Proof of Innocence?

[Gary Barnett]

The way I read it, it sounds as though they always set out to play a two-innings game, and always had a specified time limit. Sometimes they didn't complete one innings, sometimes they completed exactly one, sometimes only one team started a second innings and didn't complete it, sometimes one team completed its second innings and the other one didn't, and sometimes both teams completed their second innings. Where a reason is given for the game not being completed, it is weather in one case and "time" in all the others. It's never bad light.

Anticipated light conditions might also influence a planned finish time, but you’d imagine there’d be a little flexibility about that.

[R. J. Palmer]

We know that the Blandford Town band sometimes performed at the Recreation Ground in the evening and we’ve seen it mentioned that away teams in rural Dorset journeyed home by train. That supplies us with two possible reasons why Blandford games might have had a fixed finish time. There may have been other reasons. The game we are interested in was played during a Town festival, there may have been other scheduled events that members of the home team wished to attend.

Agreed. I don't see how the Industrial Expo helps the argument that this was a late match. Some of the members of the local cricket club were also heavily concerned with the Expo. Why would they schedule their match at the same time as this big event?

The Town Band played concerts at the Corn Exchange on both Wednesday and Thursday afternoon.

There is a very long write-up about the Expo in the Blandford News on September 1 (the same page that reports the cricket game with Druitt)

This report states there were heaving storms on Wednesday afternoon (the 29th) but also makes reference to bad weather on Thursday.




The first two days being Wednesday and Thursday (August 30th)

[Chris Phillips]

Anticipated light conditions might also influence a planned finish time, but you’d imagine there’d be a little flexibility about that.

Yes, I agree the planned finish time might might be influenced by various factors. However, I do think it would have to be fixed in advance, and that they would play beyond it only if both sides agreed (as apparently happened at Sir William Smith-Marriott's ground on 15 August 1887). Because if the game wasn't completed it wouldn't have been a draw, but would have been decided on the first innings. So the winner of the first innings would have a definite interest in strict timekeeping. That is what happened on 29 May 1889, when Weymouth College did very poorly in the first innings but hoped to win on the second, to the extent that they declared before their second innings was complete in the hope there would be time to complete the game. But Blandford won the game because they were only halfway through their second innings when "stumps were drawn".

[R. J. Palmer]

I mean this in the friendliest way possible, Gary, but you sometimes remind me of a good friend of mine who argues both sides of a question with equal fervor.

I suggested several days ago that the cricket game might have been scheduled so as not to compete with the Expo.

The festivities at the Corn Exchange began at 2 pm and were over half a mile away. If the organizers of the cricket match didn't want to compete with the Exhibition, they could have had a morning game.

To which you responded:

Thus depriving the half-holiday folk the chance of enjoying a bit of cricket?

Which is it? Are you coming around to my way of thinking?

[Gary Barnett]

The pricing of entry into the expo was obviously designed to discourage the less wealthy from attending before 3. 2-3 was the time when the upper echelons of Blandford society would have enjoyed the exhibitions.

Of course, many of them may have done so on the first day, when the Mayor gave a speech etc.

[Gary Barnett]

I mean this in the friendliest way possible, Gary, but you sometimes remind me of a good friend of mine who argues both sides of a question with equal fervor.

I suggested several days ago that the cricket game might have been scheduled so as not to compete with the Expo.



To which you responded:



Which is it? Are you coming around to my way of thinking?

If yours is a fixed way of thinking based on the meagre evidence we have, then no.

There are arguments in both directions.

Sounds like you have a very open-minded friend.

[Gary Barnett]

Yes, I agree the planned finish time might might be influenced by various factors. However, I do think it would have to be fixed in advance, and that they would play beyond it only if both sides agreed (as apparently happened at Sir William Smith-Marriott's ground on 15 August 1887). Because if the game wasn't completed it wouldn't have been a draw, but would have been decided on the first innings. So the winner of the first innings would have a definite interest in strict timekeeping. That is what happened on 29 May 1889, when Weymouth College did very poorly in the first innings but hoped to win on the second, to the extent that they declared before their second innings was complete in the hope there would be time to complete the game. But Blandford won the game because they were only halfway through their second innings when "stumps were drawn".

Yes, I agree.

Your last train home is at 6.45? Then we’ll stop play at 6.00

It’s a festival day today and we’ve booked the town band to play outside of the pavilion at 7.00, so we’ll stop play at 6.30.

The light will be fading by 7.00, so we’ll stop play then or thereabouts.

[Edward Stow]

And just play one innings...

[Edward Stow]

The Blandford v Weymouth College match was scored on the first innings because the second innings wasn't completed. Now that would be a draw.
This perfectly illustrates the futility of judging what went on then against what goes on now.

[Michael Banks]

It's just that you said above "I really don’t think that you can have a pre-arranged finish time for a game of cricket. I’ve certainly never heard of that idea."

Yes, I didn’t put that very well at all. What I really mean is that cricket differs from games like football and rugby in that the time factor enters into it far less. It really depends on the kind of game and the level to which it’s played. There are different possibilities.

Two innings games played on one day. Which I’d strongly expect to have commenced before 1.00.
Two innings games played over two days in which it wouldn’t have been an issue starting later on the first day.
One innings games that can start, according to research on here, at differing times.

I don’t know if this was the case in 1888 but finishing times can be a bit flexible if there’s a possibility of a result.

As the game on the 30th was called a decisive victory I can only assume that this wasn’t won due to rain. It couldn’t have been due to time because only 87 runs were scored and no one could have envisaged a game with so few runs scored.

[Chris Phillips]

Yes, I didn’t put that very well at all. What I really mean is that cricket differs from games like football and rugby in that the time factor enters into it far less. It really depends on the kind of game and the level to which it’s played. There are different possibilities.

Two innings games played on one day. Which I’d strongly expect to have commenced before 1.00.
Two innings games played over two days in which it wouldn’t have been an issue starting later on the first day.
One innings games that can start, according to research on here, at differing times.

I don’t know if this was the case in 1888 but finishing times can be a bit flexible if there’s a possibility of a result.

As Ed has just pointed out, in 1888 there was a result if the second innings wasn't completed, because the match would be decided on the first innings. And that's why I'm saying there would be less flexibility about timekeeping then - because if the side that had won the first innings was in danger of losing the completed match, they wouldn't want to go beyond the agreed finishing time. Except, evidently, in a friendly match against Sir William Smith-Marriott's side (Sir William being the president of Blandford CC!).

[Michael Banks]

There are certainly pitfalls when trying to apply todays cricket mindset to that of the one in 1888. An example is the 21st of August game against Purbeck. 2022 me is thinking - what kind of terrible planning could result in a game running so far over in time that it wasn’t even worth beginning the second innings when only 163 runs had been scored? They must have been expecting some seriously low scores. I only played at fairly low level club cricket but one innings games would usually last 4-5 hours. I played very few 2 innings games and they all started at around 11am but, as I said, we have to be wary of comparing 1888 to the modern game. At the end of the day Chris we need start/finish times in black and white if they exist. All that we know is that this was a game of short duration. A 3.00 start would undoubtedly eliminate Druitt. A 2.00 start would make it really tight but probably not physically impossible if the game lasted closer to 2 hours than 3. To paraphrase the X-Files, “the truth might be out there.”

[Chris Phillips]

There are certainly pitfalls when trying to apply todays cricket mindset to that of the one in 1888. An example is the 21st of August game against Purbeck. 2022 me is thinking - what kind of terrible planning could result in a game running so far over in time that it wasn’t even worth beginning the second innings when only 163 runs had been scored? They must have been expecting some seriously low scores. I only played at fairly low level club cricket but one innings games would usually last 4-5 hours. I played very few 2 innings games and they all started at around 11am but, as I said, we have to be wary of comparing 1888 to the modern game. At the end of the day Chris we need start/finish times in black and white if they exist. All that we know is that this was a game of short duration. A 3.00 start would undoubtedly eliminate Druitt. A 2.00 start would make it really tight but probably not physically impossible if the game lasted closer to 2 hours than 3. To paraphrase the X-Files, “the truth might be out there.”

Obviously from the point of view of absolute proof of an alibi we need a record of what time the match finished (and if we had that the start time would be irrelevant). Preferably with a statement that Druitt was still there at that time and hadn't disappeared immediately after batting. I can believe the Club(s) could have made a record of when the match ended, and it's not inconceivable it will have survived, but I think we'll be very lucky if that's the case.

If we can't find absolute proof, then we can only discuss probabilities. That's what I'm looking for at the moment, and I think that's the level at which we have to discuss most aspects of the case, for lack of more definite information. No doubt people's opinions about probabilities will be different, but I don't think the discussion of probabilities should be dismissed by saying "what we need is certainty".

[Trevor Marriott]

Obviously from the point of view of absolute proof of an alibi we need a record of what time the match finished (and if we had that the start time would be irrelevant). Preferably with a statement that Druitt was still there at that time and hadn't disappeared immediately after batting. I can believe the Club(s) could have made a record of when the match ended, and it's not inconceivable it will have survived, but I think we'll be very lucky if that's the case.

If we can't find absolute proof, then we can only discuss probabilities. That's what I'm looking for at the moment, and I think that's the level at which we have to discuss most aspects of the case, for lack of more definite information. No doubt people's opinions about probabilities will be different, but I don't think the discussion of probabilities should be dismissed by saying "what we need is certainty".

Has anbody thought that Druitt if the killer he could not have planned his return to London because he would not have known how long the cricket match would have lasted, So to suggest it ended quickly and he the rushed back down to London to kill is pure conjecture. and the balance of probability on that happening and him being JTR is another nail in his coffin for those who suggest he was JTR

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael Banks]

Has anbody thought that Druitt if the killer he could not have planned his return to London because he would not have known how long the cricket match would have lasted, So to suggest it ended quickly and he the rushed back down to London to kill is pure conjecture. and the balance of probability on that happening and him being JTR is another nail in his coffin for those who suggest he was JTR

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s not only me that’s suggested this Trevor, but we can’t say that, if guilty, he returned to London just to kill. He might have returned for another reason and then decided to kill while he was there. If he had another reason for returning (some kind of meeting for example) his thinking might have been that if the game finished later he would travel back by an early next morning train but as it was actually a very short game he decided to take the 4.55. We just don’t know.