Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    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
    A man stays with family in Wimborne.
    He plays a game of cricket.
    He has to return London for some unknown to us reason.
    During that period in London he kills someone.
    Next day he completes his business.
    He returns to Wimborne.

    Hardly a potential script for The Outer Limits is it? Especially if the man was a serial killer, who are of course known for their rational behaviour.

    or, if he wasn’t a serial killer.

    A man stays with family in Wimborne.
    He plays a game of cricket.
    Then he plays another one.

    It makes no difference to me which is correct. But call me a stick-in-the-mud if you like but I tend to prefer seeing the evidence first before I dismiss an option.



    Regards

    Michael🔎


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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
      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.)

      Click image for larger version  Name:	BlandfordWeeklyNews1887-08-20.jpg Views:	9 Size:	589.1 KB ID:	588795
      So the Blandford v Shaftesbury began just before 12,.00. This was a game set as a one innings match like the Purbeck game. The game against WS Marriott’s team looks to have also started around 12.00 but this was a two innings game. There’s certainly no conformity going on here Chris even when we see one and two innings games. In higher level cricket a two innings game would always stretch to more that one day of play. I’ll stand correcting of course but I don’t think that the concept of limited overs existed then?

      I bet that if someone had told you that you would spend time researching cricket you’d have thought that they were mad?
      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

        So the Blandford v Shaftesbury began just before 12,.00. This was a game set as a one innings match like the Purbeck game. The game against WS Marriott’s team looks to have also started around 12.00 but this was a two innings game. There’s certainly no conformity going on here Chris even when we see one and two innings games. In higher level cricket a two innings game would always stretch to more that one day of play. I’ll stand correcting of course but I don’t think that the concept of limited overs existed then?

        I bet that if someone had told you that you would spend time researching cricket you’d have thought that they were mad?
        There is a large amount of information about the activities of the Blandford Cricket Club, and I think it will take some sifting before we can draw any firm conclusions.

        I would just say that I don't see anything in that report about the match against Shatesbury being set as one innings. It ended up that way, but from the report I think it's clear there wouldn't have been time for a second innings.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
          The key timing is actually the start of the game. And the most difficult to establish. I have already tried but to no avail, with Blandford Town Museum, which has a local history archive, and Blandford Cricket Club.
          I have been given another suggestion from those sources which I will follow up.
          The more I've read about Blandford Cricket Club, the more I've got the impression that it was a very active and well funded organisation - even employing some professional cricketers - and that there might be some surviving archives.

          Can I just check whether you got any indication from the Club about its records?

          (Edit: I realise you're intending to research this further in Dorset sources, so I understand you may not want to give details at the moment. But just in the interests of preventing them from being pestered by other inquiries, maybe you could indicate that either they can't help or it's already in hand.)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

            A 41 year old doctor as opposed to a 31 year old barrister (son of a doctor) hardly constitutes disastrous misinformation.

            On the contrary - it is simply wrong. And, added to all the other wrong things that MacM claims makes his assertions unworthy of serious consideration.

            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.

            It's totally irrelevant to this discussion what anyone else might or might not say. MacN had access to all the available records. But he simple misrepresented the facts. Is that the action of a capable policeman? No. Not a chance.

            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.

            If you are comparing yourself to MacN then you are in serious need of a psychiatrist.

            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.

            I'm quite happy to disagree - but I'm not happy with mere supposition being paraded as actuality.
            Are you going to bore us some more with your "I don't really think it was Druitt but I'm going to continue to argue that it was"? You are getting really tedious now.

            Comment


            • A 41 year old doctor as opposed to a 31 year old barrister (son of a doctor) hardly constitutes disastrous misinformation.

              -- Is Macnaghten deliberately trying to make it harder for his correspondent to check or identify who is being referred to? Switching elite professions and making the age wrong by a decade look to me like they might be conscious substitutions...

              M.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post

                Are you going to bore us some more with your "I don't really think it was Druitt but I'm going to continue to argue that it was"? You are getting really tedious now.
                Mike,

                I would just ignore him. Feeding trolls is always a waste of time. He obviously has nothing of any relevance to add to the thread. Starved of attention, he’ll probably move off to another bridge.

                Gary

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                  I would just say that I don't see anything in that report about the match against Shatesbury being set as one innings. It ended up that way, but from the report I think it's clear there wouldn't have been time for a second innings.
                  I was studying that match yesterday, as well.

                  Some will greet this comment with of howls of protest, but from what I am seeing, I strongly suspect that many of these games were specifically ended in late afternoon to give the opposing team time to board the train out-of-town, just as the Blandford team did in Ringwood. That's why there are so many references to time constraints, or running out of time.

                  People have commitments and wives and jobs, and it would not be reasonable to force the visiting team to stay overnight in a local hotel.

                  I think the game on August 30th would have ended in time to allow the Isle of Purbeck players enough time to catch the evening train.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                    Mike,

                    I would just ignore him. Feeding trolls is always a waste of time. He obviously has nothing of any relevance to add to the thread. Starved of attention, he’ll probably move off to another bridge.

                    Gary
                    Michael has said they're wasting their time and Phil says he finds Michael's arguments boring, so I think the advice to let it rest is excellent. Maybe we can all agree on something for once.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
                      A 41 year old doctor as opposed to a 31 year old barrister (son of a doctor) hardly constitutes disastrous misinformation.

                      -- Is Macnaghten deliberately trying to make it harder for his correspondent to check or identify who is being referred to? Switching elite professions and making the age wrong by a decade look to me like they might be conscious substitutions...

                      M.
                      Welcome to John Hainsworth's theory.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

                        I was studying that match yesterday, as well.

                        Some will greet this comment with of howls of protest, but from what I am seeing, I strongly suspect that many of these games were specifically ended in late afternoon to give the opposing team time to board the train out-of-town, just as the Blandford team did in Ringwood. That's why there are so many references to time constraints, or running out of time.

                        People have commitments and wives and jobs, and it would not be reasonable to force the visiting team to stay overnight in a local hotel.

                        I think the game on August 30th would have ended in time to allow the Isle of Purbeck players enough time to catch the evening train.
                        Certainly the reference in the report above on the 31 July match to "about 62 minutes" remaining suggests they had fixed a time to finish well in advance. It wasn't going to be a question of trying to judge whether the light was still good enough.

                        Your train idea doesn't make the evidence any easier to interpret though, as it will also make the finishing time dependent on where the other team had to get back to. At least we know the Isle of Purbeck team was based at Wareham, though.

                        Comment


                        • Chris the cricket club haven't replied yet but I will chase them up.

                          Note that after the Blandford players left Ringwood at 6.30, a scratch match was due to take place. This being a ah hoc affair involving anyone who could be rustled together to play.

                          Comment


                          • Regarding train time constraints for the ending of matches... this would lead to a whole new area of research. Where the opposing players lived. Was there a direct rail line or did they have to change.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                              Certainly the reference in the report above on the 31 July match to "about 62 minutes" remaining suggests they had fixed a time to finish well in advance. It wasn't going to be a question of trying to judge whether the light was still good enough.

                              Your train idea doesn't make the evidence any easier to interpret though, as it will also make the finishing time dependent on where the other team had to get back to. At least we know the Isle of Purbeck team was based at Wareham, though.
                              Agreed.

                              Just to add another example:

                              This is from a Thursday game played on the Blandford Recreation Grounds on August 2nd, 1888.

                              There is another reference to what looks to be a mutually agreed upon ending time. If it is not to allow the opposing time to catch a train, what other reason is it?


                              Click image for larger version

Name:	Blandford 2 August 1888.jpg
Views:	52
Size:	29.6 KB
ID:	588813


                              There was another Thursday game played in Blandford in June 1888. The same paper has an article describing a military outfit marching to the cricket grounds at 7 pm that night to conduct maneuvers, so they obviously knew the cricket game would be over by then.

                              Obviously, Thursday games are more valuable to us, because of the half-holiday.

                              Comment


                              • But let’s not forget that Blandford was in a party mood on the night in question. Perhaps the Purbeck gents stayed over to enjoy the fun.

                                And I wonder whether a charabanc might have provided an alternative mode of transport, one not constrained by rigid timetables.



                                Attached Files

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X