John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some people, also who wish to be taken seriously are still doubting when it has been shown that a modern day medical expert have essentially agreed that Dr Phillips ability to give an accurate t.o.d

Also staggering , embarrassing and extremely sad

Another complete invention. Desperate.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Chapman was killed as Cadosche was witnessing something.

Assuming the WM wasn't deaf, you'd imagine he would have known Cadosch was in the yard.

It would be very unusual for a murder to be committed a few yards away from a member of the public.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is accepted that doctor's ToDs were unreliable in Victorian times,

Tell that to Fishy, FM and Trevor.

and witness testimony has always been unreliable.

That’s not correct George. In general we know that witnesses can be mistaken and therefore unreliable but individual witness certainly can be reliable.

Phillips rigorously applied the techniques available at the time, techniques that were applied to the other murders with not so unreliable results. One witness kept changing his story

This isn’t true if it’s directed at Richardson, George. There’s pretty much a campaign against him for some reason. The last poll though suggested that the vast majority on here believed him. I seem to recall it being around 90%?

and the other two testified that they weren't really paying attention.

Again George this is misleading if it means Long and Cadosch. His initial impression was that the ‘no’ came from number 29 but displayed caution (which points to honesty) but this same person that showed caution was absolutely certain that the noise came from number 29. This should be good evidence by anyone’s standard and when we remove any suggestion of someone moving around in that yard when the body was there it points to something related to the murder.

I'm still only leaning towards towards my opinion, so I won't be the least bit annoyed, upset or belligerent at the disagreement of other posters.

Cheers, George

So we have a Doctors TOD that tells us nothing. Plus 3 witnesses with no reason to lie who all have to be liars or mistaken (in Richardson’s case he would have also had to have been colossally stupid)

How can this not favour the witnesses and a later TOD?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No. I'm still contemplating two of your more lucid and compelling posts.

Post 2023 in which you stated this:



And post 2439 in which you stated this:

So no…..you haven’t found it.

Because you invented it to make your point. A fairly standard tactic for you.

[Trevor Marriott]

Another complete invention. Desperate.

Some might argue that your constant attempts to prop up the witness testimony is also desperate

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some might argue that your constant attempts to prop up the witness testimony is also desperate

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why is that to suggest that a witness might have been correct is ‘propping up’ and yet trying to claim that a Doctor in 1888 had greater skills and knowledge than a modern one isn’t?

Richardson doesn’t need propping up. He did nothing suspicious or suggestive of lying. And he was 100% certain that there was no body there. Yet we keep hearing these conspiracy theorist-type attempts to discredit him. To do this there’s an attempt to show that, with absolutely no motive, he told an incredibly stupid lie that no one at the time noticed? So he has to be stupid and a liar. The coroner, the jury and the police have to be monumentally stupid. The press also had to be stupid or incredibly inattentive. All of these things had to have been true to discredit Richardson. That’s a lot of effort Trevor.

This ‘propping up’ and ‘relying on’ business is very selective though isn’t it? A bit like you selectivity on who is reliable and who isn’t.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why is that to suggest that a witness might have been correct is ‘propping up’ and yet trying to claim that a Doctor in 1888 had greater skills and knowledge than a modern one isn’t?

Richardson doesn’t need propping up. He did nothing suspicious or suggestive of lying. And he was 100% certain that there was no body there. Yet we keep hearing these conspiracy theorist-type attempts to discredit him. To do this there’s an attempt to show that, with absolutely no motive, he told an incredibly stupid lie that no one at the time noticed? So he has to be stupid and a liar. The coroner, the jury and the police have to be monumentally stupid. The press also had to be stupid or incredibly inattentive. All of these things had to have been true to discredit Richardson. That’s a lot of effort Trevor.

This ‘propping up’ and ‘relying on’ business is very selective though isn’t it? A bit like you selectivity on who is reliable and who isn’t.

But you have accepted many time on here that Phiillips may have been right or may have been wrong.

So that being said why do you still keep maintaining that he was wrong why not just let it go because we are never going to be able to establish a conclusive TOD, and all we are left with is that Chapman was killed by JTR sometime between 4am-5.45am end of story nothing more to be said. If we could pin a TOD down where would that take us?

Each an everyone will have their own opinion as to their TOD but thats as far as it can go, and when someone voices their opinion as to a TOD you should respect that and not continually stamp your feet stating what you believe and telling them they are wrong.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ms Diddles]

Hello Herlock

That is exactly what happened, though I don't understand your distinction between "those" intestines that were exposed or not. Philips examined the corpse, which had a gaping wound down the front and part of the intestines had been lifted out. He examined the body, feeling among other things for body heat, and in the course of his examination he felt inside the wound, placing his fingers and hands around and under the intestines and other organs.
Therefore, he was able to testify that there was some remaining heat under the intestines.

Hi Kattrup!

That would be my bet too.

I would suggest that Herlock's anal probe theory can't be completely ruled out, as Philips doesn't explicitly state how he located the remaining heat, but on the balance of probabilities this seems the most likely option.

I'd imagine that the anal probe would likely involve turning Annie onto her side to gain access, which would likely be quite a messy affair given the circumstances.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you have accepted many time on here that Phiillips may have been right or may have been wrong.

So that being said why do you still keep maintaining that he was wrong why not just let it go because we are never going to be able to establish a conclusive TOD, and all we are left with is that Chapman was killed by JTR sometime between 4am-5.45am end of story nothing more to be said. If we could pin a TOD down where would that take us?

Each an everyone will have their own opinion as to their TOD but thats as far as it can go, and when someone voices their opinion as to a TOD you should respect that and not continually stamp your feet stating what you believe and telling them they are wrong.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That doesn’t even make sense Trevor. In one breath you’re admitting that I’ve said that he could have been right or wrong but in the next breath you’re saying that I’m stating that he was wrong.

The fact that we cannot establish a conclusive or accurate TOD is exactly what I, and others, have been saying for days on end and have been derided for it. This is why I’ve said that Phillips estimate cannot be used to eliminate witnesses. If individuals want to eliminate witnesses using other criteria then it’s up to them.

So what I actually saying, and what I’ve said all along, is that Phillips estimate gets us no further either way. Therefore his evidence is neutral as far as we’re concerned. Therefore we’re left to evaluate the witnesses. Which I do fairly but you don’t.

[Trevor Marriott]

That doesn’t even make sense Trevor. In one breath you’re admitting that I’ve said that he could have been right or wrong but in the next breath you’re saying that I’m stating that he was wrong.

The fact that we cannot establish a conclusive or accurate TOD is exactly what I, and others, have been saying for days on end and have been derided for it. This is why I’ve said that Phillips estimate cannot be used to eliminate witnesses. If individuals want to eliminate witnesses using other criteria then it’s up to them.

So what I actually saying, and what I’ve said all along, is that Phillips estimate gets us no further either way. Therefore his evidence is neutral as far as we’re concerned. Therefore we’re left to evaluate the witnesses. Which I do fairly but you don’t.

But you dont do you?

You cant back it both ways either you accpet that we cannot prove Phillips right or wrong so, we therefore cannot establish a conclusive TOD based on his estimated TOD or you dismiss Phillips, and rely on the the dodgy witness testimony to try to prove a later time of death but even that is not conclusive.

So as I previoulsy stated it would be fair to say that in the absence of conclusive evidence to prove an accurate TOD we must resort to stating that Chapman was killed between 4am-5.45am if you accept those facts normal service can be resumed on casebook and you can give your feet a rest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you dont do you?

You cant back it both ways either you accpet that we cannot prove Phillips right or wrong so, we therefore cannot establish a conclusive TOD based on his estimated TOD or you dismiss Phillips, and rely on the the dodgy witness testimony to try to prove a later time of death but even that is not conclusive.

So as I previoulsy stated it would be fair to say that in the absence of conclusive evidence to prove an accurate TOD we must resort to stating that Chapman was killed between 4am-5.45am if you accept those facts normal service can be resumed on casebook and you can give your feet a rest

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What are you waffling on about?

Phillips gets us nowhere. Fact.

So we assess the witnesses. Calling them dodgy perfectly illustrates your bias. Richardson is a strong witness. To dismiss him you have to start inventing things or assuming that he lied without evidence or reason for it.

This is the entire agenda of your side. To falsely discredit Richardson. A witness for which there’s not a smidgeon of evidence against.

How reliable is Richardson…..99%

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Kattrup!

That would be my bet too.

I would suggest that Herlock's anal probe theory can't be completely ruled out, as Philips doesn't explicitly state how he located the remaining heat, but on the balance of probabilities this seems the most likely option.

I'd imagine that the anal probe would likely involve turning Annie onto her side to gain access, which would likely be quite a messy affair given the circumstances.

Thank you very much Ms D. Greatly appreciated.

I'm not actually trying to argue that this did happen or even that it was likely to have happened, merely that it's a possibility which can't be entirely ruled out due to the lack of available information.

And it doesn't affect any of my arguments about TOD. The only relevance is that it supports my criticism that Christer told Thiblin as an established fact that Phillips felt "inside the body".

Frankly, it doesn't matter whether Phillips did or not do this. The fact is that he doesn't say he did it, and it can only be an assumption that he did so (however well founded that assumption may be).

We should all be able to agree that it is a golden and unbreakable rule when briefing an expert about a case that one only tells the expert what is in the evidence, without adding (or subtracting) anything. One especially should not be telling an expert that something happened as a fact which is actually one's own interpretation of the evidence.

It should have been for the expert to decide what "warmth under the intestines" means. Not Fisherman.

[Aethelwulf]

What are you waffling on about?

Phillips gets us nowhere. Fact.

So we assess the witnesses. Calling them dodgy perfectly illustrates your bias. Richardson is a strong witness. To dismiss him you have to start inventing things or assuming that he lied without evidence or reason for it.

This is the entire agenda of your side. To falsely discredit Richardson. A witness for which there’s not a smidgeon of evidence against.

How reliable is Richardson…..99%

The main issue is that there are a group of contrarians dug in on 'conspiracy theory'/Richardson lied. It isn't possible to reason with conspiracy theorists so may as well drop it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To recap:

On page 146, Fisherman gave us this quote from Professor Thilbin:

Thatīs a very different matter. It cannot get more central than that. If he felt an obvious difference between the outer and central parts of the body, I am of the meaning that it speaks of a PMI of 3-4 hours rather than 1 hour.

Within the following 23 pages much merriment has ensued: "cold" versus "all cold"; "under" versus "in"; " estimating the appropriate intestinal warmth"; and so on and so forth.

It may be useful to remind ourselves that regardless of Dr Phillips' methods and how he arrived at this, Dr Phillips stated: the body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body.

As it stands, we have no competing statement from someone with experience in this field. It would be useful and interesting to hear an authoritative statement disagreeing with Professor Thilbin.

As I've already mentioned, Thiblin's statement is hypothetical, being predicated on an "obvious difference" between the temperature of the outer and central parts of the body which Phillips never mentioned. When Fisherman tried to explain this, incidentally, he decided to improve upon Thiblin's words and changed that to "significant difference". Hence, Fisherman said in #2180:

Basically, he said that if the core of the body can be compared to the surface temperature, and if there is a significant difference between the temperatures in these regions, then it speaks for a longer period of death."

I already explained in #2185 why this is nonsensical. But the fact that Fisherman has changed "obvious difference" to "significant difference" either shows that he felt the need to improve upon what Thiblin was saying or that he didn't translate it properly the first time from the Swedish but, in doing so, he made it worse for himself because Phillips definitely did not speak of there being a significant difference between the temperature of the outer and central parts.

Furthermore, if you look at the reported exchange between Thiblin and Fisherman, Thiblin isn't even told what Dr Phillips discovered under the intestines. All he is told, according to Fisherman, is that he put his hand "inside the body".

Hence; "When I originally asked him about Chapman, he said that it is very hard to establish body temperature by way of feeling for warmth with the hand, and said that the internal temperature of the body is what is important in the context. Which was when I told him that Phillips had felt inside the body too. He then replied to me like this..."

If that's an accurate reflection of what he was told, then he wasn't even told that Phillips felt warmth anywhere inside the body, nor that he specifically felt warmth under the intestines.

Worse than this, no one on this Forum seems to be able to explain what Thiblin means when he says that an "obvious difference" (or as Fisherman tells us "significant difference") would lead to the conclusion of a PMI of 3-4 hours.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Assuming the WM wasn't deaf, you'd imagine he would have known Cadosch was in the yard.

It would be very unusual for a murder to be committed a few yards away from a member of the public.

You'd have thought so, but just look at Berner St. All the locations carried a high risk of interruption and discovery. It didn't seem to phase him all that much.