason! as you and many probably know I usually agree with Fisherman about alot of things, especially the validity of Lech as a suspect, and have argued against you (and Herlock and Jeff) quite passionately over the years about it. However, you and herlock are absolutely 100% correct on this one.

Its a shame these experts, thiblin and trevors Dr Biggs for example, dont post here directly, like poster prosector who was also an expert, used to do. It would clear up much-seems theres alot that gets lost in translation, maybe a bit of leading the witness etc. its why I dont go for this "middleman expert" stuff.

anyway, as has been proven numerous times on this thread, theres no accurate way to determine TOD, especially by a victorian dr, by touch to determine warmth/cold, or rigor mortis or digestion for that matter. And given three independent witnesses corroborate a later time of death, the obvious conclusion any rational being could make is that she was killed at the later time. Besides as Jeff pointed out, the window of error dosnt even have to mean Richardson is in conflict with the witnesses!

again, nice to see you on here my friend.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, now that your friend's statement has been challenged and it turns out that Casebook's interpretation is what Fisherman relayed to Professor Thilbin, you do an about turn and shift the discussion to: "we can't know what Dr Phillips said". Your fallback position.

No, that's quite wrong. I said we can't know Dr Phillips's exact words but we have five slightly different versions of what he said.

My point is that Christer said he told Professor Thiblin something which we don't find in any of those versions, hence:

"I told him that Phillips had put his hand inside the abdominal cavity and found warmth remaining under the intestines, wheras the surface of the body was all cold"

This is what Christer says he told Thiblin, so it's what Thiblin thought Dr Phillips had said. Can we agree that this is not what Phillips actually said, according to all the reports?

[Elamarna]

I think you should post a pertinent part, complete with medical expertise, that argues against Professor Thilbin.

Nobody in their right mind is going to go on a wild goose chase because you post a link, without any supporting commentary, and claim you're talking to the stupid.

On the other hand, in the event you post something interesting from your link, I'm sure it will catch the attention of those 'some other members' and then they'll have a look.

With all due respect, it's not arguing against Thiblin, but arguing against the interpretation put on what he's said.

I think.you will find that many serious researchers in their right minds commented on that thread.
Given that it's a link to a thread on this forum, I find your approach totally unrealistic.
Such is your choice of course.

[Elamarna]

HI El
good to see you here and another voice of reason! as you and many probably know I usually agree with Fisherman about alot of things, especially the validity of Lech as a suspect, and have argued against you (and Herlock and Jeff) quite passionately over the years about it. However, you and herlock are absolutely 100% correct on this one.

Its a shame these experts, thiblin and trevors Dr Biggs for example, dont post here directly, like poster prosector who was also an expert, used to do. It would clear up much-seems theres alot that gets lost in translation, maybe a bit of leading the witness etc. its why I dont go for this "middleman expert" stuff.

anyway, as has been proven numerous times on this thread, theres no accurate way to determine TOD, especially by a victorian dr, by touch to determine warmth/cold, or rigor mortis or digestion for that matter. And given three independent witnesses corroborate a later time of death, the obvious conclusion any rational being could make is that she was killed at the later time. Besides as Jeff pointed out, the window of error dosnt even have to mean Richardson is in conflict with the witnesses!

again, nice to see you on here my friend.

Hi Abby,

Not sure if I have mentioned it, but one of my book projects is an in depth look at determining TOD in the 19th century.
Not sure when it will be done, maybe a few years off yet.

I still pop in from time to time, and aim to do more often next year.

The 3rd edition of Inside Bucks Row will be out in October, following the Casebook, online conference, when I shall be revealing a few new bits of research in the book.

On the subject of Thiblin, I see it very much like that of Payne-James. What information was actually supplied, and how one interprets the answers.
Another old friend of ours, made some very good observations on that issue in an article in another place.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Not sure if I have mentioned it, but one of my book projects is an in depth look at determining TOD in the 19th century.
Not sure when it will be done, maybe a few years off yet.

I still pop in from time to time, and aim to do more often next year.

The 3rd edition of Inside Bucks Row will be out in October, following the Casebook, online conference, when I shall be revealing a few new bits of research in the book.

On the subject of Thiblin, I see it very much like that of Payne-James. What information was actually supplied, and how one interprets the answers.
Another old friend of ours, made some very good observations on that issue in an article in another place.

Steve

cheers EL
thats awesome! look forward to both!

[Fleetwood Mac]

With all due respect, it's not arguing against Thiblin, but arguing against the interpretation put on what he's said.

I think.you will find that many serious researchers in their right minds commented on that thread.
Given that it's a link to a thread on this forum, I find your approach totally unrealistic.
Such is your choice of course.

It's a point you're making.

As it stands, you've made a sweeping, generalised claim with no explanation.

Rather than provide that explanation, you simply post a link to a thread and expect readers to find your explanation in a thread of hundreds of pages.

We're still waiting on the medical expertise that refutes Fisherman's post.

Whenever you're ready.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's a point you're making.

As it stands, you've made a sweeping, generalised claim with no explanation.

Rather than provide that explanation, you simply post a link to a thread and expect readers to find your explanation in a thread of hundreds of pages.

We're still waiting on the medical expertise that refutes Fisherman's post.

Whenever you're ready.

You've missed the point. We're still waiting on the medical expertise that supports Fisherman's post.

Whenever you're ready.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, I think it's all credit to Fisherman as it stands.

He's taken the time to find a qualified contact and get his expert opinion.

He's put his post up for scrutiny in the knowledge that it will be pulled apart, word by word. He knows that he will be ridiculed in some quarters for pretty much everything and will be accused of doctoring the response in order to promote a theory.

Yet, Fisherman is the only person who has done this on this thread. Hats off I say. 'Far easier to make grand claims and not put the detail up for scrutiny.

The questions remain:

1) Is Professor Thiblin not qualified to make this statement?

2) The body was cold except a little warmth in the intestines, as per Dr Phillips. Professor Thiblin responds based upon this. Is there any expert opinion to the contrary?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, I think it's all credit to Fisherman as it stands.

He's taken the time to find a qualified contact and get his expert opinion.

He's put his post up for scrutiny in the knowledge that it will be pulled apart, word by word. He knows that he will be ridiculed in some quarters for pretty much everything and will be accused of doctoring the response in order to promote a theory.

Yet, Fisherman is the only person who has done this on this thread. Hats off I say. 'Far easier to make grand claims and not put the detail up for scrutiny.

The questions remain:

1) Is Professor Thiblin not qualified to make this statement?

2) The body was cold except a little warmth in the intestines, as per Dr Phillips. Professor Thiblin responds based upon this. Is there any expert opinion to the contrary?

1) Is Professor Thiblin not qualified to make this statement?

What statement?

2) The body was cold except a little warmth in the intestines, as per Dr Phillips. Professor Thiblin responds based upon this. Is there any expert opinion to the contrary?

No, sorry, the word "little" isn't in the evidence so you've invented that but, that aside, it's not what Professor Thiblin was told, so it follows that it's not what he was responding to. We have it from Christer's mouth:

"I told him that Phillips had put his hand inside the abdominal cavity and found warmth remaining under the intestines, wheras the surface of the body was all cold"

I asked you in #2222 if we can both agree that this wasn't what Dr Phillips actually said, according to all the reports. Sadly, you didn't answer. Had you done so it might have saved us a lot of time.

[Elamarna]

Well, I think it's all credit to Fisherman as it stands.

He's taken the time to find a qualified contact and get his expert opinion.

He's put his post up for scrutiny in the knowledge that it will be pulled apart, word by word. He knows that he will be ridiculed in some quarters for pretty much everything and will be accused of doctoring the response in order to promote a theory.

Yet, Fisherman is the only person who has done this on this thread. Hats off I say. 'Far easier to make grand claims and not put the detail up for scrutiny.

The questions remain:

1) Is Professor Thiblin not qualified to make this statement?

2) The body was cold except a little warmth in the intestines, as per Dr Phillips. Professor Thiblin responds based upon this. Is there any expert opinion to the contrary?

You seem to miss the point that this debate as been conducted many times. With many experts and medical.and scientific peer reviewed papers referenced and quoted.


Are you seriously asking for us to copy and paste not just the thread I mentioned , but many others to this thread. Seriously that's not how a good researcher conducts research.


However, let's look at the points made.

Is Thiblin qualified to make the statement he made?

He is certainly qualified, or he would not hold the position he holds. However, and it's a big however, on the information supplied to him, which we have been informed of, neither he nor anyone else is qualified to give the definitive answer we are told he gave.

Why do I say that?
Easy, he does not have sufficient information on which to form such a conclusion.

You summarised what he was told.

"The body was cold."

What is cold?

Cold for Phillips might not be cold for another individual.
What actual temperature range is meant by the subjective word "cold".

Such a comment is totally subjective and does not provide any information for Thiblin to arrive at the conclusion it's claimed he did.


The body was Cold?

Does that mean all of the external parts of the body were at the same temperature or was there variation?
Were the extremities colder than say the upper arms or legs?

Was say the surface temperature of the internal organs still in place, but exposed to the air, at the same temperature as the skin or was it warmer?

"A little warmth under( not in ) the intestines"?

What is a little warmth?

How much warmer than the external skin temperature was it?

Was Phillips estimation of the temperature in anyway affected by his hands now being within the body cavity, touching other internal organs and tissues?

The major issue here is that we have no record of any actual temperatures , it's highly unlikely any were taken.

Without knowing temperatures, and therefore the difference between external and internal, there is NO way of making the calculations need to arrive at the conclusion we are told Thiblin arrived at.

And here I speak not only as someone preparing a work on the actual subject, but someone who worked in medical schools and medical research for 35 years.

So we are left with several alternatives,

1. We are not be told exactly what information was given to Thiblin. That which we are told was presented is insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion regarding TOD.

2. Thiblin Is talking about possibilities and generalisations rather than about this particular case. That is it's totally possible, indeed highly likely for internal temperatures to be very different from.external skin temperature , such being effected by External environmental temperature and blood loss.

3. Thiblin answers are being misinterpreted, exactly the same happened with another Medical expert Payne-James over blood flow.
The exchange posted by Fisherman between he and Payne-James, on this forum, does not actually say what Christer interprets it to say.

[Fleetwood Mac]

What statement?

The one you're arguing against. You know, when you say: "it's not what Professor Thiblin was told".

"I told him that Phillips had put his hand inside the abdominal cavity and found warmth remaining under the intestines, wheras the surface of the body was all cold"

As per your own post, Fisherman told Dr Thiblin: "found warmth remaining under the intestines".

Dr Phillips said at the inquest: the body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

Where's the contradiction in terms of the information being made available to Professor Thilbin for him to draw a conclusion?

Is this where you attempt to change the discussion to: "we can't trust what the newspapers said", like you did a couple of pages back to the exact same post I made?

As I say, hats off to Fisherman. He's put it out there for scrutiny and he's the only one on this thread.

[Parisi North Humber]

As a relative newbie please may I ask if all the above heated discussion regarding time of death is soley reliant on Philip's estimation due to how the body felt to his touch? i.e no other factors such as thermometer readings or comparison temperatures etc. From all I've read it seems temperature (ergo estimated TOD) was based soley on 'hand feel". Sorry if I've missed something blindingly obvious.

Helen x

[Fleetwood Mac]

However, and it's a big however, on the information supplied to him, which we have been informed of, neither he nor anyone else is qualified to give the definitive answer we are told he gave.

The body was Cold?

Does that mean all of the external parts of the body were at the same temperature or was there variation?
Were the extremities colder than say the upper arms or legs?

Without knowing temperatures, and therefore the difference between external and internal, there is NO way of making the calculations need to arrive at the conclusion we are told Thiblin arrived at.

1. We are not be told exactly what information was given to Thiblin. That which we are told was presented is insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion regarding TOD.

I've condensed your points to the above.

1) Dr Phillips states: the body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Fisherman gave Professor Thilbin the same information, i.e. the only remaining warmth in the body was under the intestines. Are you suggesting that Professor Thilbin was incompetent when he drew a firm conclusion from this?

2) When you say: "we are not told exactly what information was given", I thought you and your friend were arguing about Fisherman's interpretation, relayed to Professor Thilbin, of where Dr Phillips placed his hand? You're certainly aware of some information given there. For clarity, what information do you think was given, or not given, that compromised Professor Thilbin's conclusion?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The one you're arguing against. You know, when you say: "it's not what Professor Thiblin was told".

When I said "it's not what Professor Thiiblin was told" I was referring to Christer's statement as to what he said to the Professor. I would have thought that is obvious.

As per your own post, Fisherman told Dr Thiblin: "found warmth remaining under the intestines".

Dr Phillips said at the inquest: the body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

Where's the contradiction in terms of the information being made available to Professor Thilbin for him to draw a conclusion?

I actually underlined the contradictions between what Prof Thiblin was told by Christer when compared to the evidence. and do so again for you:

"I told him that Phillips had put his hand inside the abdominal cavity and found warmth remaining under the intestines, wheras the surface of the body was all cold"

Is this where you attempt to change the discussion to: "we can't trust what the newspapers said", like you did a couple of pages back to the exact same post I made?

No, that's not correct. I didn't say that at all or anything like it. I simply pointed out that there are five different versions of Phillips' evidence in the newspapers so that we don't know the exact words Phillips used in his evidence (which you seemed to think we knew).

As I say, hats off to Fisherman. He's put it out there for scrutiny and he's the only one on this thread.

I'm perfectly happy to accept, as a summary, that Phillips said that the body was cold and that there was heat under the intestines. What he certainly didn't say, according to the reports, was that the body was "all cold" nor did he say that he put his hand "inside the abdominal cavity". If you disagree please point me to the evidence where he said those things.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As a relative newbie please may I ask if all the above heated discussion regarding time of death is soley reliant on Philip's estimation due to how the body felt to his touch? i.e no other factors such as thermometer readings or comparison temperatures etc. From all I've read it seems temperature (ergo estimated TOD) was based soley on 'hand feel". Sorry if I've missed something blindingly obvious.

Helen x

You haven’t missed anything Helen. We have absolutely no evidence that he used a thermometer. Just touch. He was a bit of a magician according to some.