Proof of Innocence?

[Gary Barnett]

I'm assuming the 8.58 pm train?

Thanks, RJ, that would make sense.

So the 7.30 got into Bournemouth at 8.05?

[Phil Kellingley]

It has been suggested that the weather may have had some effect on the match. Detailed records for the areas do not seem readily available but the Met Office does have the following:

In the report for 29th August - Forecast for 30th August: England SW Wind backing to SW or S again, unsettled, showery.

Daily Weather Report for 30th August 1888: All areas of the UK had rain varying between 2.17 inches and 4.08 inches. The closest named point to Blandford is Hurst Castle where there was 2.31 inches of rain. Temperature for the day was Max 68.1 Min 56.1

As Hurst Castle is coastal it is likely that the temperature at Blandford would have been several degrees warmer, but the Met Office map says that the whole country was "Rather Colder Generally". The weather map also shows that the Eastern part of the country was 'Stormy' and that the winds for the whole country were generally coming from the West.

It is very likely that as the whole country had rain that Blandford would certainly have had its share.

It is, therefore, likely that the match duration was affected by the weather. 2 inches of rain is quite a lot. The only problem being that there is no indication of whether the rain was overnight and morning (thus causing a late start) or later in the day (thus causing an earllier finish)

[Chris Phillips]

I will just say again that it can't be assumed that the Blandford-Purbeck game couldn't have run out of time because the number of runs was only 88. Going back to the Western Chronicle report posted by RJ above, next-but-one on the list is a game between Evercreech and Wincanton Rovers two days later, with the comment "time not allowing the game to be played out", in which there were only 79 runs - fewer than in the game at Blandford:



Obviously the time taken would depend not only on the total number of runs, but on the run rate per over, and one of the few things we know about the Blandford match is that during Druitt's ten overs the run rate per over was very low. We know the weather that day nearby was "very unfavourable", and that would have tended to reduce the number of runs.

However, in the absence of information about the time of day, unless we can rule out the possibility that the game was stopped by bad weather, I don't think we can say it would have been impossible for Druitt to get to London that night.

[Edward Stow]

I would like to see the full train time tables - not clipped - with the source .
And the nearest useful train junction to Blandford was Wimborne - 10 miles by charabang. Surety two and a half hours travel.

[Gary Barnett]

I will just say again that it can't be assumed that the Blandford-Purbeck game couldn't have run out of time because the number of runs was only 88. Going back to the Western Chronicle report posted by RJ above, next-but-one on the list is a game between Evercreech and Wincanton Rovers two days later, with the comment "time not allowing the game to be played out", in which there were only 79 runs - fewer than in the game at Blandford:



Obviously the time taken would depend not only on the total number of runs, but on the run rate per over, and one of the few things we know about the Blandford match is that during Druitt's ten overs the run rate per over was very low. We know the weather that day nearby was "very unfavourable", and that would have tended to reduce the number of runs.

However, in the absence of information about the time of day, unless we can rule out the possibility that the game was stopped by bad weather, I don't think we can say it would have been impossible for Druitt to get to London that night.

From the Shepton Mallet Journal of 14th September, 1888:

[Chris Phillips]

From the Shepton Mallet Journal of 14th September, 1888:

Thanks. It seems they missed the fact that the second innings ended because Wincanton reached a winning score, rather than through lack of time. It only goes to show we shouldn't believe everything we read in the newspapers.

I still think it would be dangerous to assume the number of runs was too low for them to have run out of time at Blandford. But I'm thinking there's not much point in spending a lot of time researching that aspect, if we have no way of ruling out the possibility that bad weather stopped play.

(Edit. It's just as well we have the Blandford Weekly News report of the Druitt game as well, otherwise we'd now be wondering whether the Western Chronicle had simply omitted the second innings figures because the game had been decided on the first innings, as they did here. Their reporting wasn't consistent, as in the same column there's a report of another game that Saturday which was decided on the first innings, in which one side had two innings and the other one. In that game too the total number of runs (83) was again lower than in the Blandford game. But unfortunately the report doesn't say why the game ended prematurely.)

[Edward Stow]

A lot of matches in this period were low scoring. Current run rates per hour are meaningless as comparisons. The outfield grass was longer and stopped the ball rolling, the wickets less well kept, the ball less giving, the bats more primitive.

[Michael Banks]

I will just say again that it can't be assumed that the Blandford-Purbeck game couldn't have run out of time because the number of runs was only 88. Going back to the Western Chronicle report posted by RJ above, next-but-one on the list is a game between Evercreech and Wincanton Rovers two days later, with the comment "time not allowing the game to be played out", in which there were only 79 runs - fewer than in the game at Blandford:



Obviously the time taken would depend not only on the total number of runs, but on the run rate per over, and one of the few things we know about the Blandford match is that during Druitt's ten overs the run rate per over was very low. We know the weather that day nearby was "very unfavourable", and that would have tended to reduce the number of runs.

However, in the absence of information about the time of day, unless we can rule out the possibility that the game was stopped by bad weather, I don't think we can say it would have been impossible for Druitt to get to London that night.

Yes, I agree that we can’t prove anything either way with the current evidence Chris. I certainly can’t disprove that this might have been intended as a shortened game. It needn’t have been shortened during the game either. If the weather looked a bit dodgy before the game began or that the start was delayed for whatever reason the two teams might have agreed on a one innings game. My main area of doubt is that in the other 2 innings games that were cut short this fact is specifically mentioned but in the Blandford game it says nothing about the game being cut short but that it was a ‘decisive victory.’ Plenty of information has been discovered though so it’s not impossible that more decisive information might still be out there somewhere.

[Chris Phillips]

A lot of matches in this period were low scoring. Current run rates per hour are meaningless as comparisons. The outfield grass was longer and stopped the ball rolling, the wickets less well kept, the ball less giving, the bats more primitive.

Yes, that's why I'm saying we shouldn't make assumptions about how the number of runs translates into duration. We could try to look at evidence about runs per over from that period. But even then we'd need to make allowances for the weather, and many of these reports don't even mention what the weather was like. I'm coming to the conclusion that for this really to provide an alibi we'd need a definite statement about when the match ended, or at least that it ended because time ran out.

[R. J. Palmer]

So the 7.30 got into Bournemouth at 8.05?

.

Yes, I think he can get to Bournemouth by 8.05 pm even if he leaves Blandford as late as 7.30, but I don't think it does him any good. The train to Waterloo Station left Bournemouth West at 7.40 pm, and I've seen no evidence of a later passenger train.

Bradshaw's awaits, but from everything I've seen, I think he would need to be on the 4.55 out of Blandford.

[Gary Barnett]

.

Yes, I think he can get to Bournemouth by 8.05 pm even if he leaves Blandford as late as 7.30, but I don't think it does him any good. The train to Waterloo Station left Bournemouth West at 7.40 pm, and I've seen no evidence of a later passenger train.

Bradshaw's awaits, but from everything I've seen, I think he would need to be on the 4.55 out of Blandford.

Does Bradshaw’s contain information about mail trains?

[Gary Barnett]

I’ve not yet got a feel for the times of Mail Trains to and from Waterloo and Dorset/Hampshire, but they were late trains and they did carry passengers as well as mail and other freight.

This is from the Blandford Weekly News of 14th July, 1888.

[Chris Phillips]

I’ve not yet got a feel for the times of Mail Trains to and from Waterloo and Dorset/Hampshire, but they were late trains and they did carry passengers as well as mail and other freight.

This is from the Blandford Weekly News of 14th July, 1888.

But why should Druitt have gone to so much trouble to get to London on that particular day? For an opportunistic killer isn't any day as good as another?

[Gary Barnett]

But why should Druitt have gone to so much trouble to get to London on that particular day? For an opportunistic killer isn't any day as good as another?

Are we straying into the area of the killer’s psychology? :-)

[Chris Phillips]

Are we straying into the area of the killer’s psychology? :-)

Only in a strictly on-topic way ...