Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • And this is the problem with the weather interrupted 2 innings game suggestion.

    “CRICKET:--Blandford v. Isle of Purbeck—
    The return match between these clubs took place on Thursday in the Blandford Recreation Ground, and proved a decisive victory for the visitors, the home team entirely breaking down before the bowling of Druitt, who took seven wickets for three runs in 10 overs
    Theres simply no mention of the game being reduced in length though. Until such information surfaces I don’t see how the assumption of a 2 innings game can be made? If we look purely at what we know for a fact at this point in time then this was a one innings game.

    Just because the scores were low we can’t assume weather either. Look at how many times that England have been bowled out for scores in the 40’s and 50’s on bone dry Australian and West Indian pitches. Rain affected pitches can certainly help the bowlers but a low score can’t be put down to this unless we know that it rained. Teams get bowled out for low scores on all kinds of wickets. Looking at the scores you get the impression that Druitt was just too good a cricketer for them. As he didn’t play in the first game this suggests that he just turned out when he was available. Unless records exist this might even have been the only time that he played for them.

    …..

    Id say that, as the evidence stands, this appears to have been a one innings match and we have nothing to suggest a start time. Some matches began earlier some later. I really can’t see how it can be claimed that early closing assumes a later game.. We also know that on the same day there were various other entertainments planned so how can we be anything like certain that the game didn’t begin early and was arranged as a short one innings game to allow for other events to take place after it and to allow the players to take part in and enjoy those other events? If the townsfolk were involved in those other events then the early closing would come into play but if the cricket was played largely by the posh blokes then the start time wouldn’t have mattered to them.
    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
      And this is the problem with the weather interrupted 2 innings game suggestion.



      Theres simply no mention of the game being reduced in length though. Until such information surfaces I don’t see how the assumption of a 2 innings game can be made? If we look purely at what we know for a fact at this point in time then this was a one innings game.

      Just because the scores were low we can’t assume weather either. Look at how many times that England have been bowled out for scores in the 40’s and 50’s on bone dry Australian and West Indian pitches. Rain affected pitches can certainly help the bowlers but a low score can’t be put down to this unless we know that it rained. Teams get bowled out for low scores on all kinds of wickets. Looking at the scores you get the impression that Druitt was just too good a cricketer for them. As he didn’t play in the first game this suggests that he just turned out when he was available. Unless records exist this might even have been the only time that he played for them.

      …..

      Id say that, as the evidence stands, this appears to have been a one innings match and we have nothing to suggest a start time. Some matches began earlier some later. I really can’t see how it can be claimed that early closing assumes a later game.. We also know that on the same day there were various other entertainments planned so how can we be anything like certain that the game didn’t begin early and was arranged as a short one innings game to allow for other events to take place after it and to allow the players to take part in and enjoy those other events? If the townsfolk were involved in those other events then the early closing would come into play but if the cricket was played largely by the posh blokes then the start time wouldn’t have mattered to them.
      Can you find any evidence that Blandford ever played a match intending it to be only one innings? I spent a long time last week looking through these reports and I saw absolutely none. Quite the opposite.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
        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.


        Very well written, thank you very much!



        Tammy

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
          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
          I think we found a report saying that there was heavy rain on the Wednesday. So a top-up on Thursday may have made the pitch unplayable. But, as Mike says, there’s nothing in the match report that even hints at the match being cut short.

          As for one-innings matches, I’ve seen a few mentioned, although not at Blanford as far as I recall.

          Comment


          • What would be useful is a full list of all the last trains to stations with connections to London for all the rail services in that part of the country, bearing in mind that ‘buses, charabangs, private carriages etc could have been employed to travel to stations other than Blandford.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              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
              Unfortunately Trevor, this shows you and several others still misunderstand and mischaracterize the situation.

              He is not 'returning' to London. He did not travel from London to Blandford to play in this game, then return to London, only to come back to Dorset the next day. That is indeed a highly unusual and even ridiculous suggestion.

              But the situation is very likely to have been different, and we should proceed with more subtlety. He has been stationed down south for some weeks. He played in Bournemouth (two weekends), he momentarily went up to Salisbury to play there, he played in Blandford, he played in Canford, etc.

              So it is not a question of Druitt traveling back & forth from London each time. It is more of a matter of whether someone with a day off might travel to London for some reason.

              This changes the 'probabilities.' The probability of a murderer stationed in Dorset going to all the way to Buck's Row to murder someone is considerably different than the probability of someone stationed in Dorset for the summer going to London on an overnight + day trip.


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                I think we found a report saying that there was heavy rain on the Wednesday. So a top-up on Thursday may have made the pitch unplayable. But, as Mike says, there’s nothing in the match report that even hints at the match being cut short.

                As for one-innings matches, I’ve seen a few mentioned, although not at Blanford as far as I recall.
                Do you mean matches where the report makes it clear that they intended to stop after one innings, though? If there are any I'd be interested to see a report.

                For example, this match was evidently intended to be two innings, but it stopped after one. If they hadn't happened to mention that time had run out, it would have looked like a game that had been intended to be one innings.

                Click image for larger version

Name:	BlandfordWeeklyNews1887-06-25.jpg
Views:	70
Size:	114.4 KB
ID:	589547

                And here's another where it's not stated that they ran out of time, but if you look closely you'll see the first innings wasn't completed:

                Click image for larger version

Name:	BlandfordWeeklyNews1887-08-06.jpg
Views:	65
Size:	43.4 KB
ID:	589548

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
                  And this is the problem with the weather interrupted 2 innings game suggestion.



                  Theres simply no mention of the game being reduced in length though. Until such information surfaces I don’t see how the assumption of a 2 innings game can be made? If we look purely at what we know for a fact at this point in time then this was a one innings game.

                  Just because the scores were low we can’t assume weather either. Look at how many times that England have been bowled out for scores in the 40’s and 50’s on bone dry Australian and West Indian pitches. Rain affected pitches can certainly help the bowlers but a low score can’t be put down to this unless we know that it rained. Teams get bowled out for low scores on all kinds of wickets. Looking at the scores you get the impression that Druitt was just too good a cricketer for them. As he didn’t play in the first game this suggests that he just turned out when he was available. Unless records exist this might even have been the only time that he played for them.

                  …..

                  Id say that, as the evidence stands, this appears to have been a one innings match and we have nothing to suggest a start time. Some matches began earlier some later. I really can’t see how it can be claimed that early closing assumes a later game.. We also know that on the same day there were various other entertainments planned so how can we be anything like certain that the game didn’t begin early and was arranged as a short one innings game to allow for other events to take place after it and to allow the players to take part in and enjoy those other events? If the townsfolk were involved in those other events then the early closing would come into play but if the cricket was played largely by the posh blokes then the start time wouldn’t have mattered to them.
                  I think most of the players in the match would have been in the socio-economic class who would have visited the exhibitions between 2 and 3. The entry fee was 2/- then. After 3 it was reduced to 1/- and finally to 6d. (If I remember correctly).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                    Can you find any evidence that Blandford ever played a match intending it to be only one innings? I spent a long time last week looking through these reports and I saw absolutely none. Quite the opposite.
                    I can only go on the games that you posted Chris.

                    *Monday 15 August 1887 at Sir William's ground [The Down House, Blandford]. Blandford v. Sir William Smith Marriott's Team.
                    Special match at Sir William's ground. Fine weather, large and fashionable company. 2 o'clock luncheon in the dining room for both teams and the resident ladies. In the afternoon many from Blandford witnessed the game. Play was very interesting and as Sir William suggested playing out the match the final half hour was quite exciting, there being 4 wickets to fall and 26 runs needed by his team.
                    Blandford: 1: 134; 2: 55; Sir W. S. Marriott's Team: 1: 114; 2: 72
                    [20 August 1887, p. 5]

                    A definite 2 innings game which would have had a period of pre-luncheon(2pm) play. So that’s a start time of 1pm at the latest and very possibly earlier.

                    Wednesday 17 August 1887 at Blandford. Blandford v. Shaftesbury.
                    Return match. Blandford batted first, the first batsman going in at a few minutes to 12. score raised to 159 at luncheon time. Blandford's innings ended at 4.45, and the fear was that the opponents might not have time to complete an innings. [Further details of play given.]
                    Blandford: 315; Shaftesbury: 59
                    [20 August 1887, p. 5]

                    A definite two innings game that began just before 12pm

                    Tuesday 11 September 1888 at Ringwood. Blandford v. Ringwood.
                    Return match. Splendid weather. After the first innings Ringwood were confident of winning and intended to have a "scratch match" afterwards (this was forgotten, or anyhow not started when our team left by the 6.30 train). [Details of play given.]
                    Blandford: 1: 54; 2: 41; Ringwood: 1: 68; 2: 13 [complete]
                    [15 September 1888, p. 5]

                    A definite two innings game with no clue as to the start time. We only know which train they caught.

                    *Saturday 15 September 1888 at Blandford. Mr Douglas Smith's XI and Mr. E. B. Smith's XI.
                    Was scheduled to start at 1.30. Interesting match attracted a large number of spectators. Delightfully fine weather. Time did not allow completion, and it was decided on first innings.
                    Mr Douglas Smith's XI: 93; Mr. E. B. Smith's XI: 1: 146; 2: 51 [9 scores, 2 not out, last 2 "did not bat"]
                    [15, 22 September 1888, p. 5]

                    A definite two innings game with a 1.30 start.

                    *Tuesday 14 May 1889 at Blandford. Mr. E. B. Smith's XI v. Mr. Douglas Smith's XI.
                    Delightful weather. Single innings victory. Douglas Smith's team batted first. In the course of the afternoon tea was provided, full justice being done to the event by players and visitors.
                    Mr. Douglas Smith's XI: 1: 61; 2: 33; Mr. E. B. Smith's XI: 142 [complete]
                    [18 May 1889, p. 2]

                    A definite 2 innings game. We don’t know the start time and have no way of estimating it.

                    Tuesday 20 August 1889 at Blandford. Blandford v. Isle of Purbeck.
                    Win for the visitors on the first innings. Islanders batted first. Home team reached 40 for 3 wickets by the luncheon interval. After resumption the remaining 7 batsmen added only 9 runs. After the visitors' second innings the game terminated. [Details of play given.]
                    Isle of Purbeck: 1: 57; 2: 89 [complete]; Blandford: 51
                    [24 August 1889, p. 2]

                    A definite 2 innings game with a luncheon interval which means a period of pre-luncheon play. If luncheon was at 2pm as in the game at Sir William’s Ground then we’re again looking at a start of 1pm at the earliest.

                    *Tuesday 10 September 1889 at Blandford. Mr. E. B. Smith's XI v. Mr. Douglas Smith's XI.
                    Return match. Win for former on first innings. Players and a numerous company entertained at tea in the pavilion.
                    Mr E. B. Smith's XI: 1: 66; 2: 86 for four wickets [6 scores, 1 not out]; Mr D. Smith's XI: 51
                    [14 September 1889, p. 2]

                    A definite 2 innings game but we have no way of estimating the start time.
                    So of the 7 x 2 innings games above we have

                    3 unknown start times.
                    A 12pm start time.
                    A 1.30 start time.
                    2 games that are pretty safe bets at 1pm or before.

                    So just with these 7 games we have 4 earlier starts and 3 unknowns.

                    All that I’m saying is the longer the intended game the greater the time allowance required to give a reasonable chance of completion. I’m not stating anything certain though Chris. If 2 innings games have been found with late start times I would dispute it. All that I’m suggesting is that if you were organising a two innings match today with light beginning to fade around 6.30 you wouldn’t begin at 3 or 4 o’clock. That’s all that I’m saying. With a break of 30 minutes you would be looking at 4-5 hours.

                    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

                      I can only go on the games that you posted Chris.



                      So of the 7 x 2 innings games above we have

                      3 unknown start times.
                      A 12pm start time.
                      A 1.30 start time.
                      2 games that are pretty safe bets at 1pm or before.

                      So just with these 7 games we have 4 earlier starts and 3 unknowns.

                      All that I’m saying is the longer the intended game the greater the time allowance required to give a reasonable chance of completion. I’m not stating anything certain though Chris. If 2 innings games have been found with late start times I would dispute it. All that I’m suggesting is that if you were organising a two innings match today with light beginning to fade around 6.30 you wouldn’t begin at 3 or 4 o’clock. That’s all that I’m saying. With a break of 30 minutes you would be looking at 4-5 hours.
                      You seem to be arguing that two-innings matches would have to begin earlier than a certain time. That's not what I'm asking about at all. I'm asking whether you know of any evidence that they ever played a game that was intended to be only one innings.

                      Comment


                      • The start time of a two innings game isn't really relevant. It wasn't completed which can only have been due to the weather. The point that has to be considered is... when was it called off? Before or after 4.30.

                        Comment


                        • I think I'll bow out of this discussion for a while. I have some other things to catch up on.

                          Comment


                          • This is from the Blandford Weekly News of 4th February, 1888.

                            Although it’s not specifically mentioned, I think the station in question is probably Blandford Station, the unusual Three Choughs pub name being a clue.

                            So why would the driver of a bus have been returning from the station at 9.30 in the evening unless trains were stopping there at that time?

                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                              So why would the driver of a bus have been returning from the station at 9.30 in the evening unless trains were stopping there at that time?
                              I'm assuming the 8.58 pm train?

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	Dec 1888 Blandford Train.jpg
Views:	136
Size:	49.3 KB
ID:	589564

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                                You seem to be arguing that two-innings matches would have to begin earlier than a certain time. That's not what I'm asking about at all. I'm asking whether you know of any evidence that they ever played a game that was intended to be only one innings.
                                No I haven’t Chris. I haven’t seen many of their games though..
                                Regards

                                Michael🔎


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X