I'm a veterinary pathologist with training and experience in forensic pathology. I have often appeared in court as an expert witness in relation to my pathology findings, including having to address time of death.
Once upon a time, a guilter approached me here, by PM I think. I think it was Stilicho, actually, though as I said it was a while ago. He implored me to take a look at the medical evidence in the Kercher murder case, because I was such a well-respected forum poster. At the time I had other, much bigger, fish to fry, and said so. I had no idea even of the nature of the medical evidence (all I'd read about was an allegedly staged break-in).
The guilter (Stilicho?) then appeared in a thread, saying that when someone like me was refusing to touch the evidence, "something was terribly wrong". I still have little idea what he meant by this. That I was part of some cover-up? I replied again that I didn't have time to get involved in the Kercher case as the Lockerbie case was so time-consuming.
ETA: Explained here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6886621
It was some considerable time later that I happened to read the details of the gastrointestinal contents findings at the post mortem. I was completely gobsmacked. It's a complete slam-dunk that Meredith died shortly after nine, on that evidence. It also seems to stand up to scrutiny, in that the PM was videoed and the pathologist can be seen to take the correct precautions to prevent artefacts.
That's why I came into this thread, to say that. It's completely beyond reasonable doubt.
Now Stilicho mocks me on PMF as a cow-doctor, and makes jokes about clipping dogs' toenails and suchlike. "Veterinarian" has become synonymous with ignoramus. PMF posters in general refer to this whole thing as a "google" diagnosis, although I personally haven't had to google a thing in this respect, and even if anyone has, the internet is a good source of medical information if one is intelligently selective with the references consulted.
Well, exactly. The guilters think the defence aren't going to address this aspect, because no additional evidence was admitted to the Hellman court. They think the ridiculous 11.40 ToD will therefore stand.
This is nonsense as far as I can see. No new evidence is needed, because the existing evidence, properly interpreted, says all that needs to be said. I would expect the defence to make a strong case for an early ToD later this month.
Rolfe.
" he thinks that "people got sucked into taking it seriously. I think Peggy took it seriously"
