John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

Georges post #1320 needs no interpretation either as far as the witnesses are concerned . Also only blank denial.

George’s posts said that witnesses can be mistaken. We all know that.

Biggs post says that a Victorian Doctors TOD estimate can never be regarded as accurate.

Big difference.

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n794371]

So no witness in any case can ever be used because witnesses ‘might’ lie or they ‘might’ be mistaken.

The justice system collapses.

Good logic.

its a pity you can't understand simple logic in relation to the witnesses.

Poor understanding.

[FISHY1118]

George’s posts said that witnesses can be mistaken. We all know that.

Biggs post says that a Victorian Doctors TOD estimate can never be regarded as accurate.

Big difference.

Just as Phillips can be right or wrong, so can the witnesses.which you yourself have accepted.

. We have a modern day experts that agree . Refer to fisherman and ,George previous post..

[Doctored Whatsit]

As you note yourself, you add nothing new. Accordingly, I regard our exchange as a thing of the past. And I stand by how your argument is based on a variety of more or less fantastic interpretations of the case facts. Which is and remains the exact opposite of a sound approach.

Good day to you!

I agree that we should close this aspect, but hardly that anything I write is "fantastic". This is, I think, our closing position -

My version: Swanson reported all key decisions and developments to the Home Office in his official report. He reported that Phillips' estimated ToD meant that there were genuine doubts about the reliability of Long's evidence. They were suspicious of Richardson and checked out his story thoroughly but failed to find any fault.

Your version: The police made the crucial decision to accept Phillips'estimated ToD, that the body must have been in the yard when Richardson was there and he failed to notice it. They therefore advised the journalist from the Echo accordingly, but decided to keep this important decision a secret, and not to advise the Home Office.

Good luck with that one!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just as Phillips can be right or wrong so can the witnesses.

Period.. We have a modern day experts that agree . Refer to fisherman and ,George previous post..

You’re just not understanding. Everyone knows that witnesses can be wrong just as any human being can be wrong but such generalisations serve no purpose. You can’t eliminate a witness just because witnesses can be wrong. They have to be assessed. Is that how you’d operate a trial? Rejecting every single witness because we know that witnesses can be wrong? Or do you admit their evidence for assessment?

There’s only one answer btw.

[FISHY1118]

You’re just not understanding. Everyone knows that witnesses can be wrong just as any human being can be wrong but such generalisations serve no purpose. You can’t eliminate a witness just because witnesses can be wrong. They have to be assessed. Is that how you’d operate a trial? Rejecting every single witness because we know that witnesses can be wrong? Or do you admit their evidence for assessment?

There’s only one answer btw.

BTW we have assessed the witnesses to death in case you haven't noticed.
just as we have have the medical evidence.

Most people have come to the conclusion that based on all the evidence including medical ( thanks to fisherman) as a whole that T.o.d is just as likely to be earlier 3.30 /4 than 5.30am

This there can be no argument.... well there shouldn't be ,but on we go i guess.

[FISHY1118]

You’re just not understanding. Everyone knows that witnesses can be wrong just as any human being can be wrong but such generalisations serve no purpose. You can’t eliminate a witness just because witnesses can be wrong. They have to be assessed. Is that how you’d operate a trial? Rejecting every single witness because we know that witnesses can be wrong? Or do you admit their evidence for assessment?

There’s only one answer btw.

So we can't then eliminate dr Phillips just because he may be wrong .? ,no of course not.

[FISHY1118]

Phillips may be wrong with his estimate on Chapman s t.od , but what we mustn't do is eliminate him completely as to try and prove the witnesses correct .

[Herlock Sholmes]

BTW we have assessed the witnesses to death in case you haven't noticed.
just as we have have the medical evidence.

Most people have come to the conclusion that based on all the evidence including medical ( thanks to fisherman) as a whole that T.o.d is just as likely to be earlier 3.30 /4 than 5.30am

This there can be no argument.... well there shouldn't be ,but on we go i guess.

What planet are you on Fishy? ‘Most people.’ You mean you, FM, George, Fisherman and Trevor.

Those going for a later TOD

Myself, Abby, Jeff, Wickerman, Doc, Varqm, Wulf, Mac, HarryD, Dickere, Joshua, Ms D, Eten, Elamarna, Dusty, Al,

So that’s 4 out of 20 going with an earlier TOD. Which matches up with the last poll where over 90% went with the witnesses over the Doctor.

And of your 4 Trevor agrees that the Doctor is unreliable (as per Biggs) and Fisherman needs an earlier TOD to keep Lechmere in play!

I think that you need a maths lesson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Phillips may be wrong with his estimate on Chapman s t.od , but what we mustn't do is eliminate him completely as to try and prove the witnesses correct .

No, we should dismiss him entirely because his estimation is worth nothing (as Biggs and the rest of the experts tell us)

Then we assess the witnesses. The two are not connected. One is worth assessing, one can’t be. Simple.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So we can't then eliminate dr Phillips just because he may be wrong .? ,no of course not.

Why can’t you understand this Fishy. It’s soooooo simple.

Yes we should dismiss Phillips because he could have been right, he could have been wrong.

The witnesses are not the same. We have to assess them because we can assess them. We can’t assess Phillips guess.

If you dismissed witnesses just because witnesses can be wrong then you would have to dismiss every single witness ever..

Please try and get this - or is this another case of you actually understanding it but you continue to post it simply to derail the debate?

[Fleetwood Mac]

On Dr Biggs:

I would say the appropriate questions haven't been asked. When he comments on rigor mortis, he qualifies it with this: "someone who is unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies can interpret the dead weight of a limb as stiffness”. What exactly does this mean in relation to Dr Phillips? It goes unanswered.

Leaving that aside, there is this:

You can only assess the value of an option in relation to the other options. What are the options being proposed:

1) TOD: 5.20am to 5.30am.
2) TOD: "at least two hours and probably more", it follows between 4.30am and 3.30am or 4.30am and 2.30am.

The crux of Dr Biggs' post is this: "a more accurate estimation ends up being less precise."

Dr Biggs is telling you that Dr Phillips is much more likely to have been correct when he said: "two hours and probably more" than he would have been had he said: "5.20am to 5.30am". Dr Biggs is telling us that "two hours and probably more" is a better option than "5.20am to 5.30am".

[Herlock Sholmes]

On Dr Biggs:

I would say the appropriate questions haven't been asked. When he comments on rigor mortis, he qualifies it with this: "someone who is unaccustomed to manipulating dead bodies can interpret the dead weight of a limb as stiffness”. What exactly does this mean in relation to Dr Phillips? It goes unanswered.

If it helps, he was probably thinking that Dr Phillips wasn't a specialist forensic pathologist but a run-of-the-mill police surgeon whose main job responsibility was for treating living police officers. Mind you, we weren't allowed to ask Thiblin any questions either, such as what did he mean by "an obvious difference between the outer and core" but you didn't seem to have any problems with that.


Leaving that aside, there is this:

You can only assess the value of an option in relation to the other options. What are the options being proposed:

1) TOD: 5.20am to 5.30am.

Nope. It's not possible to narrow an estimated TOD to such a precise time. No one is proposing such a thing.

2) TOD: "at least two hours and probably more", it follows between 4.30am and 3.30am or 4.30am and 2.30am.

That's not actually correct. He could have meant between 4.30am and 4.00am. He didn't specify. You're just putting numbers into his mouth. But it doesn't matter. The point is that in giving such an estimate he excluded the hour between 4.30 and 5.30 whereas Dr Biggs expressly stated Chapman "could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30". This means that, according to a modern expert, Dr Phillips' estimate was flawed and faulty. There's no getting away from it. Mind you, having said that, Dr Phillips himself accepted that his estimate of at least 2 hours could have been wrong due to the conditions, and the coroner accepted this.

The crux of Dr Biggs' post is this: "a more accurate estimation ends up being less precise."

Dr Biggs is telling you that Dr Phillips is much more likely to have been correct when he said: "two hours and probably more" than he would have been had he said: "5.20am to 5.30am". Dr Biggs is telling us that "two hours and probably more" is a better option than "5.20am to 5.30am".

You've entirely missed the point of what Dr Biggs was saying. He was saying that the only accurate estimate that Dr Phillips could have given, bearing in mind that Annie was last seen alive at 2am, was that she was murdered at some point between 2am and 6am.

Try reading the evidence rather than trying to manipulating it to fit your non-existent case.

[Fisherman]

I agree that we should close this aspect, but hardly that anything I write is "fantastic". This is, I think, our closing position -

My version: Swanson reported all key decisions and developments to the Home Office in his official report. He reported that Phillips' estimated ToD meant that there were genuine doubts about the reliability of Long's evidence. They were suspicious of Richardson and checked out his story thoroughly but failed to find any fault.

Your version: The police made the crucial decision to accept Phillips'estimated ToD, that the body must have been in the yard when Richardson was there and he failed to notice it. They therefore advised the journalist from the Echo accordingly, but decided to keep this important decision a secret, and not to advise the Home Office.

Good luck with that one!

I would appreciate if you allowed me to make my own calls about what position I hold. That, I find, is the only fair way of doing these things.
Again, and as always, I could make a counter bid, painting you out as getting everything wrong and me getting everything right.
But such antics are and remain kindergarten stuff and we should both avoid engaging in it.

So! Lets close the aspect, just as you agree about.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Shall we just remind ourselves what Dr. Biggs said?

Even if core body temperature and ambient temperature had been objectively measured at the time, any calculations would still give an estimation that would necessarily spread far wider than the “two hours or more ago” estimate quoted

or this

. "It is not possible to be accurate when it comes to estimating time of death, as there are simply too many variables

or this

. When it comes to bodies “feeling” cold, the estimations are even less reliable – live people can feel cold, and dead people can still feel warm, depending on the circumstances

or this

. Blood can clot very soon after it has left the body, and the onset of stiffness is a highly variable phenomenon that can also be over-estimated by examiners

or this

.So, whilst not criticising Dr Phillips, or anyone else involved with the cases at the time, I would have to say that this particular victim could have died considerably more than 2 hours before discovery, but also could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30