Proof of Innocence?

[Michael Banks]

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.

A 41 year old doctor as opposed to a 31 year old barrister (son of a doctor) hardly constitutes disastrous misinformation. How do you distinguish errors from lies? I’m guessing it’s a case of - someone else said it then it would be errors, Macnaughten says it and they’re lies. All the examples of errors that you’ve ascribed to Macnaughten are complete trivialities. I mean why would he bother lying about a mode of transport or who he was with? It’s gross exaggeration.

You’ve said that Macnaughten could easily have verified his information. Then why didn’t he do just that? Was he just such a dimwit that he didn’t realise that others might check or….was he simply a man who believed that he had a better memory than he actually had and so he didn’t bother checking. Many of us do this. I’m not embarrassed to say that I’ve done it loads of times on forums. I’ve assumed that I’ve remembered something correctly so I haven’t bothered checking. It doesn’t’ mean that I lied.

We’re wasting each other’s time here Phil. And these rancorous posts clog up the thread. As I’ve said before, I can accept that Mac’s info might have been erroneous or that he misinterpreted it (does that sound like a rabid Druitt promoter to you?) but I can’t and won’t accept that he simply made it up or that he plucked Druitt’s name from thin are just because he killed himself just after Kelly. And that’s how I stand on the subject. So we should just agree to disagree.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

I don't know if you have ever been a scriptwriter, but the post you have just laid before us reads like part of a round-table conference in which a team of writers suggest scenarios to account for a gaping hole in the plot.

Regards,

Simon

[R. J. Palmer]

Blandford Recreation Cricket Ground, September 15, 1888.

1.30 p.m. start. Another match, played on a Thursday, spoke of bad weather marring "the afternoon's enjoyment."

[Steve Blomer]

Blandford Recreation Cricket Ground, September 15, 1888.

1.30 p.m. start. Another match, played on a Thursday, spoke of bad weather marring "the afternoon's enjoyment."

thats the sort of report we need.

my own experience of non.leauge matches was play started between 1-2 90% of the time.
ocassional earlier , but not before 12.

only games to start at 3 or later were 20 over aside or games delayed by rain.

[Gary Barnett]

Blandford Recreation Cricket Ground, September 15, 1888.

1.30 p.m. start. Another match, played on a Thursday, spoke of bad weather marring "the afternoon's enjoyment."

See post 212!

[R. J. Palmer]

See post 212!

Ah, thank you. I must have missed it while enjoying the banter about Fido and Rumbelow.

[R. J. Palmer]

I do applaud those who have led such orderly lives that they've never been called back to the city while enjoying a restful vacation in the countryside.

[Gary Barnett]

Ah, thank you. I must have missed it while enjoying the banter about Fido and Rumbelow.

We’re at 532 posts already. It’s hard to keep tabs on what’s been posted.

[Michael Banks]

thats the sort of report we need.

my own experience of non.leauge matches was play started between 1-2 90% of the time.
ocassional earlier , but not before 12.

only games to start at 3 or later were 20 over aside or games delayed by rain.

Steve, I played non league cricket for 25 years and can’t recall playing one game that started after 12.00. 95% began at 11.00. I’ve even played a few games that began at 10.00.

[R. J. Palmer]

Nothing definitive, but there's a long account of Blandford playing at Ringwood in the Blandford Weekly News of 15 September 1888 p.5, and it alludes Blandford leaving on the "6.30 pm train." This was a Tuesday game with 2nd innings.

[Chris Phillips]

Steve, I played non league cricket for 25 years and can’t recall playing one game that started after 12.00. 95% began at 11.00. I’ve even played a few games that began at 10.00.

I think with the best will in the world, the experience of living people is going to be of limited help in understanding how things were done 130 years ago.

[Chris Phillips]

This report of an "annual united dinner in connection with the clubs using the Blandford Recreation Ground" at the Railway Hotel (where an excellent dinner was served by Host Burpitt) sheds some light on the social/working status of the cricket club members. The report appeared in the Blandford Weekly News, 26 November 1887:

[Christer Holmgren]

I do applaud those who have led such orderly lives that they've never been called back to the city while enjoying a restful vacation in the countryside.

That´s a bummer, of course. However, I don´t think anybody here has challenged the possibility that Druitt may have gone to London and returned back - what people seem to think is instead that it seems an unlikely thing.

Being totally unknowledgeable about cricket (I once saw a game of cricket played in Spean Bridge while I was on holiday and had nothing else to do. I didn´t understand a single thing), I would like to make a comparison from my horizon, which is all about fishing.

Edward Stow has presented a time table based route, taking Druitt from Blandford Station to Waterloo station, starting out at 4.55 from Blandford and arriving nigh on seven hours later to Waterloo, namely at 11.41. To be exact, it makes for a six hour and 56 minute trip (after which Druitt would have to walk to eastern Whitechapel, but let´s leave that aside for now).

Today, communications are much faster and we will get much further in the same period of time. And to a traveler, it is never the distance covered that counts, it is the time spent. So how can I as a fisherman make a comparison in the department we are discussing? Well, here it is:

If I am living in London and want to go salmon fishing, then Scotlands river Tweed is a very nice bid. And if I was to explore the Tweed, what better place to stay than in the town of Tweed itself, four kilometers south of the Scottish border? And guess what? According to Google Maps, it takes exactly six hours and 55 minutes to drive there from London. Almost exactly the same time as Blandford - Waterloo took in 1888!

So here´s my suggestion. Say that there is a series of murders in London, and say that some relative of mine supposedly has hinted at me being a possible perpetrator. However, it is impossible to ask me, because a month after the last murder in the series, I have drowned myself in the Welsh river Usk, leaving a note saying that since Friday last, I have realized that I will never catch as many salmon as I want to and it is better for me to die.

When researching my movements in relation to the first murder in the series, the police discovers that I am on record as having caught a salmon up in the Tweed on the day before the deed and I am also on record as having caught a salmon from the Tweed on the day after the murder. However, I am not on record as having caught anything on the murder day itself.

That means that either I did not catch a salmon on day two or I drove seven hours to London and killed the first murder victim and then I drove seven hours back in time to catch my second salmon. And indeed, R J, it may be that I WAS called back to London for business reasons or whatever.

But is it the likeliest explanation? And how would the police reason about it?

The point I am making is that a seven hour journey is a very long journey. When we look at the map today, it is easy to think "He was only in Dorset, it is quite close to London". But in terms of travelling time, it was not just a trifle of a journey out into the "countryside" in 1888, it was the equivalent of driving from London to the Scottish border today or, for that matter, flying from London to New York.

[Chris Phillips]

Here's a longish report of three matches from the Blandford Weekly News of 20 August 1887. The first two involve the Blandford first 11 and have some information about timing, but the first was a special match at a private ground, so things are likely to have been different then. The second was at the Blandford Recreation Ground, but on a Wednesday, so if early closing influenced the timing of matches it may not be comparable either.

In summary - the first match the previous Monday at the Down House, the home of Sir William Smith-Marriott, against his team, was preceded by a luncheon at 2pm for the teams and resident ladies. There were two innings (i.e. two for each side). The report says "Sir William suggested playing out the match", which I suppose means there was a possibility of stopping after the first innings.

In the second match, against Shaftesbury, the previous Wednesday in the Recreation Ground. Blandford went in to bat at a few minutes to 12, and had a score of 159 by luncheon. The score had risen to 300 by the time the opening batsman was out (at "past 4 o'clock") and the innings ended at 4.45 with 315 runs. There was a fear that there might not be time for Shaftesbury to complete an innings, but in the event they were disposed of for 59 runs. (Obviously they didn't try to go on to a second innings then.)

[Michael Banks]

I think with the best will in the world, the experience of living people is going to be of limited help in understanding how things were done 130 years ago.

I accept that Chris. Until we can see the start time for the game in question we’re whistling in the dark with options being open with start times from 11.00 to 3.30 so far. There’s nothing that we know as a fact apart from that this would have been a very short game.