Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

    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?
    Well, I only speak for myself, but if MJD did go to London, I would assume it would have been for some other reason, and not part of a pre-meditated plot.

    More work is needed, but regarding Bournemouth, it could be that even a night mail train to London wasn't an option.

    At the end of 1887 and the beginning of 1888, both Bournemouth and Christchurch town councils were petitioning the railway for a night train (both a mail and a passenger train) and I'm not seeing any evidence that they were successful.

    I'm not positive, though.

    Coincidentally, MJD's cousin James (or it could have been his uncle James) was among the petitioners.




    Click image for larger version

Name:	Bournemouth Night Train.jpg
Views:	80
Size:	103.9 KB
ID:	589669
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Christchurch Mail Train.jpg
Views:	77
Size:	119.6 KB
ID:	589670

    Comment


    • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

      Well, I only speak for myself, but if MJD did go to London, I would assume it would have been for some other reason, and not part of a pre-meditated plot.

      More work is needed, but regarding Bournemouth, it could be that even a night mail train to London wasn't an option.

      At the end of 1887 and the beginning of 1888, both Bournemouth and Christchurch town councils were petitioning the railway for a night train (both a mail and a passenger train) and I'm not seeing any evidence that they were successful.

      I'm not positive, though.

      Coincidentally, MJD's cousin James (or it could have been his uncle James) was among the petitioners.




      Click image for larger version

Name:	Bournemouth Night Train.jpg
Views:	80
Size:	103.9 KB
ID:	589669
      Click image for larger version

Name:	Christchurch Mail Train.jpg
Views:	77
Size:	119.6 KB
ID:	589670
      Why Bournemouth?

      The clipping I posted from July, 1888 spoke of flowers being sent (presumably from Blandford) via Wimborne to London on the ‘late mail train’. So there must have been one. What isn’t clear is what was meant by ‘late’.

      Comment


      • According to the Christchurch Times of 3rd November, 1888, there was an ‘up’ (to London?) mail train that reached Wimborne ‘about’ 8 o’clock.


        Attached Files

        Comment


        • In her opening post Joanna mentions that the article was available on the BNA but she couldn’t upload it. Have we seen it? I was wondering if there was more info? I wondered if it contained more info about a point that I thought that I’d already mentioned somewhere but I can’t find it and a friend has just pointed it out to me again - it’s the order that the innings are printed. If this isn’t an error why did the team batting second bat on after the game would have been won at 26? This is a point in favour of a 2 innings game cut short. Against this perhaps is the fact that in the other ‘cut short’ games that I’ve seen this fact has been mentioned. A ‘decisive victory’ doesn’t really describe a game cut short.
          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
            In her opening post Joanna mentions that the article was available on the BNA but she couldn’t upload it. Have we seen it? I was wondering if there was more info? I wondered if it contained more info about a point that I thought that I’d already mentioned somewhere but I can’t find it and a friend has just pointed it out to me again - it’s the order that the innings are printed. If this isn’t an error why did the team batting second bat on after the game would have been won at 26? This is a point in favour of a 2 innings game cut short. Against this perhaps is the fact that in the other ‘cut short’ games that I’ve seen this fact has been mentioned. A ‘decisive victory’ doesn’t really describe a game cut short.
            Here it is, Mike.

            Attached Files

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

              Why Bournemouth?

              The clipping I posted from July, 1888 spoke of flowers being sent (presumably from Blandford) via Wimborne to London on the ‘late mail train’. So there must have been one. What isn’t clear is what was meant by ‘late’.
              Why Bournemouth? Only because this conversation started with the 7.30 from Blandford to Bournemouth, and we still needed to consider a later train out of Bournemouth, provided MJD went there. There doesn't, however, appear to have been one.

              The mail train to Wimborne is a different matter, of course, and can also be investigated.

              That said, I suspect Stow & Co. will cry foul if we stray too far from the usual passenger trains.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

                Why Bournemouth? Only because this conversation started with the 7.30 from Blandford to Bournemouth, and we still needed to consider a later train out of Bournemouth, provided MJD went there. There doesn't, however, appear to have been one.

                The mail train to Wimborne is a different matter, of course, and can also be investigated.

                That said, I suspect Stow & Co. will cry foul if we stray too far from the usual passenger trains.
                I'm not sure whether I'm part of Stow & Co, but if we're just talking about the bare possibility that Druitt could have got to London that night, I don't think a mail train is needed as things stand now, because we haven't ruled out the possibility that the match started earlier than mid-afternoon and ended prematurely because of bad weather. Unless Club records have survived, I doubt we shall be able to.

                I know these things can be interesting to research in their own right, and I'm even starting to feel a bit curious about mail trains myself, but the Druittists can do without them for the time being. (Though I still think that if we're talking about probabilities, the mere fact of Druitt being in Dorset on 30 August and 1 September makes it very unlikely he was in London on 31 August.)

                Comment


                • Mr Banks is still under a modernist's misapprehension about cricket scoring. If the second innings was not completed for whatever reason, the match was scored on the first innings - which could obviously produce a decisivr result.

                  And the only conceivable reason this match was called short could have been due to the weather. And so far we have to determine whether or not it was abandoned before 4.30.

                  As for the mail train - like the milk train - it was a passenger train and so would not have been listed on a separate time table designed to confuse unwary passengers and serial killers.
                  Having said that I don't know the sources for the truncated timetables that have been reproduced on here.

                  Comment


                  • From what I can gather there wasn't a direct train from Wimborne to London for those flowers - I stand to be corrected.

                    George Stow and Co Limited - sometimes abbreviated as Stow & Co - was of course an Engineering firm based in Henley-on-Thames which provided the personnel and commanding officers for three Boring Sectiions of the Royal Engineers in the late unpleasantness with the Bosche. The interesting No.1 Boring Section was commanded by George Raymond Snewin Stow , drilling for water in the Western Desert and thwarting the Afrika Korps almost single handed.
                    https://sp.lyellcollection.org/conte...b-figures-data

                    Who wouldn't want to be associated with Stow & Co.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                      Here it is, Mike.
                      It’s a strange one. Everything about that report says that it was a decisively won, perfectly standard one innings game, but…. Why are the innings printed in that order (and, why was the first game of 2 innings?) without further info we’re stymied on this point.
                      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 a strange one. Everything about that report says that it was a decisively won, perfectly standard one innings game, but…. Why are the innings printed in that order (and, why was the first game of 2 innings?) without further info we’re stymied on this point.
                        Because one innings games weren't standard. The great majority of the games Blandford played in were obviously intended to be two innings (because either at least one side started a second innings or it's explicitly stated that after one innings there wasn't time to complete the game). I don't think they ever intended to play a two innings game.

                        When you ask why the innings are printed in that order, do you mean to ask - if it was intended to be a one-innings game and Blandford batted first - why should Purbeck have completed their innings? Isn't the obvious answer that it wasn't intended to be a one-innings game?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                          Mr Banks is still under a modernist's misapprehension about cricket scoring. If the second innings was not completed for whatever reason, the match was scored on the first innings - which could obviously produce a decisivr result.

                          And the only conceivable reason this match was called short could have been due to the weather. And so far we have to determine whether or not it was abandoned before 4.30.

                          As for the mail train - like the milk train - it was a passenger train and so would not have been listed on a separate time table designed to confuse unwary passengers and serial killers.
                          Having said that I don't know the sources for the truncated timetables that have been reproduced on here.
                          I’m under no misapprehension because I’ve seen the evidence that 2 innings games could be decided on the first innings so I know it’s true. But my point would be that in all of the reports that I’ve seen on here the fact that the game had been cut short was mentioned. There may be reports of similar games where this isn’t stated that yourself, Chris, Gary or Roger might have seen but I can only go on the ones that I’ve seen posted.

                          If the game was a 2 innings one cut short (and I don’t think that we can be certain on this but I accept that it could have been) then I might suggest 2 possible reasons.

                          1. Perhaps because of the various events going on that day a 2 innings game might have been a potential issue time wise? The Blandford captain might have asked the Purbeck captain if the game could be re-arranged for another date. Then the suggestion might have been made by one of them to play the game over one innings. It’s pure speculation of course but I’d say that it’s far from impossible.

                          2. And as you’ve said…rain. But if it did rain, when did it rain and for how long? If there was 2 hours or more of rain before the game began then it’s difficult to see how they could have played at all on a waterlogged pitch? It could have been showers causing them to go off and come back on a few times which led to them concluding that 2 innings would have been impossible. Or it could have rained after the second innings so they called off play for the day? But again we come back to the fact that no mention was made of the game being shortened by rain.

                          So we just have no way at this point to come to any conclusions without actual times.

                          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

                            Because one innings games weren't standard. The great majority of the games Blandford played in were obviously intended to be two innings (because either at least one side started a second innings or it's explicitly stated that after one innings there wasn't time to complete the game). I don't think they ever intended to play a two innings game.

                            When you ask why the innings are printed in that order, do you mean to ask - if it was intended to be a one-innings game and Blandford batted first - why should Purbeck have completed their innings? Isn't the obvious answer that it wasn't intended to be a one-innings game?
                            If that the report shows the actual order of the innings (and it wasn’t just a case of it being reported like that because the person reporting it didn’t realise the significance of the order to the understanding of the game) then yes, the game looks like a 2 innings game cut short. If Blandford had batted second in a one innings game then the game would have been over when they’d scored 26.

                            Here’s a possible complication, and I’m certainly not suggesting this with any weight Chris and it may carry no weight at all but some leagues might have taken note of aggregate runs over the season as a way of deciding between the teams that finished at the top of the league. If 2 or three teams ended on the same points they would have need a way of deciding who had won the league. In football I believe that they use Goal Difference (which is goals scored minus goals conceded - the highest goal difference wins in the case of a tie) It might have been that the case here was that first innings run aggregate was the deciding factor and so Blandford were allowed to bat. I’ve known this to have been the case but obviously only in the modern era where I’ve played.

                            As I said Chris I’m certainly not suggesting by any means that this was the case but…..it’s a mother ‘complication.’ Nothing new with cricket.
                            Regards

                            Michael🔎


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

                            Comment


                            • At the risk of being accused of going out of my way to provide options for Druitt where there any other stations that might have provided different travel options especially when considering that many of Druitt’s team mates would have had a coach and horses? There was probably nowhere but I thought that it’s worth asking all questions so that we can eliminate the impossible.
                              Regards

                              Michael🔎


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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                                Here it is, Mike.
                                Cheers Gary.
                                Regards

                                Michael🔎


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X