John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

I said it is more likely to be accurate.

Which is the equivalent of stating that a football match played for 120 minutes is more likely to produce a goal than one played for 90 minutes. I would have thought this would have been obvious to you rather than come as some hitherto unimaginable revelation which you would then use to state: "game over".

By some strange freak of nature, you are then using this statement to add credence to the idea that Annie was murdered around 5.30am.

If an estimated TOD of 2.30 to 5.30 is more likely to be accurate than one of 2.30 to 4.30, as you admit it is, then, by it's very definition, it adds credence to the idea that Annie was murdered at 5.30am.

I mean, it's bleedin' obvious isn't it? If she was murdered between 2.30 and 4.30 she couldn't have been murdered at 5.30! But if the time range which is more likely to be accurate is 2.30 to 5.30 then she obviously could have been murdered at 5.30.

It's not me using anything to add credence to a 5.30 TOD. It's the very definition of the time range which adds credence to it.

What is it that leads you to take that statement and suggest it is more likely Annie was murdered around 5.30am? There is no connection.

That's a very different matter, showing again that you are confused. I'm not saying that an estimated time range of 2.30 to 5.30 makes it "more likely" that Annie was murdered at 5.30. Where do you think I've said that? Are you imagining things?

What I'm arguing against is people, like yourself, who say it was unlikely she was murdered at 5.30 because of the time range of 2.30 to 4.30 supposedly put forward by Dr Phillips. It's the very opposite to what you are suggesting!

None of this detracts from the medical evidence:

1) 1.45am last known meal, easily digested food.
2) Catherine's body compared with Annie's, quite warm and no rigor, supposedly only 20 minutes apart PMI.
3) Rigor commencing of the limbs.

This is the medical evidence that suggests an earlier TOD.

I've already explained from a medical perspective why each of those factors doesn't assist in ruling out a TOD of 5.30. Digestion rate is totally unreliable, perhaps the most unreliable of all the factors. Your comparison with Eddowes is pathetic and doesn't work at all, and we've been all around the houses with rigor. But you don't need to hear it from me. Dr Biggs has expressly stated that 5.30 cannot be ruled out based on the medical evidence in this case. Why do you think you know better than an expert? Do you think Dr Biggs is wrong when he said, "It is not possible to be accurate when it comes to estimating time of death, as there are simply too many variables...this particular victim....could potentially have been killed as recently as 05.30"?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, at least you're back to discussing the evidence as opposed to talking about an estimated TOD from death to examination, which of course is not an estimated TOD.

The word 'miscalculated' tells the story. In your scenario, possibly less than two hours, Dr Phillips couldn't have miscalculated.

Would you kindly do me a favour and translate that post into English for me?

Unfortunately Google Translate doesn't have a Gibberish to English function, so I need your help.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Would you kindly do me a favour and translate that post into English for me?

Unfortunately Google Translate doesn't have a Gibberish to English function, so I need your help.

It's English, Sherlock. Keep trying until you get there. There's a lot to be said for persistence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You two are cluttering minds in an attempt to see has the biggest todger. No one doubts either of your knowledge but you're playing troll games.

It’s a debate. Truth is important. He’s wrong but not only is he wrong he knows that he’s wrong. He knows that he’s wrong but he keeps twisting and manipulating because he’s been backed into a corner that he can’t escape from.

I don’t know why this bothers some people. No one is being forced to read the thread. I’ll stop posting when he concedes that he’s wrong. I’ll probably be here another 10 years but that’s as maybe. Honesty is important.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What am I missing here? Are you and Derlock completely devoid of reason? It's a troll, right?

If you want reason - read my posts. If you want biased manipulation - read his.

Or ignore the entire thread. It’s up to you.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Dr Biggs has expressly stated that 5.30 cannot be ruled out based on the medical evidence in this case.

Every man, animal and object on this planet agrees with this. It's clear to all and sundry.

You say this like Dr Biggs has just led the world into the coming enlightenment.

It would seem you spend more time typing than you do reading.

Your comparison with Eddowes is pathetic and doesn't work at all

You have been asked to add some meat to the bones of this, but you swerved it. 'Best you could say was: "they're not the same".

Here's another chance for you to explain.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It’s a debate.

Incorrect.

This is boredom on my part.

I realised 100 pages back that a discussion with you is completely pointless and the equivalent of a slow, painful death. This is not a debate.

I have a few hours to kill before picking someone up from the airport and in the absence of anything new and refreshing on some other thread, then I'm afraid you'll have to do.

[The Macdonald Triad]

It’s a debate. Truth is important. He’s wrong but not only is he wrong he knows that he’s wrong. He knows that he’s wrong but he keeps twisting and manipulating because he’s been backed into a corner that he can’t escape from.

I don’t know why this bothers some people. No one is being forced to read the thread. I’ll stop posting when he concedes that he’s wrong. I’ll probably be here another 10 years but that’s as maybe. Honesty is important.

I'm not bothered but you're making VIPs like Fisherman unavailable for logical debate.

[The Macdonald Triad]

For example, the look on Fisherman's face when he talked about Lechmere (supposedly) lying is priceless. Keep farting around caviets and you'll always be labeled.

[etenguy]

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.

Hi Ms Diddles

You are brave to venture into this thread at this point, a little like approaching the gothic mansion in a thunderstorm at the start of all classic horror movies, but a good point well made.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Every man, animal and object on this planet agrees with this. It's clear to all and sundry.

You say this like Dr Biggs has just led the world into the coming enlightenment.

It would seem you spend more time typing than you do reading.

Well that's good. So Phillips was wrong to say that Chapman had been dead at least two hours. I must say, I had that this fact was disputed but I'm really glad we've now got it sorted out and we all agree.

You have been asked to add some meat to the bones of this, but you swerved it. 'Best you could say was: "they're not the same".

Here's another chance for you to explain.

I don't think you quite realize how it ridiculous it is for you to pooh-pooh "they're not the same". That the whole point! It's why you can't compare them. Just as apples and pears aren't the same, Eddowes and Chapman weren't the same.

I mean, the timescales are different for one thing. If a person can become cold in 15 minutes, as Fisherman says they can, then 20 minutes is a significant amount of time difference.

Then we know that Chapman had a wasting disease. Did Eddowes?

We know that Chapman was seriously malnourished. Was Eddowes?

Were the atmospheric conditions exactly the same?

Finally, did Chapman have the same body as Eddowes? If not, it's not possible to compare. That's why Dr Biggs has said you can't fix a time within a narrow range. What you are suggesting isn't science, it's mumbo jumbo anecdotal rubbish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not bothered but you're making VIPs like Fisherman unavailable for logical debate.

Why is Fisherman a VIP? He’s a journalist who wrote a book. If he wants to stomp of to the fjords because he can’t accept being disagreed with then that’s up to him.

Trevor’s written more books than him and he’s still posting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Incorrect.

This is boredom on my part.

I realised 100 pages back that a discussion with you is completely pointless and the equivalent of a slow, painful death. This is not a debate.

I have a few hours to kill before picking someone up from the airport and in the absence of anything new and refreshing on some other thread, then I'm afraid you'll have to do.

You’ve lost badly on every single point. You’ve just got fixated on Phillips being able to do something that a modern day pathologist couldn’t do and you’re willing to go to any lengths to defend your position. It’s reason versus biased waffle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Ms Diddles

You are brave to venture into this thread at this point, a little like approaching the gothic mansion in a thunderstorm at the start of all classic horror movies, but a good point well made.

With FM flogging the ghost of a position that was killed long, long ago.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I don't think you quite realize how it ridiculous it is for you to pooh-pooh "they're not the same". That the whole point! It's why you can't compare them. Just as apples and pears aren't the same, Eddowes and Chapman weren't the same.

I mean, the timescales are different for one thing. If a person can become cold in 15 minutes, as Fisherman says they can, then 20 minutes is a significant amount of time difference.

Then we know that Chapman had a wasting disease. Did Eddowes?

We know that Chapman was seriously malnourished. Was Eddowes?

Were the atmospheric conditions exactly the same?

Finally, did Chapman have the same body as Eddowes? If not, it's not possible to compare. That's why Dr Biggs has said you can't fix a time within a narrow range. What you are suggesting isn't science, it's mumbo jumbo anecdotal rubbish.

Well, at least we're onto something different.

They were women resorting to desperate measures in order to keep a roof over their heads. Neither woman would have been in particularly good shape.

What do you mean when you say: "atmospheric conditions"?

And, the argument in relation to Annie went something like: "the huge amount of blood loss impacting body temperature". Upon Catherine being mentioned, this argument has, unsurprisingly, disappeared.

What do you mean when you say: "did they have the same body?" What is the relevance?

In the end we have two women, both fallen on hard times, with a great amount of blood loss, in a similar environmental temperature, murdered in a similar manner. One of those was cold except for some warmth under the intestines and rigor had commenced of the limbs; the other poor woman's body was quite warm and there was no sign of rigor. According to your argument these women had a PMI variance of 20 minutes. Can you explain that? I mean reasonably.