Proof of Innocence?

[Gary Barnett]

And one for Bournemouth Cricket Week, 1888.

I’ll start that now.

[Chris Phillips]

My interpretation of the information Chris has assembled about the length of matches at the Recreation Ground based on innings, is that the 30th match was intended to be a short match. It was probably shorter than anticipated as it was low scoring.
Why a one innings match?
We know it was on a Thursday - the day where Blandford had early closing from 4pm and Thursday was the usual day for mid week cricket matches in Blandford - with other events scheduled at the Recreation Ground from 7pm.
We know that a special expo was taking place in Blandford at the time.
We know the weather was bad.
It certainly looks to me that the match probably took place from 4pm.

As I said, I thought the clearest thing that came out of the statistics was that two innings was the norm, and that one innings matches were nearly always attributed to a lack of time. I very much doubt Blandford set out to play any one-innings matches, and I think it would be particularly strange if another club was invited to Blandford to play against their first eleven, but was offered only a one-innings match when two was normal. This was a return match for the one at Wareham on 21 July, which was also decided on the first innings (and, as on 30 August, neither side got as far as a second innings), but in that case the newspaper report did explain the reason, which as usual was a lack of time.

I don't think the intention of playing two innings necessarily precludes a start time at 4pm, or at any rate a mid-afternoon start timed to give the early-closing crowd a match to watch. Obviously it depends on what time was fixed for the end, which we don't know exactly. Whatever the normal start time on a Thursday, a lot of the matches were not completed. Of 19 played at Blandford on Thursdays (see below), only 10 were decided on two innings. Of the others, only two went to exactly one innings for each side (and in the other one the report seems to imply that was because of a lack of time). Otherwise, either a second innings was started, or (in two cases) even the first innings wasn't completed. In only one case was the weather to blame. In all the other cases where a reason was given, it was time.

.................................................. ..................

Thursday matches at Blandford, 1887-1889 (for fuller details see here)

First innings not completed:
Thursday 4 August 1887 at Blandford. Blandford v. Wimborne. [Winning side's second innings went well beyond a winning score but wasn't completed]
Thursday 1 September 1887 at Blandford. Blandford v. Mr. Steel's XI (Stoke). [Stopped after winning score was reached because of bad weather]

First innings only completed:
Thursday 11 August 1887 at Blandford. Mr. Scutt's XI. v. Blandford. [Probably out of time]
Thursday 30 August 1888 at Blandford. Blandford v. Isle of Purbeck. [Reason not stated]

Decided on one innings but second innings started:
Thursday 7 July 1887 at Blandford. Blandford v. Milborne St Andrew. [Out of time]
Thursday 18 August 1887 at Blandford. Blandford 2nd XI v. Blandford Arabs. [Reason not stated]
Thursday 10 May 1888 at Blandford. Teams selected from the Club by the captain (Rev. D. Peirce) and secretary (Mr Montagu Luff). [Out of time]
Thursday 5 July 1888 at Blandford. Blandford second XII v. Arabs (an XI chosen by Mr. F. Dean). [Out of time]
Thursday 12 July 1888 at Blandford. A team representing the Morning Star and a second XI of Blandford. [Reason not stated]

Decided on two innings; losing side completed two innings, winning side completed one:
Thursday 31 May 1888 at Blandford. Blandford v. Morden.
Thursday 7 June 1888 at Blandford. Second XI and Blandford YMCA Team.
Thursday 27 June 1889 at Blandford. Blandford v. Sherborne. [? Totals only reported]
Thursday 25 July 1889 at Blandford. Knighton and Durweston v. Blandford Liberal C.C. [? Totals only reported]

Decided on two innings; both sides had two innings; game ended when winning score reached:
Thursday 25 August 1887 at Blandford. Sturminster Newton v. Mr. H. H. Smith's XI.
Thursday 14 June 1888 at Blandford. Blandford v. Ringwood.
Thursday 2 August 1888 at Blandford. Blandford v. Mr Douglas Smith's XI. [Finished almost on the stroke of time]
Thursday 30 May 1889 at Blandford. Liberal Club C.C. v. Mr. E. B. Smith's XI.

Second innings for both sides completed:
Thursday 13 September 1888 at Blandford. Blandford and Mr. Douglas Smith's (Letton) XI.
Thursday 5 September 1889 at Blandford. Ringwood v. Blandford (Newman's benefit - third attempt)

[Edward Stow]

I was taking it that as no report stated ot was intended to be two innings and as there was no mention of interruption then the match was played to its full intended length.
With the low score, if two innings were intended, the early end could only be due to bad weather I think.
If that was the case they would have been waiting to see if they weather cleared up and Druitt getting the 4.55 must have been an impossibility.
If it was a late start, and only one innings was intended, as a display for the crowds perhaps, then again it is difficult to imagine Druitt could have got the 4.55.
I can't think of a scenario that makes getting the 4.55 straight forward.

[Caroline Brown]

You may have missed it it, Caz, but the non-crickety discussion about Druitt has been moved to the thread Montague Druitt: "The Basis of Druitts Candidacy".

Yes I did miss it, Christer, because I have an unfortunate habit of reading and responding to a post before reading all subsequent posts, so I tend not to see how the discussion has progressed or evolved until I make a prat of myself. Occasionally I have prepared a long response to a post, only to find the whole thread has since been closed due to bad behaviour.

I will try hard to break that habit because it leaves me a few steps behind those of you with enough time to catch up with all the latest posts before responding!

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris Phillips]

I was taking it that as no report stated ot was intended to be two innings and as there was no mention of interruption then the match was played to its full intended length.
With the low score, if two innings were intended, the early end could only be due to bad weather I think.
If that was the case they would have been waiting to see if they weather cleared up and Druitt getting the 4.55 must have been an impossibility.
If it was a late start, and only one innings was intended, as a display for the crowds perhaps, then again it is difficult to imagine Druitt could have got the 4.55.
I can't think of a scenario that makes getting the 4.55 straight forward.

I'd have thought that bad weather would probably be mentioned if that were the reason, whereas a lack of time was so common that it might not. A reason wasn't always given.

As to whether the score was too low for them to run out of time, others more knowledgeable than I am can comment better. But considering Druitt bowled 10 overs, doesn't that mean at least 20 overs in total for that innings, which would presumably take an hour or so? (I'm assuming a four-ball over.) Going by Wikipedia, another 20 minutes should be allowed on top of that for 10 wickets. And in the other innings there were more than twice as many runs. Supposing they started at 4pm and - for the sake of argument - the time set to finish was 6.30, I don't see any impossibility in their running out of time. But maybe I'm missing something.

Of course, if you think it was intended to be a one innings game,it would have to be a mid- to late-afternoon start to give Druitt an alibi. But as I say, I don't believe they set out to play one-innings games.

[Edward Stow]

A four o'clock start with say, 6.45 as the latest end - 2 hours and 45 minutes. I don't think they would ever plan a two innings match in that time.

[Tammy Green]

Greet research gentelmen!

Proving Druitt was innocent is one of the most valuable and historical achievement of this forum!


Tammy

[Chris Phillips]

A four o'clock start with say, 6.45 as the latest end - 2 hours and 45 minutes. I don't think they would ever plan a two innings match in that time.

Well, if your argument is correct, I think it indicates the start time would have been earlier, rather than that for some reason this one game was planned as one innings, considering the strength of the evidence that their games in general were two innings. After all, we don't really have any evidence they started at 4pm rather than, say, 3pm. As I suggested above, a mid-afternoon start would still typically provide several hours of entertainment after the shops shut. (And in fact one of the newspaper announcements urged people to make their purchases by 3pm so that the staff would be able to get off work promptly.)

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Now we've more or less satisfied ourselves that Druitt was innocent, perhaps the time has come to turn our attention to the other end of the question.

Macnaghten's interest was triggered by the Sun's six-part story, the first part of which appeared on Tuesday 13th February 1894, and the last on Monday 19th February 1894.

Macnaghten's memorandum was dated [Friday] 23rd February 1894. Thus, he had four days in which to complete it.

How, and on what basis, did Macnaghten pick his trio of "more likely" suspects?

Regards,

Simon

[R. J. Palmer]

Hmm.

Although I was the first person to bring up the fact that Thursdays were half-holidays (Post #364) I am the only person not entirely convinced that it is conclusive. It possibly is.

Of the 1887-1889 games chronicled by Chris, the only direct mention of times are a 1.30 pm start, two games that paused for luncheon, another that had an 'afternoon tea,' and an 'away game' that mentions Blandford leaving on the 6.30 train. Many of these are mid-week games, but not Thursdays.

I guess the consensus is that non-Thursday games began in the morning, but Thursday games were moved to the afternoon for the sake of the half-holiday spectators.

If this is true, the Druittists are in trouble, because the only afternoon trains from Blandford to Wimborne are listed at 4.55 and 8.58 pm.

One could still leave Blandford as late as 7.30 pm and make it to Bournemouth by 8.05 pm, but the Waterloo train left Bournemouth West at 7.40 pm.

The trouble for Druitt if he wants to do a spot of gambling in Aldgate that night is travelling the ten miles from Blandford to Wimborne anytime after 4:55 pm (getting there by roughly 6:45) and I currently see no way of him doing it.

Unless there's an angle no one is seeing.

[Michael Banks]

I don’t see any reason to assume a connection between half day closing and the start time of the cricket match? There seems to be no proof of this. Cricket games started anytime from 11.00 am onwards so we need to see a start time in black and white before we can judge a finish time.

[Michael Banks]

One thing that needs to be born in mind is that no one could have known how many runs would have been scored. I estimated 2-3 hours for the runs in that particular game (but nearer 2 imo) What if the first team had scored 120 or even 150 runs And then the second scored say 100. Then you’d have 3 times the amount of runs scored. This, with the half time break of at least 30 mins or possibly more, could have meant the game lasting 5 or 6 hours. A 4.00 start would have meant the team batting second batting in part in darkness.

[R. J. Palmer]

Thursday, August 30, 1888 (GMT)
Sunset in Dorset, UK
6:58 PM

[Chris Phillips]

Hmm.

Although I was the first person to bring up the fact that Thursdays were half-holidays (Post #364) I am the only person not entirely convinced that it is conclusive. It possibly is.

Of the 1887-1889 games chronicled by Chris, the only direct mention of times are a 1.30 pm start, two games that paused for luncheon, another that had an 'afternoon tea,' and an 'away game' that mentions Blandford leaving on the 6.30 train. Many of these are mid-week games, but not Thursdays.

I guess the consensus is that non-Thursday games began in the morning, but Thursday games were moved to the afternoon for the sake of the half-holiday spectators.

I don't think we really have any firm evidence about the starting time of the game. For me, the evidence seems much clearer that the game wasn't completed. If that was because of a lack of time, then we can probably infer something about when it ended. After all, it's really the time the game ended that's relevant, not the time it started, so even if we knew the starting time, we should still have to estimate the length of the game (including any breaks).

[Michael Banks]

But the game is described as a ‘decisive victory for the visitors,’ Chris. This indicates a complete one innings game.

There are other things worth considering too when considering a the possibility of a 4.00. The fact that this is described as a return match indicates (though not exclusively) that this was a league game rather than just a friendly and so it’s difficult to see why a league would be so arranged time wise that the team batting second (if the first team batting first put up a decent score) would always be facing the possibility of a considerable disadvantage due to the poor light (as Roger’s post shows)

Also, if these games were reliant on the half day closing then within that league at least some if not the majority of players would also have been affected by that time. So we would have players finishing work at 4.00, then having to change out of their working clothes and maybe wash up if they had a manual job which would have required them to have gone home first (so how close to their places of work did some players live?) Then they would have had to have travelled to the location of an away match. I don’t know how spread out geographically these teams were (not massively I would have thought) but we would still question how these players might have managed to arrive at away matches before 5.00? Did they all travel together or did they have a meeting place where they all travelled from?

Im just pointing out the potential issues with cricket and time; things like time and especially light have far more of an effect on cricket than games like football and rugby. I’m certainly not claiming that the game couldn’t have started at any particular time because we have zero to go on. We just don’t know at this point what time the game started. But if I was the captain of a cricket team and someone asked if I wanted to play in a league where the games begun at 4pm or later my answer would be “are you being serious?”