John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

Some questions there are no definitive answers to !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Fair enough, Trevor. I've no wish to labour the point and so as you say there's not a great deal of use in going backwards and forwards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Weeks of defending Phillips?" Not me, guv.

Think you've got me mixed up with someone else

My apologies Harry. Wrong Harry.

[FISHY1118]

Fair enough, Trevor. I've no wish to labour the point and so as you say there's not a great deal of use in going backwards and forwards.

I think were all at theat stage Mac ,

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good. So we all agree that we know that Dr. Phillips TOD estimate was unreliable and can get us no further forward and that any further discussion should be on the witnesses only.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think were all at theat stage Mac ,

Aye Fishy, lots of back and forth, some interesting points made, but after 178 pages there isn't much in the way of something new and refreshing being put forward!

[Trevor Marriott]

Good. So we all agree that we know that Dr. Phillips TOD estimate was unreliable and can get us no further forward and that any further discussion should be on the witnesses only.

There you go again wanting to create another argument I think the marjority can see the flaws in the witness testimony, which have again been highlighted countless times and make it unsafe to totally rely on.

We are never going to be able to prove conclusively the accuracy or the truthfulness of the witness testimony so why are you contiuning to argue over it?

The witness testimony and its unreliability is a part of why we are saying the TOD could have been anytime between 4am-5.30am so there is nothing new to discuss

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

The witness testimony and its unreliability is a part of why we are saying the TOD could have been anytime between 4am-5.30am so there is nothing new to discuss

Not all of us. I believe Annie was murdered closer to 2.30am than 5.30am. I think George is in agreement with this.

[FISHY1118]

Good. So we all agree that we know the witness testimony cannot give us an accurate TOD, that it could ,and possibly , due to its uncertainty and ambiguious nature be unreliable, and can get us no further forward and that all further discussion should be judged on all the evidence which on its merits should be treated equally . . Ahhh , thats sounds better i think.

[FISHY1118]

There you go again wanting to create another argument I think the marjority can see the flaws in the witness testimony, which have again been highlighted countless times and make it unsafe to totally rely on.

We are never going to be able to prove conclusively the accuracy or the truthfulness of the witness testimony so why are you contiuning to argue over it?

The witness testimony and its unreliability is a part of why we are saying the TOD could have been anytime between 4am-5.30am so there is nothing new to discuss

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well said Trevor Very diplomatically put ,some should try it sometime.

[FISHY1118]

Aye Fishy, lots of back and forth, some interesting points made, but after 178 pages there isn't much in the way of something new and refreshing being put forward!

Certainly none that warrants that ''Game Over'' phase nonsense of late.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There you go again wanting to create another argument I think the marjority can see the flaws in the witness testimony, which have again been highlighted countless times and make it unsafe to totally rely on.

We are never going to be able to prove conclusively the accuracy or the truthfulness of the witness testimony so why are you contiuning to argue over it?

The witness testimony and its unreliability is a part of why we are saying the TOD could have been anytime between 4am-5.30am so there is nothing new to discuss

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Im not creating an argument Trevor. I’m simply stating a fact. Phillips estimate can’t help us and so it has to be dismissed. The witnesses can be assessed but we don’t have to dismiss them. If we dismiss these witnesses on those grounds then we would have to dismiss every other witness in this case and most witnesses in any other case because very few witnesses are perfect. If we only considered perfect witnesses and dismissed the imperfect ones then no case would ever be solved.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good. So we all agree that we know the witness testimony cannot give us an accurate TOD, that it could ,and possibly , due to its uncertainty and ambiguious nature be unreliable, and can get us no further forward and that all further discussion should be judged on all the evidence which on its merits should be treated equally . . Ahhh , thats sounds better i think.

Absolutely no!

The witnesses are not ambiguous in the slightest. Cadosch said that he definitely heard a noise coming from the yard of number 29. Richardson said that he definitely couldn’t have missed a body had it been there. These are the opposite of ambiguous. You are confusing the word ‘ambiguous’ with the word ‘imperfect.’

We cannot assess Phillips so he has to be sidelined. But we certainly can and should assess the witnesses. If we applied your criteria Fishy no case would ever get solved because only perfect witnesses would be considered. I can’t think of a single perfect witness in this case. So do we just stop discussing the case?

Phillips and the witnesses are separate issues and cannot be treated the same.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well said Trevor Very diplomatically put ,some should try it sometime.

I prefer the truth to diplomacy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Certainly none that warrants that ''Game Over'' phase nonsense of late.

It is indeed Game Over on Phillips. The witnesses are separate matter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder what the odds are that the 3 witnesses on Chapman’s TOD are all lying, mistaken or monumentally stupid?