Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Patrick S]

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to spend at the boards reading up, so please forgive my ignorance if the answer to my question should be obvious.

I am still confused about this mysterious sentence from Chas. Andrew Cross' inquest testimony as reported by the daily telegraph:
"Just then they heard a policeman coming."

Is there anybody else confused or am I the only one? Whom did they hear? Is it likely a misreporting or a devilishly cunning part of the 'Mizen Scam'?

Thanks for any update or ideas,
IchabodCrane

Wonderful question, Ichabod! I cannot wait to hear Christer's reply! Although, I'll chime in and say that there is no way that this could be "misreporting". You see, the journalists of the time were so meticulous in their research and accurate in their reporting that we are able to derive "blood evidence" from the pages of these 127 year old bits of rock solid journalism. Further, we can count upon each word to help us create firm timetables, knowing exactly where people were at precise times! The words of good, honest, noble Mizen are reprinted verbatim, allowing us to know exactly what was said, by whom, and when. Neil is truthful and forthright at all times! The reporters are professional and truthful, as are all involved....except Paul and Cross....couple a goddam liars, them.

[IchabodCrane]

"Just then they heard a policeman coming."

Hi,

thanks for the replies. I think if they heard footsteps coming (=approaching), whomever they heard would have been the first one to discover the body after them.

If it was PC Thain then it is mysterious because he didn't come across the body and it was not his beat to pass through Buck's row. Or was it?

If it was PC Neil after all then it is mysterious they didn't run into him.

I think a misreporting is the best explanation, it should best be put down as an embellishment of the reporting journalist (who cannot have employed much thinking when he wrote the piece).

But then this doesn't alter anything in that judging from the known facts, Cross was standing near the body at a time shortly after the murder happened. Whatever that may mean, and I think there have been countless threads and posts about it already.

[GUT]

Wonderful question, Ichabod! I cannot wait to hear Christer's reply! Although, I'll chime in and say that there is no way that this could be "misreporting". You see, the journalists of the time were so meticulous in their research and accurate in their reporting that we are able to derive "blood evidence" from the pages of these 127 year old bits of rock solid journalism. Further, we can count upon each word to help us create firm timetables, knowing exactly where people were at precise times! The words of good, honest, noble Mizen are reprinted verbatim, allowing us to know exactly what was said, by whom, and when. Neil is truthful and forthright at all times! The reporters are professional and truthful, as are all involved....except Paul and Cross....couple a goddam liars, them.

Sorry don't you mean "... Except Baul and Cross ..."?

[Patrick S]

Sorry don't you mean "... Except Baul and Cross ..."?

Baul and George Cross. Er, Andrew...uh...Allen.... Either way...liars. Thail is truthful, of course..... G. (for Jonas) Mizen, as I mentioned, ROCK solid reporting with respect to him.

[Patrick S]

Hi,

thanks for the replies. I think if they heard footsteps coming (=approaching), whomever they heard would have been the first one to discover the body after them.

If it was PC Thain then it is mysterious because he didn't come across the body and it was not his beat to pass through Buck's row. Or was it?

If it was PC Neil after all then it is mysterious they didn't run into him.

I think a misreporting is the best explanation, it should best be put down as an embellishment of the reporting journalist (who cannot have employed much thinking when he wrote the piece).

But then this doesn't alter anything in that judging from the known facts, Cross was standing near the body at a time shortly after the murder happened. Whatever that may mean, and I think there have been countless threads and posts about it already.

I've always chalked it up as bad reporting, as I always have anything that doesn't fit. This sentence, to me, always seemed not to fit. Because, in the end, the two agree to go off and find a policeman. Why would they do that if one was approaching? Further Cross says on the stand that he did not tell Mizen he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row because he didn't see a policeman there. Its doubtful that there's an unspoken caviat there...."But I did hear one..."

[Fisherman]

How long does it take to walk from the murder scene in Bucks Row to Bakers row junction?

Less than a minute.

Hardly nowhere near the scene

Monty

This will be the only bit I tend to tonight - maybe tomorrow I feel up for a little more, but I am anything but sure.

The distance from the murder scene to where the carmen found Mizen was approximately 285 meters, as measured by the very conscientious Frank van Oploo: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9056&page=65

If you walk that in less than a minute, you´ve pulled a fast one.

Nighty-night.

[GUT]

Baul and George Cross. Er, Andrew...uh...Allen.... Either way...liars. Thail is truthful, of course..... G. (for Jonas) Mizen, as I mentioned, ROCK solid reporting with respect to him.

Funny how the press reported some people spot on and got it so wrong with others.

[Monty]

This will be the only bit I tend to tonight - maybe tomorrow I feel up for a little more, but I am anything but sure.

The distance from the murder scene to where the carmen found Mizen was approximately 285 meters, as measured by the very conscientious Frank van Oploo: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9056&page=65

If you walk that in less than a minute, you´ve pulled a fast one.

Nighty-night.

I've walked it many a time...its less than a minute.

Monty

[Fisherman]

I've walked it many a time...its less than a minute.

Monty

From the net:
"The preferred walking speed is the speed at which humans or other animals choose to walk. In the absence of significant external factors, many humans tend to walk at about 1.4 m/s (5.0 km/h; 3.1 mph).[1][2][3] Although many humans are capable of walking at speeds upwards of 2.5 m/s (9.0 km/h; 5.6 mph), especially for short distances, humans typically choose not to."

1,4 meters per second. That equates to 14 meters per 10 seconds. It equates to 140 meters per 100 seconds. So 285 meters will take 203 seconds to walk. That means three minutes and 23 seconds.

If you walk at 2,5 meters per second, you will make 25 meters per ten seconds and 250 meters per 100 seconds. In that case, 285 meters are covered in 107 seconds, meaning one minute and 47 seconds.

"Many humans are capable of walking at speeds upwards of 2,5 meters per second."

Apparently, you are twice as fast. Covering ten meters per two seconds, approximately.

I´m impressed. And at the same time, I am not.

Goodnight now, Monty.

PS. I note that you write "to the Bakers Row junction" and Mizen was further up, at the Hanbury St / Bakers Row junction. I trust that is what we are measuring since no other distance is of interest...

[GUT]

I've walked it many a time...its less than a minute.

Monty

I'm pretty much an invalid and think I could do 285m in under a minute

[Phil Carter]

Maths time..

If a policeman walks at 4mph
A distance of 285 metres.
Which is 311.68 yards
He takes 159 secs to complete the distance.
That's 2 minutes 39 secs.

Even walking at 8mh (which I do not believe policemen did..I bow to other expert confirmation) it would take
1min 19secs.

So the distance measured is incorrect if the policeman walked at 4mph or 8mph in order for the policeman to walk there in 60 secs.

Even at a brisk 6mph...311.68 yards would take said policeman almost exactly 2 mins to cover the distance.

In order for the policeman to get there in 60 secs @4mph The distance would have to be far less. Likewise 6mph and 8mph.

Just a bit of mathematics. No other observation.



Phil

[Fisherman]

I'm pretty much an invalid and think I could do 285m in under a minute

Walking? TEN meters per two seconds? Really?

Give it a try!

[Fisherman]

Maths time..

If a policeman walks at 4mph
A distance of 285 metres.
Which is 311.68 yards
He takes 159 secs to complete the distance.
That's 2 minutes 39 secs.

Even walking at 8mh (which I do not believe policemen did..I bow to other expert confirmation) it would take
1min 19secs.

So the distance measured is incorrect if the policeman walked at 4mph or 8mph in order for the policeman to walk there in secs.

Even at a brisk 6mph...311.68 yards would take said policeman almost exactly 2 mins to cover the distance.

In order for the policeman to get there in 60 secs @4mph The distance would have to be far less. Likewise 6mph and 8mph.

Just a bit of mathematics. No other observation.



Phil

Yep, Phil. And thanks for this! Maybe Monty is a regular Mo Farrah...?

REALLY have to hit the sack now... Good to hear from you, Phil!

[Monty]

Maths time..

If a policeman walks at 4mph
A distance of 285 metres.
Which is 311.68 yards
He takes 159 secs to complete the distance.
That's 2 minutes 39 secs.

Even walking at 8mh (which I do not believe policemen did..I bow to other expert confirmation) it would take
1min 19secs.

So the distance measured is incorrect if the policeman walked at 4mph or 8mph in order for the policeman to walk there in 60 secs.

Even at a brisk 6mph...311.68 yards would take said policeman almost exactly 2 mins to cover the distance.

In order for the policeman to get there in 60 secs @4mph The distance would have to be far less. Likewise 6mph and 8mph.

Just a bit of mathematics. No other observation.



Phil

Actually you make a valid point Phil,

We should take this at night beat pace of 2 1/2 mph.

Either way, we are talking minutes difference. Hardly something to be concerned with.

Monty

[Monty]

From the net:
"The preferred walking speed is the speed at which humans or other animals choose to walk. In the absence of significant external factors, many humans tend to walk at about 1.4 m/s (5.0 km/h; 3.1 mph).[1][2][3] Although many humans are capable of walking at speeds upwards of 2.5 m/s (9.0 km/h; 5.6 mph), especially for short distances, humans typically choose not to."

1,4 meters per second. That equates to 14 meters per 10 seconds. It equates to 140 meters per 100 seconds. So 285 meters will take 203 seconds to walk. That means three minutes and 23 seconds.

If you walk at 2,5 meters per second, you will make 25 meters per ten seconds and 250 meters per 100 seconds. In that case, 285 meters are covered in 107 seconds, meaning one minute and 47 seconds.

"Many humans are capable of walking at speeds upwards of 2,5 meters per second."

Apparently, you are twice as fast. Covering ten meters per two seconds, approximately.

I´m impressed. And at the same time, I am not.

Goodnight now, Monty.

PS. I note that you write "to the Bakers Row junction" and Mizen was further up, at the Hanbury St / Bakers Row junction. I trust that is what we are measuring since no other distance is of interest...

Still doing the James Brown impressions I see Christer....just one more tune huh?

I meant exactly what I stated, Bakers Street Junction. As that is PC Neils turn, and therefore most relevant.

We are taliking minutes, this does not put Neil way off his beat at all.

Monty