Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    You’re a lost cause Fishy. But everyone knows that.
    Just like everyone can see that you keep repeating yourself after 3444 post

    And You think I'm lost .

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    ''Again, you always avoid details in favour of disputing general comments. Why is that? You never debate the details.''

    I suggest you go back and add up all my post where ive discussed and debated the details , so you can stop that old line, its nonsense and desperate
    youve got 3000+ post to go back over if you like so off you go.




    Hey your the one thats rehashing old posts without anything new to add , so good hopefully we dont have to listen to your speculative , unproven , repeative, no other possible alternative outcome talk for much longer.

    You keep pointing out the same things youve being doing for this entire thead , which you have been shown already many times , the witness evidence which hase been shown to ,yep you guessed it ambiguious ,contradictory , uncertain and unsafe to rely on cannot conclusively, definitively, or overwhemingly determine a 5.30 am t.o.d. Again a Fact
    .
    You’re a lost cause Fishy. But everyone knows that.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    As I’ve said Fishy, I’ve no great desire to continue responding to your generalities. So unless you suddenly change the habits of a lifetime and begin discussing the detail then there’s no point continuing.
    ''Again, you always avoid details in favour of disputing general comments. Why is that? You never debate the details.''

    I suggest you go back and add up all my post where ive discussed and debated the details , so you can stop that old line, its nonsense and desperate
    youve got 3000+ post to go back over if you like so off you go.




    Hey your the one thats rehashing old posts without anything new to add , so good hopefully we dont have to listen to your speculative , unproven , repeative, no other possible alternative outcome talk for much longer.

    You keep pointing out the same things youve being doing for this entire thead , which you have been shown already many times , the witness evidence which hase been shown to ,yep you guessed it ambiguious ,contradictory , uncertain and unsafe to rely on cannot conclusively, definitively, or overwhemingly determine a 5.30 am t.o.d. Again a Fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Remember herlock its phase this one ''Phillips estimate gets us nowhere I was absolutely correct' that is just your opinion ,not Fact, big different.

    How does an estimate that might have meant an earlier TOD or it might have meant a later TOD get us anywhere Fishy? It’s like having a witness saying “well the car might have turned right but then again it might have turned right.” Or “the man that I saw might have had a moustache but then again he might not have had a moustache.” Remember Biggs: “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".

    And this.

    ''TOD and require manipulations to discredit them. Therefore the weight of evidence clearly points to a later TOD and no matter how many times you use your meaningless ‘ambiguous’ mantra nothing will''

    Clearly this is incorrect , as it has been debated over and over again and shown to be flawed . Only those who would have no concept regarding how to evaluate all the evidence in the Chapman Murder would believe in such nonsense.

    Again, you always avoid details in favour of disputing general comments. Why is that? You never debate the details.

    An example is the claim that Richardson disagreed with what Chandler said in the passage way. We know that this wasn’t the case but it was used to try and discredit Richardson. Plus the suggestion that he lied at the inquest keeps being used which is clearly false.


    Or how many times we have to put up with your bias phase ''the evidence Overwhelmingly'' supports 5.30 to.d.

    Well if you stopped disputing the obvious and I wouldn’t need to say it. We have a neutral TOD estimate, zero witnesses pointing to an earlier TOD and three witnesses pointing to a later. If it was a chess match between later TOD and earlier TOD the score would be 3 - . So not close.

    So again, unless theres something new that weve not seen or heard before, everything else over 3000+ post have been covered, and we cant prove a conclusive outcome for a positive t.o.d no matter how many ways its sugarcoated . You can bank on that .

    As I’ve said Fishy, I’ve no great desire to continue responding to your generalities. So unless you suddenly change the habits of a lifetime and begin discussing the detail then there’s no point continuing.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    It wasn’t rebutted or responded to…..ever. I asked 5 or 6 times with no response. Not one response.

    I’ve never said that an earlier estimate of TOD couldn’t possibly have been correct Fishy. Another point that I’ve made numerous times and yet you keep posting as if I hadn’t repeatedly said it.

    So what I’ve actually said (without your highly selective reading) is that it could have been earlier and could have been later. Exactly as Dr. Biggs said. I’ve accepted both possibles but you and Fisherman and FM have tried to skew the evidence in one direction which is impossible to do.

    So when I said ages ago that Phillips estimate gets us nowhere I was absolutely correct. This is inconvenient to you so you try and wriggle around it. But I’m happy to leave it at that. In favour of an earlier TOD a useless estimate from the Doctor that doesn’t help us (confirmed by medical science) In favour of a later TOD 3 witnesses who all inconveniently point to a later TOD and require manipulations to discredit them. Therefore the weight of evidence clearly points to a later TOD and no matter how many times you use your meaningless ‘ambiguous’ mantra nothing will change this.
    Remember herlock its phase this one ''Phillips estimate gets us nowhere I was absolutely correct' that is just your opinion ,not Fact, big different.

    And this.

    ''TOD and require manipulations to discredit them. Therefore the weight of evidence clearly points to a later TOD and no matter how many times you use your meaningless ‘ambiguous’ mantra nothing will''

    Clearly this is incorrect , as it has been debated over and over again and shown to be flawed . Only those who would have no concept regarding how to evaluate all the evidence in the Chapman Murder would believe in such nonsense.





    Or how many times we have to put up with your bias phase ''the evidence Overwhelmingly'' supports 5.30 to.d.


    So again, unless theres something new that weve not seen or heard before, everything else over 3000+ post have been covered, and we cant prove a conclusive outcome for a positive t.o.d no matter how many ways its sugarcoated . You can bank on that .



    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    As yours was rebutted on many occasions , so like i said herlock take it up with him if you didnt quite understand it .

    Now do you have anything new on the topic, or are you just going to keep rehashing this point thats been covered as well many of the already answered posts on this topic.

    Such as, we know it was certainly possible for an earlier t.o.d based on all, including medical evidence when examined properly . Youve merely complicated the situation when it neednt have been .


    Perhaps its you that should wriggle on away if you cant contribute anything new on the topic to discuss
    It wasn’t rebutted or responded to…..ever. I asked 5 or 6 times with no response. Not one response.

    I’ve never said that an earlier estimate of TOD couldn’t possibly have been correct Fishy. Another point that I’ve made numerous times and yet you keep posting as if I hadn’t repeatedly said it.

    So what I’ve actually said (without your highly selective reading) is that it could have been earlier and could have been later. Exactly as Dr. Biggs said. I’ve accepted both possibles but you and Fisherman and FM have tried to skew the evidence in one direction which is impossible to do.

    So when I said ages ago that Phillips estimate gets us nowhere I was absolutely correct. This is inconvenient to you so you try and wriggle around it. But I’m happy to leave it at that. In favour of an earlier TOD a useless estimate from the Doctor that doesn’t help us (confirmed by medical science) In favour of a later TOD 3 witnesses who all inconveniently point to a later TOD and require manipulations to discredit them. Therefore the weight of evidence clearly points to a later TOD and no matter how many times you use your meaningless ‘ambiguous’ mantra nothing will change this.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I’ve also asked you to discuss the detail but you certainly duck that one. Fisherman didn’t repeatedly explain his point. He made his point….it was rebutted…..he went away. Simple as that.

    Do you dispute Dr. Biggs assessment? A simple question. Take care that you don’t injure yourself as you wriggle out of giving an answer.
    As yours was rebutted on many occasions , so like i said herlock take it up with him if you didnt quite understand it .

    Now do you have anything new on the topic, or are you just going to keep rehashing this point thats been covered as well many of the already answered posts on this topic.

    Such as, we know it was certainly possible for an earlier t.o.d based on all, including medical evidence when examined properly . Youve merely complicated the situation when it neednt have been .


    Perhaps its you that should wriggle on away if you cant contribute anything new on the topic to discuss

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Just my guess but I suspect he left after having to repeat himself to many times,.
    You have issues with his post, he clearly doesn't, going over his post again won't change the outcome .
    So there's no need to respond to that .
    I’ve also asked you to discuss the detail but you certainly duck that one. Fisherman didn’t repeatedly explain his point. He made his point….it was rebutted…..he went away. Simple as that.

    Do you dispute Dr. Biggs assessment? A simple question. Take care that you don’t injure yourself as you wriggle out of giving an answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    As expected you’re in ‘ducking the question’ mode. I’ve asked the same questions numerous times since Fisherman’s post and they have been ducked by everyone including Fisherman who ran away when I pointed out the issues.

    If you can take the time to keep responding then surely you can make a simple response if you are aware of the answer?
    Just my guess but I suspect he left after having to repeat himself to many times,.
    You have issues with his post, he clearly doesn't, going over his post again won't change the outcome .
    So there's no need to respond to that .




    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    It has been ,but you want him to tell you again , send him a p.m if you want im sure he will get back to you

    Seeing how thats been debated at length and put to bed many many post ago with no 100% conclusion or certainty medical experts opinions can be dismissed in regards to Chapman t.o.d. , Is there anything new on the horizon for discussion .

    Or are we still in rehash mode?
    As expected you’re in ‘ducking the question’ mode. I’ve asked the same questions numerous times since Fisherman’s post and they have been ducked by everyone including Fisherman who ran away when I pointed out the issues.

    If you can take the time to keep responding then surely you can make a simple response if you are aware of the answer?

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


    Make your mind up Fishy! One minute you are saying we need to wait for Fisherman, next minute you are saying it's already been done.

    If you are saying that an answer to the problem I posed in #3325 has already been provided, could you please give me the post number or numbers?

    I'm quite sure it's never been addressed by anyone other than me, let alone explained.
    It has been ,but you want him to tell you again , send him a p.m if you want im sure he will get back to you

    Seeing how thats been debated at length and put to bed many many post ago with no 100% conclusion or certainty medical experts opinions can be dismissed in regards to Chapman t.o.d. , Is there anything new on the horizon for discussion .

    Or are we still in rehash mode?
    Last edited by FISHY1118; 09-19-2022, 12:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


    I don't need too herlock ,its already been done. .The real truth is you can't and haven't come up with anything new on the subject worth debating about. You need to get past what has already been shown regarding expert medical opinion where Dr Phillips is concerned . We all know now that inconclusive witness testimony and expert medical evidence combined in the Chapman murder can lead to establishing an earlier t.o.d . There is nothing you can do
    to disprove this, you can disagree all you like ,but in the end you know you cant dismissed or prove it ,

    Make your mind up Fishy! One minute you are saying we need to wait for Fisherman, next minute you are saying it's already been done.

    If you are saying that an answer to the problem I posed in #3325 has already been provided, could you please give me the post number or numbers?

    I'm quite sure it's never been addressed by anyone other than me, let alone explained.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    It’s not. It’s a fact.
    So your calling my opinions pathetic as a ''fact'' ? jolly good now your admitting your insulting me , doesnt bode well for all the times you said they werent insulting me hey, we all see your true colors now Herlock, keep digging tho, your bound to get better at it .

    So anything new to add ? or are we expecting more of the same rehashed repeats from your library.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Next you'll be saying thats not an insult Fishy
    It’s not. It’s a fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Pathetic.
    Next you'll be saying thats not an insult Fishy

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X