Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • Originally posted by Steve Blomer View Post

    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
    Steve, as there are newspaper reports of games starting at 3.30 in the afternoon I think that unless we have a definitive end of game time that no conclusions can be drawn as to start time, end time, time for each over or length of over. Indeed, it is only the end time that is of any interest. The suggestion of a 4 o'clock start seems plausible, even if unusual. The fact, however, is that MJD was in the vicinity of his family home within a space of 3 days during school holiday times. The suggestion that he had to go back to London in the interim is fairly laughable. It is more than unlikely that he had to go back to the school for that one particular day and almost no chance that he had to go to his legal chambers other than to accept a brief (and there's no evidence that shortly after these days he appeared in any court). In order for anyone to accept that he did go back to London the only reason would have been that he went there, somehow hung around until 3 a.m. in Whitechapel, committed the first murder in a series and then returned for a second cricket match. I submit that is more than a stretch of imagination - it's farcical.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

      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.
      Sorry Chris , I forget we are not all watchers or players.

      The norm is to refer to a game where both sides have one innings as a 1 innings game.
      Limited overs or non first class on the whole.

      Tests , county and first class, where each side bats twice are often if not always called two innings games.

      It's shorthand for us players, or in my case now ex players

      Steve

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

        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?
        It’s according to what time the game started. How many ‘what if’s’ do you want to throw in Fish? How about, ‘what if’ he had a meeting at 1pm on the 31st and so intended to stay over night and catch a train the next morning? ‘What if’ he hadn’t intended to return for the second game but his plans changed?
        Regards

        Michael🔎


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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post

          Steve, as there are newspaper reports of games starting at 3.30 in the afternoon I think that unless we have a definitive end of game time that no conclusions can be drawn as to start time, end time, time for each over or length of over. Indeed, it is only the end time that is of any interest. The suggestion of a 4 o'clock start seems plausible, even if unusual. The fact, however, is that MJD was in the vicinity of his family home within a space of 3 days during school holiday times. The suggestion that he had to go back to London in the interim is fairly laughable. It is more than unlikely that he had to go back to the school for that one particular day and almost no chance that he had to go to his legal chambers other than to accept a brief (and there's no evidence that shortly after these days he appeared in any court). In order for anyone to accept that he did go back to London the only reason would have been that he went there, somehow hung around until 3 a.m. in Whitechapel, committed the first murder in a series and then returned for a second cricket match. I submit that is more than a stretch of imagination - it's farcical.
          For me phil, with no axe to grind on Druitt, i thinks its less obvious than you suggest.

          if he kills Polly at 3.40ish on 31st.
          he does not have return either late on 31st or even on the 1st( start times unknown again)

          i suggest the probability for a non murder woukd be in favour of he did not come to london, however, IF he was the killer, such thunking becomes less relevant in my view.
          second guessing the behaviour serial killers is a fools game to me.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Steve Blomer View Post

            Sorry Chris , I forget we are not all watchers or players.

            The norm is to refer to a game where both sides have one innings as a 1 innings game.
            Limited overs or non first class on the whole.

            Tests , county and first class, where each side bats twice are often if not always called two innings games.

            It's shorthand for us players, or in my case now ex players

            Steve
            What I'm saying is that if it had been completed there would have been two innings, but there wasn't time to complete it, so there was only one innings.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

              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.
              My interest in Druitt is merely to uncover any truth about him. And you seem unable to accept that the memorandum is full of misinformation. Where MacN got the name of Druitt from is pretty much immaterial. What is material is that he stated it with 'facts' he ascribed which were not true. That others followed his lead and continued to write 'doctor' indicates they were following his lead. It seems blatantly obvious that if you accuse someone and get the basic facts about them wrong (i.e. age and profession) then anything else you write about them must be treated as equally erroneous. MacN also employs his oft-repeated 'sexually insane' slur but fails to provide an iota of evidence. And there's the rub. MacN was in his post when that memo was written. Anything and everything in it could be verified (or disproved) at the time simply by reference to police files, all of which were at his beck and call. He promotes Druitt as a suspect and studiously makes the point that he's never going to provide any evidence to support that claim. So, there is no evidence other than his claim. On that basis if I claim that you are a three headed shape-changing dwarf from the planet Zog because someone else on this forum privately messaged me that information (but I refuse to say who) does that make you a three headed shape-changing dwarf from the planet Zog? By your interpretation of what is claimed about Druitt you insist that such a statement has to be disproved. My view would be that it has to be proved.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

                It’s according to what time the game started. How many ‘what if’s’ do you want to throw in Fish? How about, ‘what if’ he had a meeting at 1pm on the 31st and so intended to stay over night and catch a train the next morning? ‘What if’ he hadn’t intended to return for the second game but his plans changed?
                Am I wrong in thinking that the length of a cricket game is unpredictable? What if you begin by answering that one?
                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                  What I'm saying is that if it had been completed there would have been two innings, but there wasn't time to complete it, so there was only one innings.
                  indeed, my point was someone asked coukd have been a four innings match( what i call a two innings)
                  i was suggesting that both innings not be completed, argued against that.

                  of course it could simply be that one side slowed the game to ensure a draw..
                  at one time the most common result in a match.

                  Comment


                  • While I general terms agree with the oft repeated maxim (repeated on this thread, but not, I observe on others) that one shouldn't second guess the actions of a serial killer... there are, I would submit, boundaries (not the boundary around a cricket pitch).

                    For Druitt in this instance...
                    Was this his first? Macnaghten - on who's say so we are operating said it was.

                    Druitt is playing cricket in Blandford. It unexpectedly ends early and he can make the 4.55 (let's pretend he can make that train).
                    He decides - it can only have been on the spur of the moment - to get up to London to sate his first blood lust.
                    He has to know that there is a train at 4.55 and that this train will interconnect with the last train to Waterloo. Remember he was travelling from Blandford not the familiar Wimborne.
                    He must have had his knife with him on the off chance.
                    He had to work out what to do with his kit.
                    Then he makes his move and goes to the East End - an area where he had no known connection and finds Polly in the further reaches of Whitechapel. He somehow got right down the far end of Whitechapel Road.
                    This remember is his first outing.
                    He ignored the poorer and more depraved streets around Waterloo itself... areas he would have been familiar with due to his journeys to Dorset.
                    He does this knowing he has to return the next day, and knowing that in a couple of weeks or less he will be back in London anyway for the new term.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Steve Blomer View Post

                      indeed, my point was someone asked coukd have been a four innings match( what i call a two innings)
                      i was suggesting that both innings not be completed, argued against that.

                      of course it could simply be that one side slowed the game to ensure a draw..
                      at one time the most common result in a match.
                      I'm calling a match with two innings for each team a two-innings match. So in that match we're talking about, each team completed one innings, but that wasn't the complete match, because they ran out of time. I'm saying if it had been completed, each team would have had two innings - it was intended to be a two-innings match.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                        I'm calling a match with two innings for each team a two-innings match. So in that match we're talking about, each team completed one innings, but that wasn't the complete match, because they ran out of time. I'm saying if it had been completed, each team would have had two innings - it was intended to be a two-innings match.
                        Not disagreeing with you.

                        😊

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Steve Blomer View Post

                          Not disagreeing with you.

                          😊
                          Good. I just wanted to make sure we were singing from the same score-card.

                          Comment


                          • This report of a match at Blandford exactly four weeks before the one we are interested in has quite a bit of detail about the course of the game, including that the last 90 runs took just about an hour, and that it ended "on almost the stroke of time". The total number of runs was 268. This is from the Blandford Weekly News, 4 August 1888:

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	BlandfordWeeklyNews1888-08-04.jpg
Views:	68
Size:	376.8 KB
ID:	588756

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                              While I general terms agree with the oft repeated maxim (repeated on this thread, but not, I observe on others) that one shouldn't second guess the actions of a serial killer... there are, I would submit, boundaries (not the boundary around a cricket pitch).

                              For Druitt in this instance...
                              Was this his first? Macnaghten - on who's say so we are operating said it was.

                              Druitt is playing cricket in Blandford. It unexpectedly ends early and he can make the 4.55 (let's pretend he can make that train).
                              He decides - it can only have been on the spur of the moment - to get up to London to sate his first blood lust.
                              He has to know that there is a train at 4.55 and that this train will interconnect with the last train to Waterloo. Remember he was travelling from Blandford not the familiar Wimborne.
                              He must have had his knife with him on the off chance.
                              He had to work out what to do with his kit.
                              Then he makes his move and goes to the East End - an area where he had no known connection and finds Polly in the further reaches of Whitechapel. He somehow got right down the far end of Whitechapel Road.
                              This remember is his first outing.
                              He ignored the poorer and more depraved streets around Waterloo itself... areas he would have been familiar with due to his journeys to Dorset.
                              He does this knowing he has to return the next day, and knowing that in a couple of weeks or less he will be back in London anyway for the new term.
                              But it’s easy to make things sound ludicrous or just unlikely if you want to make it look that way. So an alternative possibility (note the word ‘possibility’ here)

                              Druitt goes down to Bournemouth to visit his family for a few days. As he apparently didn’t play in the first fixture it’s possible that he wasn’t regular full-time team member. So maybe he went down a few days earlier and his friends asked him to play while he was in town? So maybe Druitt has been away from London 3 or 4 days?

                              Druitt knows that he has an appointment or some kind of meeting during the day of 31st. Let’s say at 2pm. So if he had been down south for 3 or 4 days on some kind of break is it particularly strange that he wouldn’t have cancelled the entire visit and stayed in London just for one meeting which perhaps couldn’t be cancelled. So he decides to go back for a few hours then return. Or maybe he didn’t intend to return for the second game but changed his mind?

                              He knows that he has 2 easy options open to him after the match finishes.

                              a) If the game finishes early enough he can catch the 4.55 and get back to London late then go to his meeting the next day.

                              or,

                              b) if the game finishes late, he can stay overnight at the family home and catch an early train in the morning which would give him time to have made his meeting.

                              Druitt, like many at that time, might have owned a Bradshaw. Either that or he picked up a timetable when he first arrived in Bournemouth, or he simply ask one of his teammates who were probably local men who used the trains regularly. This isn’t difficult.

                              Option a) is the one that actually occurred so he decides to get London late evening.

                              He puts his bag in his room (unless of course he left it with someone) and he decides to go out.

                              He wakes up next morning, goes to his meeting, then has ample time to catch the train back to Bournemouth where he stay overnight with the family and goes to play cricket next day.

                              ​​​……..

                              If we have a preconception that Druitt intended to kill a women in the early hours of the 31st in advance, or that he could predict exactly when the game would end, or that he only could have gone to London purely to kill, or that he relied on luck for the trains, or that he’d have had to have lugged a cricket bag around with him, or that changing clothes would have taken him 3 hours then yes the situation can sound very silly. But just as I don’t know that my scenario is correct we shouldn’t assume that other ones are either.

                              And of course he might simply have stayed overnight at the family home and not killed anyone.
                              Regards

                              Michael🔎


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

                              Comment


                              • A two innings game.
                                The highest scoring innings taking an hour.
                                I presume 7 pm was the scheduled end time?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X