Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

    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".
    True enough Chris.

    I’ve looked at a few cricket scorecards online and many are annoyingly blurry when you look closer. Most that I’ve seen (and it’s not many) don’t mention times. The two that did said 1.00 and 1.30 starts but this one really surprised me.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=club...opSmRV5mS3AQxM

    I don’t know the date of the match but it was signed in 1935/6. The signature is by Sir Learie Constantine who played for the West Indies and was a guest player. I don’t know what time sunset was on July 1st but they must have envisioned a really short game. This was well before the concept of limited overs matches existed.

    Such a wide range of times and possibilities.
    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

      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.
      But this is all conjecture. Its proof that he was down in Dorset on the day stated but as when he returned to London cannot at this time be established. I would suggest that for you an others who still belive he was JTR you find evidence to show that he did retrun to London after the cricket match, and for that to happen he would have to have left very quickly after the match, and the after events of cricket matches back then involved socialising after the match with the opposing team, and not forgetting that in cricket matches they have a tea interval!!!!

      If he had needed to return for the reasons you say and was reliant on train connections how would he have been able to guarantee he made the relevant train connections because he wouldnt know in advance how long the match would last. This all another feeble attempt to prop up a suspects viabilty

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Has it been shown that it would have been impossible to get to London by catching the later train?

        edit: this question was to anyone btw.
        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
          Has it been shown that it would have been impossible to get to London by catching the later train?
          But if he had caught a later train how can you prove that it was not for any other reason than for him to kill, why did he not kill on any other night of that week? you are trying to put square pegs in round holes.You are relying on nothing more than pure conjecture becuase you cannot place him in London on the date of the murder.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            But this is all conjecture. Its proof that he was down in Dorset on the day stated but as when he returned to London cannot at this time be established. I would suggest that for you an others who still belive he was JTR you find evidence to show that he did retrun to London after the cricket match, and for that to happen he would have to have left very quickly after the match, and the after events of cricket matches back then involved socialising after the match with the opposing team, and not forgetting that in cricket matches they have a tea interval!!!!

            If he had needed to return for the reasons you say and was reliant on train connections how would he have been able to guarantee he made the relevant train connections because he wouldnt know in advance how long the match would last. This all another feeble attempt to prop up a suspects viabilty

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Trevor, I’m not going to keep correcting you on this one because it appears to make no difference but I’m not saying that Druitt was JTR. I’m not trying to prove that he was either; how could I? If the evidence is discovered that he couldn’t have returned to London (which could be discovered at any time) I’m hardly likely to deny it am I? If Druitt gets eliminated then we cross him from the list and move on. I’m simply looking at the excellent research that’s being done on here to see if anything comes up that shows us that he couldn’t have been. That’s all. Yes, I know about intervals and things like that but we don’t know what time the game started so none of us (including myself) can assume anything. The only thing that we can say with confidence is that the actual duration of play would have been short.

            Your point is also conjecture because you’re making the assumption that, if he was the killer, then he must have returned to London purely for that reason. It’s an unknown. I can’t say for a fact any reason that he might have returned to London, and you can’t assume that you know that he could only have returned purely to kill.
            Regards

            Michael🔎


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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              But if he had caught a later train how can you prove that it was not for any other reason than for him to kill, why did he not kill on any other night of that week? you are trying to put square pegs in round holes.You are relying on nothing more than pure conjecture becuase you cannot place him in London on the date of the murder.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              I can’t prove anything and I’m not trying to prove anything Trevor. The object of this thread is purely to see if there is evidence that shows that Druitt couldn’t have returned to London. As yet there isn’t. But that evidence might be out there somewhere. And even if there is no evidence that he couldn’t have returned it still in no way adds to any likelihood of him being the killer. No one is claiming that it would.
              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

                Your point is also conjecture because you’re making the assumption that, if he was the killer, then he must have returned to London purely for that reason. It’s an unknown. I can’t say for a fact any reason that he might have returned to London, and you can’t assume that you know that he could only have returned purely to kill.
                I am not saying that, it is being said by those who suggest Druitt was JTR and are coming up with all sorts of suggestions to show that it would have been possible for him to have played cricket and then returned to London and then committed a murder on his immediate return.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
                  The object of this thread is purely to see if there is evidence that shows that Druitt couldn’t have returned to London.
                  Or - from my perspective - to see what the evidence tells us about the likelihood that he could have returned to London. Or the likelihood that he did return to London.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    I am not saying that, it is being said by those who suggest Druitt was JTR and are coming up with all sorts of suggestions to show that it would have been possible for him to have played cricket and then returned to London and then committed a murder on his immediate return.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Could you point out who is suggesting that he was JTR please?

                    No one is coming up with anything Trevor? No one is stating conjecture as if it’s fact. I fail to see why this irritates you? All that’s being done is that researchers are looking to see if Druitt can be eliminated due to the fact that he couldn’t have got to London. No one is saying that if that can’t be shown then he’s guilty. Nothing on this thread can add to any case for Druitt. All efforts are to see if he could be eliminated. I though that you’d be in favour of such an effort?

                    And as Chris has said it might not be the case that anything can be proven categorically but individuals might be able to form an opinion on likelihoods.
                    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

                      Or - from my perspective - to see what the evidence tells us about the likelihood that he could have returned to London. Or the likelihood that he did return to London.
                      Exactly. We don’t always have the luxury of certainties of course.
                      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

                        Could you point out who is suggesting that he was JTR please?
                        The list is too long to post

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          The list is too long to post

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Well it can’t include me.
                          Regards

                          Michael🔎


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

                          Comment


                          • Given what has been established about the match and that day in Blandford the range of scenarios is fairly limited and the ones which would allow Druitt to catch the 4.55 are fewer still.

                            If this match was always planned as an unusual one innings gane, when would it have started? Surely the most likely time is late in the afternoon. Around the 4 pm.commencement of early closing probably.
                            To get the 4.55, the match would have to end at 4.30. So this match must have started before 2pm to end by 4.30.
                            Would they start a one innings game that early on a day of entertainment, when the cricket must have been an important part of that public entertainment?
                            Surely not.
                            So if it was always intended as a one innings game, I think it effectively precludes Druitt getting the 4.55.

                            Or was it intended as a two innings game but only one innings each was completed and attempted. We know that in such circumstances a victory was given to the side with the best first inmings score.
                            But why was only one innings attempted?
                            It cannot be because they ran out of time as the match was so low scoring.
                            The only logical reason for the early termination of the match was bad weather.
                            But when was it decided to abandon all hope of a second innings? It has to be before 4.30 to enable Druitt to get the train. The match could have started at any time - at 11 am even - but the abandonment must be before 4.30 to allow Druitt to change and get the 4.55.
                            Incidentally the low scores suggests a wet wicket that favoured the bowlers.
                            For the second innings to be abandoned early I would suggest that the pitch must have been totally waterlogged with no prospect of it drying out and so no chance of a spectacle for the late afternoon and early evening, half closing and expo crowds.
                            It is far likelier I would suggest that bad weather stopped play, but they cannot realistically have been in a position to judge that it couldn't resume before 4.30. Dusk was just before 7 and around that time cricket must have ended anyway. So at 4.30 there was still potentially two hours cricket available.

                            What is the credible scenario where the second innings was abandoned before 4.30. I think the only one is where there was a totally torrential storm which totally waterlogged the pitch so they knew early on that there was no chance to resume.
                            But I feel sure that such a storm would gave been commented on.

                            Comment


                            • Bad weather certainly depressed the takings at the exhibitions on both the Wednesday and the Thursday, which may have been the reason why they were extended to the Friday.

                              Comment


                              • I guess there must be weather station report's. I'm sure I have seen talk of them for the London area with respect to the murders

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X