John Richardson

[GBinOz]

Returning to the topic, Richardson gave a time. Its approximate, he doesnt say "I arrived at exactly". He says "between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m." He estimates how long he was on the steps..."About two minutes at most". He addresses what he saw while on the steps..."Q: Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then." That statement is not as ambiguous, he "could not have failed to notice".

So....why would Phillips say she had been dead at least 2 hours at 6:30am? Incompetence? Really, really cold morning?
Phillips.."The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing."

Can we look at this case from the view of FACTS, setting aside all conjecture?

Fact: Annie was observed consuming a baked potato at around 12:30.
Fact: Donovan told Evans to get sleeping money from Annie, and she admitted not having the price, but asked that her bed be kept as she would return with said money. That was her priority, not another meal.
Fact: In an area where she was well known, no-one came forward to say that they had seen her either consuming further food, or soliciting, in the four hours before her body was found, except for Long regarding the latter.
Fact: Amelia and John Richardson testified that there was a bustle in the street due to market day. When Baxter raised the question with Long "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking?" she answered "Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning". So Annie picked a particular couple out of a crowd.
Fact: A recent post by Herlock contained a quote to the press that Long stated she would not be able to identify the couple should she see them again. She then claimed that the woman she had seen was Annie, whom she had never seen before, and identified her body as the woman she had seen that morning. Question: Was Long shown only one body, or asked to pick one out of a number of bodies?
Fact: Cadosch testified that the sounds that he heard that morning were nothing out of the ordinary.
Fact: The so called "Caveat" by Phillips cast some doubt on the temperature calculation, but rigor is usually retarded by cold temperature, not hastened, and the usual onset of rigor used at the time was two hours.
Fact: Phillips estimate of ToD places John Richardson at the scene of the murder around the time of death. The police investigation could not prove that Richardson was involved. Opinion: Serial killers have been known to lie.

The above FACTS persuade me that there is a slightly stronger probability for an earlier ToD than a later ToD. I appreciate that I am in a minority, but that does not dissuade me from that opinion, based on the factual evidence available at this stage.

Cheer, George

[Hair Bear]

Can we look at this case from the view of FACTS, setting aside all conjecture?

Fact: Annie was observed consuming a baked potato at around 12:30.
Fact: Donovan told Evans to get sleeping money from Annie, and she admitted not having the price, but asked that her bed be kept as she would return with said money. That was her priority, not another meal.
Fact: In an area where she was well known, no-one came forward to say that they had seen her either consuming further food, or soliciting, in the four hours before her body was found, except for Long regarding the latter.
Fact: Amelia and John Richardson testified that there was a bustle in the street due to market day. When Baxter raised the question with Long "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking?" she answered "Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning". So Annie picked a particular couple out of a crowd.
Fact: A recent post by Herlock contained a quote to the press that Long stated she would not be able to identify the couple should she see them again. She then claimed that the woman she had seen was Annie, whom she had never seen before, and identified her body as the woman she had seen that morning. Question: Was Long shown only one body, or asked to pick one out of a number of bodies?
Fact: Cadosch testified that the sounds that he heard that morning were nothing out of the ordinary.
Fact: The so called "Caveat" by Phillips cast some doubt on the temperature calculation, but rigor is usually retarded by cold temperature, not hastened, and the usual onset of rigor used at the time was two hours.
Fact: Phillips estimate of ToD places John Richardson at the scene of the murder around the time of death. The police investigation could not prove that Richardson was involved. Opinion: Serial killers have been known to lie.

The above FACTS persuade me that there is a slightly stronger probability for an earlier ToD than a later ToD. I appreciate that I am in a minority, but that does not dissuade me from that opinion, based on the factual evidence available at this stage.

Cheer, George

Very well put, but since you have listed several facts that to someone with minimal knowledge on this case would appear rather overwhelming, why are you only "slightly" minded to favour an earlier ToD? What is it about a later ToD that you can't help thinking might possibly be correct? (Apologies that I appear to only ever respond to your posts, but you argue well and always from a sound base of fact, so I'm typically interested in your thoughts.)

[GBinOz]

Very well put, but since you have listed several facts that to someone with minimal knowledge on this case would appear rather overwhelming, why are you only "slightly" minded to favour an earlier ToD? What is it about a later ToD that you can't help thinking might possibly be correct? (Apologies that I appear to only ever respond to your posts, but you argue well and always from a sound base of fact, so I'm typically interested in your thoughts.)

Hi Hair Bear,

Thank you for your kind remarks.

The techniques for assessing the ToD from a medical point of view are considered to be primitive by today's standard, not withstanding that in some of the other Whitechapel murders they were remarkable accurate. Jeff has produced statistical studies showing that, while both ToDs fall with the bell curve, the earlier is closer to the centre of the sample, and I have a high regard for his opinion.

While Cadosch testified that he didn't hear anything out of the ordinary, the fact remains that he could have been an ear witness to a murder.

Richardson was trying very hard to convince everyone that the body wasn't there when he was there, that he couldn't have failed to have seen it if it was there. This is what he told Chandler, but failed to mention the reason that he couldn't have failed to see it was he was sitting on the step. It is asked, would he be stupid enough to admit to having a knife at the murder scene, and perhaps this is the question he was certain would be posed. My question would be, was he stupid enough to attempt a boot repair sitting on a step in the dark when he had all ready failed to achieve a result in far more favourable conditions. On the other hand Chandler thought his testimony was genuine, and the police subjected him to intensive questioning and could not break his story, although they were of the opinion that the door obscured his view.

So, in forming an opinion I have looked at what I see as a preponderance of evidence which I feel tips the scale slightly towards the earlier ToD. But simply put, I could be wrong.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Can we look at this case from the view of FACTS, setting aside all conjecture?

Fact: Annie was observed consuming a baked potato at around 12:30.
Fact: Donovan told Evans to get sleeping money from Annie, and she admitted not having the price, but asked that her bed be kept as she would return with said money. That was her priority, not another meal.
Fact: In an area where she was well known, no-one came forward to say that they had seen her either consuming further food, or soliciting, in the four hours before her body was found, except for Long regarding the latter.
Fact: Amelia and John Richardson testified that there was a bustle in the street due to market day. When Baxter raised the question with Long "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking?" she answered "Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning". So Annie picked a particular couple out of a crowd.
Fact: A recent post by Herlock contained a quote to the press that Long stated she would not be able to identify the couple should she see them again. She then claimed that the woman she had seen was Annie, whom she had never seen before, and identified her body as the woman she had seen that morning. Question: Was Long shown only one body, or asked to pick one out of a number of bodies?
Fact: Cadosch testified that the sounds that he heard that morning were nothing out of the ordinary.
Fact: The so called "Caveat" by Phillips cast some doubt on the temperature calculation, but rigor is usually retarded by cold temperature, not hastened, and the usual onset of rigor used at the time was two hours.
Fact: Phillips estimate of ToD places John Richardson at the scene of the murder around the time of death. The police investigation could not prove that Richardson was involved. Opinion: Serial killers have been known to lie.

The above FACTS persuade me that there is a slightly stronger probability for an earlier ToD than a later ToD. I appreciate that I am in a minority, but that does not dissuade me from that opinion, based on the factual evidence available at this stage.

Cheer, George

Nice post George. I just wanted to make two comments.

------------------------

Fact: Amelia and John Richardson testified that there was a bustle in the street due to market day. When Baxter raised the question with Long "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking?" she answered "Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning". So Annie picked a particular couple out of a crowd.

Long's response, however, doesn't seem to refer to her seeing lots of them that particular morning, but rather that it is not unusual to see various men and woman (possibly always just a single couple on any particular day to give one extreme, but a couple is a common sight, and it is often different couples). Also on this point, Richardson does say he often checked on market days due to it generally being busy, but I don't think he says it was actually busy on that particular marking morning. Evidence to suggest it might not have been can be found in that Davies didn't just grab someone right in the street, but had to go up the road a bit to find help. On the other hand, he didn't have to run many blocks either, so it wasn't deserted by 6:00 am, but it doesn't sound like there was a throng of people either.

-------------------------

Fact: The so called "Caveat" by Phillips cast some doubt on the temperature calculation, but rigor is usually retarded by cold temperature, not hastened, and the usual onset of rigor used at the time was two hours.

In one of the previous threads I had posted some findings from research on the time course of rigor, and it is as variable as temperature, and has as much variability. In fact, it is possibly even worse as the measurement of rigor is entirely subjective, whereas temperature can at least be objectively measured (there is no objective measure of rigor mortis). The 95% confident ranges, which is the standard range used for when dealing with unknown information, included all of the times that are being considered, so again, as with a temperature based ToD, which Dr. Phillip's testimony implies is what he used, rigor based estimates also leaves us in an ambiguous situation. While cold does tend to slow it down, the factors that speed it up and slow it down are many. Ones that speed it up can be physical exhaustion, which if Annie was up and walking around all night, would apply. Illnesses can do either, so we can't really say which way to interpret Annie's poor health. Violent death, such as throat cutting (this is listed specifically), is known to increase rigor mortis onset as well. And finally there's the usual problem of the fact that two otherwise similar bodies, under similar conditions, will still tend to follow their own idiosyncratic time course of rigor mortis.

Anyway, I'm not questioning your interpretations or anything, just offering some food for thought on the first point, and offering some further information from studies I've read on the second.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Nice post George. I just wanted to make two comments.

------------------------

Fact: Amelia and John Richardson testified that there was a bustle in the street due to market day. When Baxter raised the question with Long "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking?" she answered "Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning". So Annie picked a particular couple out of a crowd.

Long's response, however, doesn't seem to refer to her seeing lots of them that particular morning, but rather that it is not unusual to see various men and woman (possibly always just a single couple on any particular day to give one extreme, but a couple is a common sight, and it is often different couples). Also on this point, Richardson does say he often checked on market days due to it generally being busy, but I don't think he says it was actually busy on that particular marking morning. Evidence to suggest it might not have been can be found in that Davies didn't just grab someone right in the street, but had to go up the road a bit to find help. On the other hand, he didn't have to run many blocks either, so it wasn't deserted by 6:00 am, but it doesn't sound like there was a throng of people either.

-------------------------

Fact: The so called "Caveat" by Phillips cast some doubt on the temperature calculation, but rigor is usually retarded by cold temperature, not hastened, and the usual onset of rigor used at the time was two hours.

In one of the previous threads I had posted some findings from research on the time course of rigor, and it is as variable as temperature, and has as much variability. In fact, it is possibly even worse as the measurement of rigor is entirely subjective, whereas temperature can at least be objectively measured (there is no objective measure of rigor mortis). The 95% confident ranges, which is the standard range used for when dealing with unknown information, included all of the times that are being considered, so again, as with a temperature based ToD, which Dr. Phillip's testimony implies is what he used, rigor based estimates also leaves us in an ambiguous situation. While cold does tend to slow it down, the factors that speed it up and slow it down are many. Ones that speed it up can be physical exhaustion, which if Annie was up and walking around all night, would apply. Illnesses can do either, so we can't really say which way to interpret Annie's poor health. Violent death, such as throat cutting (this is listed specifically), is known to increase rigor mortis onset as well. And finally there's the usual problem of the fact that two otherwise similar bodies, under similar conditions, will still tend to follow their own idiosyncratic time course of rigor mortis.

Anyway, I'm not questioning your interpretations or anything, just offering some food for thought on the first point, and offering some further information from studies I've read on the second.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I agree that it is difficult to assess just how many people, or couples, might have been in the street that morning, but I have my doubts that it was just the one couple that was seen by Long.

As I explained to Hair Bear, it is largely your posts and analyses that keep my probability meter hovering around the centre.

Best regards, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fact: Phillips estimate of ToD places John Richardson at the scene of the murder around the time of death. The police investigation could not prove that Richardson was involved. Opinion: Serial killers have been known to lie.

Good post, George, but I would dispute this particular 'fact'.

Dr Phillips clearly stated that he believed Annie had been dead at least two hours and probably more. Probably more meaning probably more hours, as opposed to probably more beans.

I think it is reasonable to believe that Dr Phillips' opinion was that Annie was dead by 3.30am but at a push 4.30am at the very latest.

It follows that Dr Phillips' estimate does not place John Richardson there around the time.

[GBinOz]

Good post, George, but I would dispute this particular 'fact'.

Dr Phillips clearly stated that he believed Annie had been dead at least two hours and probably more. Probably more meaning probably more hours, as opposed to probably more beans.

I think it is reasonable to believe that Dr Phillips' opinion was that Annie was dead by 3.30am but at a push 4.30am at the very latest.

It follows that Dr Phillips' estimate does not place John Richardson there around the time.

Hi FM,

I'm not quite following you here.
[Coroner to Phillips] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more;
Phillips saw her at 6:30, less two hours is 4:30, probably more is before that time.
John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last.

For an estimate of ToD, that's close enough for me.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

Dr Phillips clearly stated that he believed Annie had been dead at least two hours and probably more. Probably more meaning probably more hours, as opposed to probably more beans.

I think it is reasonable to believe that Dr Phillips' opinion was that Annie was dead by 3.30am but at a push 4.30am at the very latest.

It follows that Dr Phillips' estimate does not place John Richardson there around the time.

I think that if we are going to use Dr Phillips as a reference, we must take into account everything he said, and not just the part that suits our theories.

He did tell the inquest that he expressed the opinion that Annie had been dead for two hours and probably more, "when he first saw her" - that is at the murder site. However, at the later post mortem he discovered the full extent of her mutilations and evisceration, and the crucial fact that she was actually ill and dying, all factors which could affect his estimated ToD. He chose to advise the inquest of the additional information, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood."

He deliberately chose to provide that information, without any questioning or prompting, so he had obviously decided that this was something that the inquest needed to know. For some reason, he also chose not to qualify this statement with the clarity of a revised estimate. We are therefore left with Dr Phillips giving his original estimate, and then saying that it could be wrong, and a later ToD was possible. He was a very experienced police surgeon and he knew that his new evidence was allowing other witness statements to be seriously considered and not rejected.

We also know that Victorian doctors' estimated ToDs were not as accurate as modern estimates, and that modern estimates not only use more accurate means of measurement and evaluation, but also provide a wider range of possible times.

It follows that Dr Phillips' evidence does not exclude the possibility that Richardson was correct.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

I'm not quite following you here.
[Coroner to Phillips] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more;
Phillips saw her at 6:30, less two hours is 4:30, probably more is before that time.
John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last.

For an estimate of ToD, that's close enough for me.

Cheers, George

I think your reading is the unlikely interpretation, George.

Dr Phillips specifically spoke in hours as a measure. When he said probably more, it is likely that he meant probably more hours.

What you're suggesting is that Dr Phillips meant this: at least two hours and probably more minutes. That's not a reasonable conclusion drawn from a man who knew the importance of that which he was stating, his professionalism and his education.

His measure was hours. He stated that. So when he said: at least two hours and probably more, it is likely that he meant another hour/s.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think that if we are going to use Dr Phillips as a reference, we must take into account everything he said, and not just the part that suits our theories.

This is a bad start and disingenuous.

It's nothing to do with a theory, but that's what we see on these boards: posters attempt to deflect by virtue of some supposed theory at play.

Dr Phillips stated: "at least two hours and probably more". In the event you're going to argue he didn't mean that, then what was the point of him stating it? Was he an idiot? Did he not realise the importance of the situation and the need to give a clear picture? Was he not an educated man who in no way, shape or form would have said "at least two hours and probably more" in the event he didn't mean it?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I agree that it is difficult to assess just how many people, or couples, might have been in the street that morning, but I have my doubts that it was just the one couple that was seen by Long.

As I explained to Hair Bear, it is largely your posts and analyses that keep my probability meter hovering around the centre.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I agree, it is difficult to know, and I hope I didn't come across as suggesting there was only one couple, rather it is not clear if Long is telling us there were many, or if her statement means it was simply not uncommon to see a couple in the area. I tend to find that when we look at the witness statements, many things that we think are clearly stated might, in fact, have meant something quite different. Language is a fairly crude tool, but we are often fooled into thinking it is more precise than it is - the source of most misunderstandings in my experience. Often, to ensure clarity, we require lots of questions to really narrow down what someone is saying, but in the inquests we often do not get that level of questioning.

My purpose for my post wasn't to suggest your interpretation was wrong, only that it is not the only reasonable one. And the problem for us, looking at the case from this distance, is that which reasonable interpretation we consider leads to very different implications. As such, this is exactly the kind of thing that if we could interview Long we would want to clear up.

As for the medical information, that's sort of the same issue. It is like an ambiguous statement, it supports either possibility (early and late Tod), and that has been my main point really. It is up to each of us to decide how to deal with all this ambiguous information. I recognize there are choices that lead to both conclusions, as do you (which is refreshing by the way).

I think our differences arise from how we then approach things, and also in our own subjective ideas of the underlying probabilities. This is fine, and in some ways, a good thing. It means different approaches to the data analysis are being employed, and because they lead to different conclusions, a big caution sign gets raised (I'm a big fan of the big caution sign after all ).

I draw my preference from the fact I see more of those decision trees leading to the late ToD. While i don't wish to speak for you, I get the impression you feel the probabilities are such that the earlier ToD should still be favoured despite the fact that to get there one has to choose a particular combination (Richardson couldn't see into the area, so missed the body; Long did not see Annie, regardless of the time; the voices Cadosche heard came from elsewhere and the noise against the fence was not the sounds of a person against the fence), leaving the medical evidence, and you feel that leans towards an earlier ToD. If the odds for the witnesses are indeed high enough in those directions, then that single specific combination (I will call it the "all are wrong" combination merely for simple descriptive purposes and I do not intend it as any sort of slight) may indeed be more probable than all other combinations (the set of "one or more correct" theories). My weighting of those odds is such that it is more likely than not for at least one of those witnesses should be considered "correct" (without having to favour any particular one of them). If at least one of them is correct, that would rule out the earlier ToD, but at the same time I accept there is enough of a probability that all of them are "wrong" so we cannot dismiss the "all wrong" idea completely. Meaning, I too think we cannot decisively conclude it must have been a later ToD. However, if left only with the medical evidence, in my view the odds for early vs late are similar enough that I see it as a coin toss, which to me indicates that at best it is a 50/50 guess, and given it would be decisive if any of the witnesses are correct, then overall the odds still favour the later ToD.

Again, I'm just trying to clarify my own approach and how I come to the views I have. Where I mention how I think you are approaching things, that is not intended as pointing out an error in your approach in any way, only trying to see if I've understood your thinking and to highlight how, despite having the same information, we get to our respective conclusions.

In the end, we favour different outcomes, so clearly there is something different in how we work through the evidence. I'm less concerned with the fact we get to different conclusions (the information is, after all, insufficient for anyone to draw a firm conclusion), and more intrigued by the underlying thinking and decision making we are each following that results in our ending up leaning in opposite directions.

As always, you've given me some food for thought. Cheers.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

This is a bad start and disingenuous.

It's nothing to do with a theory, but that's what we see on these boards: posters attempt to deflect by virtue of some supposed theory at play.

Dr Phillips stated: "at least two hours and probably more". In the event you're going to argue he didn't mean that, then what was the point of him stating it? Was he an idiot? Did he not realise the importance of the situation and the need to give a clear picture? Was he not an educated man who in no way, shape or form would have said "at least two hours and probably more" in the event he didn't mean it?

He clearly said much more than that, and it is totally incorrect to deliberately ignore the conclusion to that sentence.

Of course he wasn't an idiot, and of course he was an educated man. That is why he chose to give the inquest the full picture, and not just his original thoughts made at the murder scene, which he believed at that time. He would not have added his very clear caveat giving his up to date opinion if he didn't mean it!

[Fleetwood Mac]

He would not have added his very clear caveat giving his up to date opinion if he didn't mean it!

You must see the difference.

You're making an assumption on what the caveat meant, whereas I'm saying Dr Phillips clearly stated 'two hours and probably more'. You see the difference? That which he actually stated as opposed to your interpretation of 'the caveat' 150 years later.

Your interpretation of the caveat is that Dr Phillips didn't actually mean 'at least two hours and probably more', which, to be quite frank, is nonsensical.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

I'm not quite following you here.
[Coroner to Phillips] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more;
Phillips saw her at 6:30, less two hours is 4:30, probably more is before that time.
John Richardson, of John-street, Spitalfields, market porter, said: I assist my mother in her business. I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last.

For an estimate of ToD, that's close enough for me.

Cheers, George

Think of it like this, George:

Were I to estimate there were at least 40 cars there and probably more, you'd know I was talking about more cars.

Were I to estimate there were at least 300 people there and probably more, you'd know I was talking about more people.

Were Dr Phillips to say, at least two hours and probably more, you'd know he was talking about more hour/s.

Cars, people, hours is the operative word in each sentence.

[GBinOz]

I think our differences arise from how we then approach things, and also in our own subjective ideas of the underlying probabilities. This is fine, and in some ways, a good thing. It means different approaches to the data analysis are being employed, and because they lead to different conclusions, a big caution sign gets raised (I'm a big fan of the big caution sign after all ).

I draw my preference from the fact I see more of those decision trees leading to the late ToD. While i don't wish to speak for you, I get the impression you feel the probabilities are such that the earlier ToD should still be favoured despite the fact that to get there one has to choose a particular combination (Richardson couldn't see into the area, so missed the body; Long did not see Annie, regardless of the time; the voices Cadosche heard came from elsewhere and the noise against the fence was not the sounds of a person against the fence), leaving the medical evidence, and you feel that leans towards an earlier ToD. If the odds for the witnesses are indeed high enough in those directions, then that single specific combination (I will call it the "all are wrong" combination merely for simple descriptive purposes and I do not intend it as any sort of slight) may indeed be more probable than all other combinations (the set of "one or more correct" theories). My weighting of those odds is such that it is more likely than not for at least one of those witnesses should be considered "correct" (without having to favour any particular one of them). If at least one of them is correct, that would rule out the earlier ToD, but at the same time I accept there is enough of a probability that all of them are "wrong" so we cannot dismiss the "all wrong" idea completely. Meaning, I too think we cannot decisively conclude it must have been a later ToD. However, if left only with the medical evidence, in my view the odds for early vs late are similar enough that I see it as a coin toss, which to me indicates that at best it is a 50/50 guess, and given it would be decisive if any of the witnesses are correct, then overall the odds still favour the later ToD.

In the end, we favour different outcomes, so clearly there is something different in how we work through the evidence. I'm less concerned with the fact we get to different conclusions (the information is, after all, insufficient for anyone to draw a firm conclusion), and more intrigued by the underlying thinking and decision making we are each following that results in our ending up leaning in opposite directions.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I always enjoy our little exchanges, and this one is no exception.

I'm glad you mention "coin toss" with regard to the medical evidence, as I also see it applying to the witnesses. Many moons ago when I studied statistics and probabilities, the coin toss example was raised, and it was noted that while statistically a series of coin tosses will yield a 50/50 result, this applies only for an infinite sample. Each individual toss has a 50/50 result, regardless of the previous results. If we apply this to the witnesses, we would, IMO, have to consider a far larger sample than just three to statistically discount the "all are wrong" combination, which you have also acknowledged later in your post.

One important consideration that I didn't include in my original post because I perceive it as more of an opinion than a fact, is the daylight factor. I considered the likelihood of Jack exposing himself to detection with a murder in daylight in an amphitheatre of potential witnesses, and added to this the probability of him persevering in his task when a witness had already passed within feet of his activities. He couldn't have known how much Cadosch heard, or anticipated how he would react. Would he have continued after Cadosch's second pass, knowing that Cadosch must have heard him bump the fence? Given that in the outdoor murders before and after this one he chose to leave at first sign of interruption, I put these factors in a highly unlikely basket to be added to the earlier ToD side of the scales.

Just a few more pieces to add to your jigsaw puzzle of my thinking and deduction processes. You are not the only one that is in possession of that puzzle.

Best regards, George