John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d like put a question to all sensible posters. And before people start bursting into flames I’ll repeat, it’s just a question.


Why did Phillips use the word "under" in his evidence?

Why didn't he say that there was remaining heat in the intestines?

Why say there was heat under the intestines? Doesn’t that seem a strange thing to say?

If you take him literally, he must have found the intestines themselves to be cold and only found heat underneath them, whatever that meant.

For me, what he might have been conveying was that he felt the outside of Annie's back, under her clothes, around her spine, and, at the position where the intestines are, he could feel warmth on the body.

Intestines are located in front of the spine. In other words, the spine is found under the intestines. So I don't believe that I'm anatomically wrong in suggesting this. This doesn’t mean that I’m correct of course but due to the rather strange wording I think it’s worth asking.

Did Phillips really fumble about with the bloody intestines at the crime scene? I can't help thinking that might never have touched them.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’d like put a question to all sensible posters. And before people start bursting into flames I’ll repeat, it’s just a question.


Why did Phillips use the word "under" in his evidence?

Why didn't he say that there was remaining heat in the intestines?

Why say there was heat under the intestines? Doesn’t that seem a strange thing to say?

If you take him literally, he must have found the intestines themselves to be cold and only found heat underneath them, whatever that meant.

For me, what he might have been conveying was that he felt the outside of Annie's back, under her clothes, around her spine, and, at the position where the intestines are, he could feel warmth on the body.

Intestines are located in front of the spine. In other words, the spine is found under the intestines. So I don't believe that I'm anatomically wrong in suggesting this. This doesn’t mean that I’m correct of course but due to the rather strange wording I think it’s worth asking.

Did Phillips really fumble about with the bloody intestines at the crime scene? I can't help thinking that might never have touched them.

Well if you have no faith in Phillips a professional man, what chance is there of you, or us for that matter believing the witnesses you seek so heavily to rely on?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ms Diddles]

I’d like put a question to all sensible posters. And before people start bursting into flames I’ll repeat, it’s just a question.


Why did Phillips use the word "under" in his evidence?

Why didn't he say that there was remaining heat in the intestines?

Why say there was heat under the intestines? Doesn’t that seem a strange thing to say?

If you take him literally, he must have found the intestines themselves to be cold and only found heat underneath them, whatever that meant.

For me, what he might have been conveying was that he felt the outside of Annie's back, under her clothes, around her spine, and, at the position where the intestines are, he could feel warmth on the body.

Intestines are located in front of the spine. In other words, the spine is found under the intestines. So I don't believe that I'm anatomically wrong in suggesting this. This doesn’t mean that I’m correct of course but due to the rather strange wording I think it’s worth asking.

Did Phillips really fumble about with the bloody intestines at the crime scene? I can't help thinking that might never have touched them.

Hi Herlock!

I would like to think that I qualify as a relatively sensible poster (well, most of the time)!

I have always taken this statement to mean that Phillips got his sleeves rolled up and had a bit of a rummage around in the abdominal cavity, literally under the intestines.

I see no other explanation for his use of the word "under" in this context.

I can't help but think if he was referring to feeling around between her back and the ground, he would have explicitly said that.

Not definitive, but just my interpretation as requested.

[Abby Normal]

I’d like put a question to all sensible posters. And before people start bursting into flames I’ll repeat, it’s just a question.


Why did Phillips use the word "under" in his evidence?

Why didn't he say that there was remaining heat in the intestines?

Why say there was heat under the intestines? Doesn’t that seem a strange thing to say?

If you take him literally, he must have found the intestines themselves to be cold and only found heat underneath them, whatever that meant.

For me, what he might have been conveying was that he felt the outside of Annie's back, under her clothes, around her spine, and, at the position where the intestines are, he could feel warmth on the body.

Intestines are located in front of the spine. In other words, the spine is found under the intestines. So I don't believe that I'm anatomically wrong in suggesting this. This doesn’t mean that I’m correct of course but due to the rather strange wording I think it’s worth asking.

Did Phillips really fumble about with the bloody intestines at the crime scene? I can't help thinking that might never have touched them.

hi herlock
good question-I was just thinking the same thing. it does seem oddly worded and it does seem strange he would stick his hands into her ripped open abdoman at the scene.. I was wondering if he meant like below, or lower down on her body, like lower stomach/just above the pubic area. but thats not quite right description of the word underneath, so I guess he really meant underneath the intestines as in inside the body cavity.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Which is disingenuous.

You drew that conclusion from George's comments. Revisit your own post 2280.

Yes, exactly, I drew that conclusion from George's comments. That's what I wrote. The concept of the extensive mutilations being outside Phillips' experience came from George, not me. Then logically, if they were outside his experience, Phillips would realise his potential error when dealing with something he hadn't seen before. That is perfectly in line with George's observation.

[Dickere]

Hi Herlock!

I would like to think that I qualify as a relatively sensible poster (well, most of the time)!

I have always taken this statement to mean that Phillips got his sleeves rolled up and had a bit of a rummage around in the abdominal cavity, literally under the intestines.

I see no other explanation for his use of the word "under" in this context.

I can't help but think if he was referring to feeling around between her back and the ground, he would have explicitly said that.

Not definitive, but just my interpretation as requested.

If he was in Annie's blood, his hand would have fitted snugly - according to a Mr K Creole.

[Abby Normal]

Which is not supported by Dr Phillips' statement at the inquest.

Dr Phillips stated: "at least two hours".

In the English language, "at least" means a minimum and the least time possible.

It follows Dr Phillips is telling us that in his view, two hours is the least time possible.

This is an unequivocal statement and tells the reader that Dr Phillips felt absolutely confident and qualified.

ah OK. So you're saying English language/phrases and words can only be taken absolutely literally with no regard to context, qualifiers and the like? What about sarcasm, personification, hyperbole, symbolism, metaphors? lol

It really is basic English comprehension. And 16 people on Herlock's poll agree, as does the rest of the English speaking world.

A very wise person once told me-If you're at a party and ten people tell you you're too drunk, then it's time for bed. It's time for you to go to bed on this one.

[Ms Diddles]

If he was in Annie's blood, his hand would have fitted snugly - according to a Mr K Creole.

Sorry Dickere!

I wasn't familiar with that track.

Had to resort to Google.

[DJA]

Elvis Presley - Trouble　(Film King Creole） - YouTube

[Dickere]

Sorry Dickere!

I wasn't familiar with that track.

Had to resort to Google.

You're younger than you look eh. Or younger than me at least.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well if you have no faith in Phillips a professional man, what chance is there of you, or us for that matter believing the witnesses you seek so heavily to rely on?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, why do you think I'm saying I have no faith in Phillips? It's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm simply wondering why he used the word "under". It's his word.

What did he mean by it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock!

I would like to think that I qualify as a relatively sensible poster (well, most of the time)!

I have always taken this statement to mean that Phillips got his sleeves rolled up and had a bit of a rummage around in the abdominal cavity, literally under the intestines.

I see no other explanation for his use of the word "under" in this context.

I can't help but think if he was referring to feeling around between her back and the ground, he would have explicitly said that.

Not definitive, but just my interpretation as requested.

You certainly are one of the sensible posters, Ms D

So is it your view that Phillips was saying there was no heat in the intestines?

He was saying the heat was under them?

So what is under the intestines? i.e. where exactly was the heat?

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi herlock
good question-I was just thinking the same thing. it does seem oddly worded and it does seem strange he would stick his hands into her ripped open abdoman at the scene.. I was wondering if he meant like below, or lower down on her body, like lower stomach/just above the pubic area. but thats not quite right description of the word underneath, so I guess he really meant underneath the intestines as in inside the body cavity.

Hi Abby,

Could you able to elaborate for me? What do you find inside the body cavity underneath the intestines? I mean, what part of the anatomy would he have been talking about?

Also, would any heat in that location seep out to skin at the back of the body, where it could be felt with the hands, do you think?

And is it your view, therefore, that Phillips was saying that the intestines themselves were actually cold?

[Ms Diddles]

You certainly are one of the sensible posters, Ms D

So is it your view that Phillips was saying there was no heat in the intestines?

He was saying the heat was under them?

So what is under the intestines? i.e. where exactly was the heat?

Now you're asking.....!!

Yeah, I interpret it as the heat being underneath the intestines rather than inside them.

Perhaps a large portion of the intestines were still inside the abdominal cavity and coiled around. The heat was on the portions which were closer to the pavement than the open wound, beneath the bulk of them.......??

Admittedly I am stretching here...!

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yes, exactly, I drew that conclusion from George's comments. That's what I wrote.

I agree.