John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is this relevant? Explain the difference between "under" and "in" in the context.

Or….

Well, if there is warmth "under" X, it's not the same as X being warm is it? Whereas if there is warmth "in" X, it IS the same as X being warm, isn't it?. Isn't that obvious?

Let me ask you and George, and everyone else, to consider the following hypothetical scenario:

You are a medical examiner coming to a crime scene to find a naked, unmutilated, dead body, lying on its back.

You want to check the temperature but you don't have a thermometer so you feel the face, torso and legs - all cold.

Slipping your hands underneath the corpse, you discover the upper back and the buttocks to be cold but you feel warmth at the area of the lower back, underneath the part of the body where you know the intestines are situated.

You are aware that the intestines retain heat after death.

When you come to explain the situation to the coroner you could say "The body was cold except for some warmth under the lower back". But that doesn't really explain to the coroner why you believe you found heat there.

So tell me: would it be reasonable to explain your findings as: "The body was cold except for some warmth under the intestines"?

I'm not saying that this is unquestionably what Dr Phillips was attempting to convey to Baxter, only that it's one, not entirely unreasonable, interpretation of his words. Are you prepared to agree?

[Fleetwood Mac]

You know very well what I meant when I used that phrase. That the range Phillips gave cannot be tied down in terms of accuracy. It cannot be stated that he couldn’t have been wrong either way. You appear to be the last man standing who believes that he could.

I really shouldn't need to state this, but everyone knows that a couple of pages back you were stating: "Dr Phillips' estimate is of no use".

In the end though, it doesn't really matter that you dance around the issue, chopping and changing.

The following is what matters:

Professor Thilbin, qualified in the field, disagrees.

Can you provide an expert in the field who agrees with you?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I’m not going to keep explaining something that you just deliberately keep pretending not to understand. Thiblin was given incorrect information. It’s there in black and white so I’m not going to keep going over it just because you fancy a bit of your usual obfuscation.

I know. When challenged, you're not willing to explain yourself.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yes. To show what kind of person I’m having to deal with here. An egotistical know-all who tries to tell another poster where he comes from!

No apology I see.

Thought not. Sums you up. A neverending drivel machine.

It's over now. You're not English. You've written on your hand and taken a picture for posterity. It's a watershed in human history to rank alongside the discovery of fire, Martin Luther's ideas and the Industrial Revolution.

That's it. Back to Annie Chapman and Dr Phillips, and of course the OP: John Richardson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I really shouldn't need to state this, but everyone knows that a couple of pages back you were stating: "Dr Phillips' estimate is of no use".

In the end though, it doesn't really matter that you dance around the issue, chopping and changing.

The following is what matters:

Professor Thilbin, qualified in the field, disagrees.

Can you provide an expert in the field who agrees with you?

No, he doesn't. That's absolutely wrong. He entirely agrees with me. I'll just remind you of what he said:

"I can accordingly not rule out that the skin will feel cold already after some hour in a body that has been outside in September".

AND

"The likelihood for the skin feeling cold is higher if the skin the doctor felt was exposed to the elements."

That's my argument in a nutshell. I say that it's entirely possible that Chapman's body felt cold at 6.30am despite having been murdered at 5.30am.

I've seen nothing from Thiblin which shows him disagreeing with me about this at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's over now. You're not English. You've written on your hand and taken a picture for posterity. It's a watershed in human history to rank alongside the discovery of fire, Martin Luther's ideas and the Industrial Revolution.

That's it. Back to Annie Chapman and Dr Phillips, and of course the OP: John Richardson.

With a copy of a newspaper sold only in the Uk. In front of a tv with a UK programme on. Check the TV guide……it’s still on now.

And you’re a troll. Nothing more nothing less. Pathetic.

[Fleetwood Mac]

No, he doesn't. That's absolutely wrong. He entirely agrees with me. I'll just remind you of what he said:

"I can accordingly not rule out that the skin will feel cold already after some hour in a body that has been outside in September".

AND

"The likelihood for the skin feeling cold is higher if the skin the doctor felt was exposed to the elements."

That's my argument in a nutshell. I say that it's entirely possible that Chapman's body felt cold at 6.30am despite having been murdered at 5.30am.

I've seen nothing from Thiblin which shows him disagreeing with me about this at all.

There is no: "if the skin the doctor felt was exposed to the elements".

Dr Phillips is telling you that the only warmth in the body was under the intestines.

This is what was relayed to professor Thilbin.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no: "if the skin the doctor felt was exposed to the elements".

Dr Phillips is telling you that the only warmth in the body was under the intestines.

This is what was relayed to professor Thilbin.

Dr Phillips is telling you that the only warmth in the body was under the intestines.

This is what was relayed to professor Thiblin.

So where do we find Professor Thiblin saying that Anne Chapman could not have been murdered at 5.30am?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Dr Phillips is telling you that the only warmth in the body was under the intestines.

This is what was relayed to professor Thiblin.

So where do we find Professor Thiblin saying that Anne Chapman could not have been murdered at 5.30am?

Good God.

'Speechless.

He didn't.

He gave his professional opinion that Annie wasn't murdered at 5.30am. That's what we're talking about: his professional opinion as opposed to whether or not I can dismantle my old radios and build us a rocket to fly us to the moon: it's possible, but highly unlikely.

Do you want to comment on Professor Thilbin's statement that what Fisherman relayed to him suggests Annie was murdered hours prior to 5.30am?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good God.

'Speechless.

He didn't.

He gave his professional opinion that Annie wasn't murdered at 5.30am. That's what we're talking about: his professional opinion as opposed to whether or not I can dismantle my old radios and build us a rocket to fly us to the moon: it's possible, but highly unlikely.

Do you want to comment on Professor Thilbin's statement that what Fisherman relayed to him suggests Annie was murdered hours prior to 5.30am?

I haven't seen any such statement. If you think one exists, perhaps you could do me a favour and quote it for me.

[Dickere]

Believe it or not, not everything revolves around you.

Apply that to your idol, Chump.

[GBinOz]

Or….

Well, if there is warmth "under" X, it's not the same as X being warm is it? Whereas if there is warmth "in" X, it IS the same as X being warm, isn't it?. Isn't that obvious?

Let me ask you and George, and everyone else, to consider the following hypothetical scenario:

You are a medical examiner coming to a crime scene to find a naked, unmutilated, dead body, lying on its back.

You want to check the temperature but you don't have a thermometer so you feel the face, torso and legs - all cold.

Slipping your hands underneath the corpse, you discover the upper back and the buttocks to be cold but you feel warmth at the area of the lower back, underneath the part of the body where you know the intestines are situated.

You are aware that the intestines retain heat after death.

When you come to explain the situation to the coroner you could say "The body was cold except for some warmth under the lower back". But that doesn't really explain to the coroner why you believe you found heat there.

So tell me: would it be reasonable to explain your findings as: "The body was cold except for some warmth under the intestines"?

I'm not saying that this is unquestionably what Dr Phillips was attempting to convey to Baxter, only that it's one, not entirely unreasonable, interpretation of his words. Are you prepared to agree?

Hi Herlock,

I don't have anything remotely resembling a medical qualification, so I can only reply with my understanding as a layman.

Some "warmth under the lower back" is an external measurement. Some "warmth under the intestines" is an internal measurement which would not be available from your hypothetical body. If you cut open the abdomen you would see the coiled intestines in the abdominal cavity. Phillips didn't mention feeling the intestines for warmth. He would have put his hand between the intestines and one side of the abdominal cavity and pushed his hand under the intestines to the floor of the abdominal cavity. This enabled him to assess the residual internal body heat. That is my take on the subject, inexpert as it may be.

Cheers, George

[Varqm]

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 you should know as a policeman before that TOD is given as a range, 2-3 hours,with scientific instruments.Except if an old corpse.Anything within that range is possible.One of it's uses is if a suspect does not have an alibi within that range it could go against him.
As it is a range 3:30 am is as good as 5:30 am or everything in-between.We have to go the witnesses to determine which is true or likely.We have a witness that put Chapman at around 5:30 am an also a witness who observed a commotion at around that time at the no. 29 murder spot.Meanwhile witnesses that put Chapman at around 3:30 am were ghosts.

[GBinOz]

I don’t think that I’ve changed in any way George

Hi Herlock,

My comments were meant as friendly observations, not criticisms. You mentioned in one of your recent post the pressures of your home life. I have experience of accumulated stress and burn-out, and I'll share with you something that I try to keep in mind, by Larry Eisenberg - "For peace of mind, resign as general manager of the universe".

Cheers, George

[harry]

Just popping in to put something straight,so do not expect an arguement from me.
In post 2338 Herlock you claim my opinion? is that we shoulld accept Phillips out of courtesy.
Where have I ever wrote that.It is false claims of yours,like this one,that sets you apart.
For the record,I believe Phillips should be considered because his was Expert opinion.