Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
    But nothing changes the fact that nothing that we have learned so far in any way eliminates Druitt.
    And if that is true then it also applies to 99.99% of the population of the East End. And, as I keep pointing out, but you continually disregard, that eliminating Druitt is not what needs to be done. I'm sure that lots of people can be eliminated as being Jack. But, it's going to be downright impossible to eliminate everybody who might have been the murderer. Let's start with the whole population of the East End. Where are all the alibis for every resident? But why should we follow that course? If we need to try and prove that anyone was the killer we look, not to eliminate him, but to prove he dunnit. Edward and Christer have, to that end, constructed a case for Cross/Lechmere. I don't agree that it's a valid case but at least it contains more than a mention of a name. There is no such case against Druitt. Nothing. No connection with the East End. No indication he ever went there. The only thing anyone has is that MacN put his name in a memo, which is categorically full of errors. There's no argument about that because the errors can be shown to be errors (or lies or whatever you want to call them). The memo wasn't addressed to anyone, which is in itself strange. It obviously had the purpose of eliminating Cutbush from the press story. And yet it never saw the light of day until Farson came across it. There must have been a reason to suppress it. And that reason is likely to be that it was such an appalling document that any seasoned reporter would tear it apart. (I exclude the likes of Sims who both flattered MacN and used him as a source).

    If, for a moment, we look at everything that is known about Druitt and disregard the memo, is there anything at all that would cause him to be suspected? The answer is a categorical NO. To rephrase your statement above; nothing changes the fact that nothing that we have learned so far in any way incriminates Druitt.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
      It’s only in very recent years with the advent of floodlights and the use of a white cricket ball a coloured clothing which has allowed some games to begin in the afternoon.
      Off-topic, but recently there was a short documentary on cricket that aired in the U.S., and I was both amused and appalled to see matches preceded by fireworks, go-go dancers, rock & roll performances, etc. One old purist was so disgusted by the spectacle that he looked like he was ready to go drown himself in the Thames. Of course, our 'Super Bowl' is even more ridiculous.

      Comment


      • You have to make a prior appointment with Dorset Archives - no popping in on spec.

        East Dorset society would have been fairly limited and date I say unsophisticated. They would all know each other. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them harboured doubts about Montague's sexuality and jumped to the wrong conclusions with his suicide and trouble at that boys school.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
          You have to make a proor appointment with Dorset Archives - no popping in on spec.

          East Dorset society would have been fairly limited and date I say unsophisticated. They would all know each other. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them harboured doubts about Montague's sexuality and jumped to the wrong conclusions with his suicide and trouble at that boys school.
          I’ll have to wait until I’m back in Dorset for an extended period. Popping down there and back in a day to satisfy our morbid curiosity about Montie would be a bit odd.

          (Actually I’ve done it several times before in order to sit and dream on Eggardon Hill for a few hours.)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

            But Mike, it clearly isn’t only in very recent years that matches were started in the mid-afternoon. That one notice I posted showing dozens of matches being started in mid afternoon suggests it was the norm in the Croydon area in 1888.

            I can dig out loads more if it’s still an issue.
            No I accept that of course Gary. I was only posting to explain why a one innings game might have begun at 11.00 or 12.00 and that it didn’t have to begin later just because it was of shorter duration. It was only really for Chris’s information as he’s not a cricket fan.
            Regards

            Michael🔎


            " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

              Firstly, and for 1,534th time, I have not said, and have never in 35 years of interest in the case said, that Druitt was the killer. Will this simple FACT ever sink in.

              Secondly, why do you assume that he went to London specifically to kill? He not only lived in London but he worked there. How do you know (or how is it unlikely) that he might have had some kind of meeting during the day on the 31st and that’s why he travelled back? We have no way of knowing these things so why make an assumption? Unless to set up a straw man point of course.

              Thirdly, if Druitt was the killer (and for the 1,534th time I’m not saying that he was) then he was a serial killer. How can any of us say that we could know his thought processes or be aware of what he felt or didn’t feel was a reasonable thing to have done?
              If he had a meeting in London, why would he play a cricket match where he had no idea how long it would go on? That could very well get in the way of his business trip to London, could it not?
              "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

              Comment


              • Yes playing a flying visit of that distance would be the work of a psychopath

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                  A friend who is knowledgeable about cricket pointed out to me last night that until 1888 an over normally contained only 4 balls, not 6.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_(...n_Test_cricket

                  He also suggested the possibility that this could have been planned as a match of two innings per side, like some of the others whose details have been posted here, but terminated because of the weather.
                  Indeed, I had forgotten the change did not occur until 89.
                  Such suggests an even faster game.
                  I am a cricket expert, and I had forgotten

                  Not sure how many games would have attempted a full 4 innings match in one day. Very few if any I suggest, but I stand to be corrected.

                  Again a full scorecard would tell us all we needed to know Chris.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post

                    Was the match actually a Test match? I think not.
                    first class games Phil, although this would not be first class, but no resson to think clubs played to different laws( rules in cricket are quaintly called laws)

                    https://acscricket.com/?page_id=464

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                      Yes playing a flying visit of that distance would be the work of a psychopath
                      I prefer a footpath.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                        We've been discussing the "return match" on 30 August, This looks to me like the first match, played at Wareham on 21 July, as reported by the Blandford Weekly News on 28 July 1888. No Druitt, but still a win for the Isle of Purbeck on the first innings, "time not allowing the game to be finished":

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	BlandfordWeeklyNews1888-07-28.jpg
Views:	121
Size:	83.1 KB
ID:	588681
                        Strongly suggesting these were one innings games.
                        No indication of end point.

                        Alas with out overs bowled here on on 30th no way of knowing time.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                          This is from the Croydon Gazette of 8th September, 1888:
                          Nice find, but times do still vary. But suggesting a later start was likely, at least in the Croyden area.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                            Yes, some matches began at 2.30 or 3.30, etc. but it's just as easy to find reports like the one below. The game started at noon, and there was a lunch break at 2.00 pm


                            Click image for larger version Name:	Luncheon Break.jpg Views:	0 Size:	82.6 KB ID:	588696



                            This match was on a Friday, but there are also a few Thursday games that mention luncheon breaks. With nothing definitive, I'll wait to see if Edward Stow can bring us any joy.
                            Again a nice find.
                            I suspect we will find all variations on starting times.

                            We need either a full match report, which I think is unlikely, or a full scorecard, almost as unlikely

                            Steve

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Steve Blomer View Post

                              Strongly suggesting these were one innings games.
                              No indication of end point.
                              Sorry, I don't follow that. They completed one innings, but couldn't finish the game because they didn't have time. Nearly all their matches are reported as two innings, or else not completed through lack of time.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post

                                And if that is true then it also applies to 99.99% of the population of the East End. And, as I keep pointing out, but you continually disregard, that eliminating Druitt is not what needs to be done. I'm sure that lots of people can be eliminated as being Jack. But, it's going to be downright impossible to eliminate everybody who might have been the murderer. Let's start with the whole population of the East End. Where are all the alibis for every resident? But why should we follow that course? If we need to try and prove that anyone was the killer we look, not to eliminate him, but to prove he dunnit. Edward and Christer have, to that end, constructed a case for Cross/Lechmere. I don't agree that it's a valid case but at least it contains more than a mention of a name. There is no such case against Druitt. Nothing. No connection with the East End. No indication he ever went there. The only thing anyone has is that MacN put his name in a memo, which is categorically full of errors. There's no argument about that because the errors can be shown to be errors (or lies or whatever you want to call them). The memo wasn't addressed to anyone, which is in itself strange. It obviously had the purpose of eliminating Cutbush from the press story. And yet it never saw the light of day until Farson came across it. There must have been a reason to suppress it. And that reason is likely to be that it was such an appalling document that any seasoned reporter would tear it apart. (I exclude the likes of Sims who both flattered MacN and used him as a source).

                                If, for a moment, we look at everything that is known about Druitt and disregard the memo, is there anything at all that would cause him to be suspected? The answer is a categorical NO. To rephrase your statement above; nothing changes the fact that nothing that we have learned so far in any way incriminates Druitt.
                                But what’s the point of this argument Phil? You can make the same point to any supporter of Maybrick and a debate could go on and on and on. My interest is in why it clearly annoys you so much that someone simply disagrees with you about the Memorandum? I’ve even absolutely accepted that the Private Information might have been wrong or that Macnaughten might have misinterpreted the Private Information but that doesn’t seem to be enough for you. You seem to have one goal only - to get me (and everyone) to believe that Macnaughten was some kind of compulsive liar and that he plucked Druitt’s name out of thin air. Sorry, but I don’t believe that for a minute. It begins to sound like some deep-seated Macnaughten vendetta. Many people don’t regard Druitt as a worthy suspect so they simply disregard him, so I have to ask why you feel the need to try and ‘prove’ something that’s absolutely impossible to prove or disprove?

                                Apart from the Memorandum (including the Private Info) we have nothing solid of course. I’ve never claimed otherwise. And this is why you are so intent on dismissing the Memorandum. There are enough things in the case of Druitt (mentioned by Hainsworth so I know that you’re well aware of them) to make me, and others interested. Nothing solid of course but a series of potential hints. Consider them or ignore them; it’s up to the individual. It doesn’t make me angry that you disregard Druitt so why does it clearly anger you that I and some others don’t. The only thing that annoys me is that some posters imply that I’m either barking mad or hopelessly biased about a suspect and no matter how many times I explain my thoughts on Druitt they completely disregard it so that they can plough on with their desperate need to eliminate a suspect that they supposedly had no interest in. It’s getting to the stage where I have to re-read my posts just to double-check that I have mistakenly typed “Druitt was the ripper!” Do we need to go on with this? It’s like living in Groundhog Day.
                                Regards

                                Michael🔎


                                " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X