John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

It doesn't matter if it was "a pretty wide timeframe" or not.

According to Dr Biggs it does, he states that a wider timeframe is more likely to be accurate.

You should revisit Dr Biggs'/Trevor's post.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Your interpretation is that Phillips was saying - at least 2 hours or probably more but, due to the weather and conditions, probably more than probably more.

I see.

You're falling back on making stuff up again.

To remind of you of my interpretation: the minimum time possible is 2 hours, probably more hours, I am unsure on how many more hours due to........."

There is no contradiction in terms in that statement.

The 18 people are suggesting: "the minimum time possible is 2 hours, probably more and possibly less due to......." It's nonsensical.

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to Dr Biggs it does, he states that a wider timeframe is more likely to be accurate.

You should revisit Dr Biggs'/Trevor's post.

Crikey, we've been over this at least twice and I've already quoted twice from Dr Biggs'/Trevor's post.

Dr Biggs does not say that "a wider timeframe is likely to be more accurate" regardless of what goes into the timeframe, otherwise a timeframe of 8pm to 2am, being a 6 hour timeframe, would be more accurate than 2.30 to 4.30 being a 2 hour timeframe.

I've already said this to you but you didn't respond to it, which is why we are stuck in a parallel universe, with you saying the same mistaken thing over and over.

Do you agree, following your own logic, that the six hour timeframe I've set out above would likely be a more accurate estimate for Chapman's TOD than the two hour timeframe?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see.

You're falling back on making stuff up again.

To remind of you of my interpretation: the minimum time possible is 2 hours, probably more hours, I am unsure on how many more hours due to........."

There is no contradiction in terms in that statement.

The 18 people are suggesting: "the minimum time possible is 2 hours, probably more and possibly less due to......." It's nonsensical.

Anything can be made to sound unreasonable if you word it in such a way that makes it sound unreasonable which is what you continue to do. You are beyond hope.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Anything can be made to sound unreasonable if you word it in such a way that makes it sound unreasonable which is what you continue to do. You are beyond hope.

I see.

You're left with no answer.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Dr Biggs does not say that "a wider timeframe is likely to be more accurate" regardless of what goes into the timeframe, otherwise a timeframe of 8pm to 2am, being a 6 hour timeframe, would be more accurate than 2.30 to 4.30 being a 2 hour timeframe.

What is your point here?

Regardless of what goes into the timeframe?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see.

You're left with no answer.

I’ve responded in detail numerous times. There’s no point in continuing because, as ever, you resort to manipulations. Let’s just say this. The vast majority of English speaking posters on here agree with my interpretation (which is the only one that any reasonably intelligent person could make) The only people that disagree are the same posters who have spent days lying, manipulating and twisting evidence to try and prove the unprovable. And to top it off the coroner, who was there at the time and heard every word, agreed with my interpretation (the correct one) But you accept that Phillips would have sat meekly by allowing the coroner to misquote him in public. Yeah right.

Nothing more needs saying on this topic. Especially by you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is your point here?

Regardless of what goes into the timeframe?

I see that in true Fleetwood style you've ducked the question I asked you, and now pretend not to understand English.

So you didn't like my last question. Let me try this one, based on your own logic:

What estimated timeframe is more likely to have been accurate: 2.30 to 4.30 (two hours) or 2.30 to 5.30 (three hours)?

I await your answer with interest.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I’ve responded in detail numerous times. There’s no point in continuing because, as ever, you resort to manipulations. Let’s just say this. The vast majority of English speaking posters on here agree with my interpretation (which is the only one that any reasonably intelligent person could make) The only people that disagree are the same posters who have spent days lying, manipulating and twisting evidence to try and prove the unprovable. And to top it off the coroner, who was there at the time and heard every word, agreed with my interpretation (the correct one) But you accept that Phillips would have sat meekly by allowing the coroner to misquote him in public. Yeah right.

Nothing more needs saying on this topic. Especially by you.

When you say: ''try and prove the unprovable'', you may want to go back and revisit this entire thread. Nobody is attempting to prove anything. There is no proof; there are merely reasonable interpretations.

As explained to you: "the least time possible is two hours but possibly less" is a contradiction in terms. It is unreasonable to suggest this was Dr Phillips' meaning.

As explained to you: the coroner mentioned the word miscalculated, in your scenario Dr Phillips couldn't have miscalculated because in your scenario Dr Phillips accounted for less than two hours. It follows that when the coroner said miscalculated, he knew exactly what Dr Phillips intended when he said: "the least time possible is 2 hours", this was the miscalculation suggested by the coroner.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I see that in true Fleetwood style you've ducked the question I asked you, and now pretend not to understand English.

So you didn't like my last question. Let me try this one, based on your own logic:

What estimated timeframe is more likely to have been accurate: 2.30 to 4.30 (two hours) or 2.30 to 5.30 (three hours)?

I await your answer with interest.

Oh go on then, why not.

The latter of the two.

[Ms Diddles]

The nature of human beings is that they like to choose a side, use that side to argue with strangers on message boards, and once chosen there is no way back for the majority no matter what information is put before them.

There are very few of us who approach the discussion thinking: all possible scenarios have obstacles, but which of the scenarios requires the least in terms of leap of faith, and from there forming a conclusion as to which one is most likely while not being anywhere near a foregone conclusion.

Hi FM!

I think that's selling most of us a little short!

Of course, I have seen posters take up entrenched positions (usually when they have a favoured suspect or book to promote), but most of the posters who have been involved in this debate (on both sides of the ToD fence) strike me as pretty reasonable and flexible in their thinking.

We go where the facts take us, it's just that sometimes our interpretation of the facts differs.

In terms of my experience on the boards I'd say that the majority of us are representative of your second paragraph above, rather than the former.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When you say: ''try and prove the unprovable'', you may want to go back and revisit this entire thread. Nobody is attempting to prove anything. There is no proof; there are merely reasonable interpretations.

As explained to you: "the least time possible is two hours but possibly less" is a contradiction in terms. It is unreasonable to suggest this was Dr Phillips' meaning.

As explained to you: the coroner mentioned the word miscalculated, in your scenario Dr Phillips couldn't have miscalculated because in your scenario Dr Phillips accounted for less than two hours. It follows that when the coroner said miscalculated, he knew exactly what Dr Phillips intended when he said: "the least time possible is 2 hours", this was the miscalculation suggested by the coroner.

Yeah, that's right. The least time possible wasn't 2 hours, it was 1 hour. That was the miscalculation admitted by Phillips and accepted by the coroner. Agreed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh go on then, why not.

The latter of the two.

Thank you.

An estimate of 2.30 to 5.30 would have been the most accurate. Exactly as I've been saying all along and exactly as Dr Biggs has said.

I think that wraps it all up ladies and gentlemen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I could have sworn you've spent the last 180 pages insisting on a TOD timeframe of around 5.20am to 5.30am. Do I have this right?

Do you want to answer this question as to opposed one I didn't put in front of you?

No, you do not have it right, as I've told you on multiple occasions.

Based on the witness testimony, I think that Chapman was likely murdered around 5.20am to 5.20am. But, based on the medical evidence, I'm saying that Dr Phillips should have given the coroner a time estimate of 2.30 to 5.30. That's what Dr Biggs is saying too.

But I repeat that this is based on the medical evidence.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yeah, that's right. The least time possible wasn't 2 hours, it was 1 hour. That was the miscalculation admitted by Phillips and accepted by the coroner. Agreed.

What Phillips supposedly admitted is another matter.

'Surprised to see you now agree what the coroner intended when he said: "miscalculated". 'Never too late, I suppose.