Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
    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.
    I think that's right.

    If you don't mind, take a look at the timetable in post number 826

    Isn't it likely that Gary's "late mail train" (or flower train) was the 8.58 pm out of Blandford, that arrived in Wimborne Junction at 9.21?

    If I'm reading it correctly, it looks as though the flowers wouldn't have arrived in Waterloo Station until 3.43 a.m., unless that's the next afternoon.

    Comment


    • Unless otherwise noted, these timetables come from Bournemouth and Salisbury newspapers, August/September 1888. If you don't want truncated timetables, be prepared for tables so small you won't be able to read them.

      From what I've seen, my belief is that MJD needs to be on the 4.55 out of Blandford if he's going to make it to London that night. Maybe someone can prove me wrong.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

        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.)
        Think of the mail and milk trains, plus charas and buses, as braces to add to the security of the cricketing belt. Unless we can eliminate them as possibilities, the alibi is not proven.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
          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.
          I did post notes of all the Blandford matches I could find from 1887-1889 here:
          https://jtrforums.com/resources/BlandfordCC.pdf

          I'm not quite sure what point you're making about mentioning when the game was cut short. When there are only scores for the first innings it was sometimes stated that it was cut short because of time (or in one case through weather) and sometimes it wasn't stated that it was cut short. When there are scores for at least part of the second innings but it was decided on the first, sometimes it was stated that it was because of time and sometimes the reason wasn't given.

          Incidentally, my cricket advisor's comment when he saw the scores was almost immediately to ask whether the game was cut short because of the weather (because it appeared that the second team completed its innings despite having gone well beyond the first team's score).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

            Think of the mail and milk trains, plus charas and buses, as braces to add to the security of the cricketing belt. Unless we can eliminate them as possibilities, the alibi is not proven.
            My thought was just that it might be a question of worrying about the belt before the trousers were on (because of the possibility of bad weather). But I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from research that's interesting and adds to the sum of human knowledge (or at least the knowledge of people reading this thread).

            Comment


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

              Does this mail train appear on a timetable?

              Comment


              • Victorian train timetables are a bit of a mystery to me. At some point I hope to visit the British Library, but perhaps someone else will get there first. Would the "gold standard" be Bradshaw, or is there some other source that should be consulted?

                Comment


                • And if we are really going into this seriously - there could well be official weather records still existing. I obtained some hour-by-hour records for the neighbourhood of Cardiff in 1952 for the research into the murder of Lily Volpert. Given that basic weather recording isn't rocket science, I can believe reasonably detailed records could have been kept in 1888, and could have survived.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                    Victorian train timetables are a bit of a mystery to me. At some point I hope to visit the British Library, but perhaps someone else will get there first. Would the "gold standard" be Bradshaw, or is there some other source that should be consulted?
                    I would imagine the gold standard would have been the timetables issued by the individual railway companies. I can’t see a new edition of Bradshaw’s being issued every time there was a change to a local timetable.

                    I could be wrong, though.



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                      I would imagine the gold standard would have been the timetables issued by the individual railway companies. I can’t see a new edition of Bradshaw’s being issued every time there was a change to a local timetable.

                      I could be wrong, though.


                      I wonder if that would come into the category of "ephemera" that might not be held by the British Library. Anyhow, if people can suggest anything likely to be held in London, I'll add it to my list, to see if I get the chance.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                        I did post notes of all the Blandford matches I could find from 1887-1889 here:
                        https://jtrforums.com/resources/BlandfordCC.pdf

                        I'm not quite sure what point you're making about mentioning when the game was cut short. When there are only scores for the first innings it was sometimes stated that it was cut short because of time (or in one case through weather) and sometimes it wasn't stated that it was cut short. When there are scores for at least part of the second innings but it was decided on the first, sometimes it was stated that it was because of time and sometimes the reason wasn't given.

                        Incidentally, my cricket advisor's comment when he saw the scores was almost immediately to ask whether the game was cut short because of the weather (because it appeared that the second team completed its innings despite having gone well beyond the first team's score).
                        I’ve just gone through that list Chris.

                        Of the reports of 22 games that were definitely cut short, 21 stated explicitly that the games had been cut short and were decided on one innings (some, but not all, give the reason for the games being cut short) The other game, whilst not mentioning being ‘decided on one innings’ or mentioning any reason for being cut short was very unmistakably a 2 innings game as 3 innings were reported.

                        I totally agree with you Chris that there are 2 strong pieces of evidence that the game on the 30th was intended for 2 innings - the fact that the first game was over 2 innings and the fact that the score of 52 is printed 2nd but I still find it strange why there’s no mention of this game being cut short and decided on the first innings when it was in 21 out of 22 of the games on the list (and in the other this fact was obvious from the innings played) Why did they not mention anything just for this game? Also in that list there are 3 games which viewed just on what was written look like one innings games.

                        Im not saying that this couldn’t have been a 2 innings game cut short but there seems to be at least some doubt imo. And as it was a day that other events were occurring I don’t think it’s impossible that a one innings game might have been agreed upon in advance.

                        Whatever the alternatives and however we speculate I agree Chris that in the absence of further facts we just have no way of knowing.
                        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

                          I wonder if that would come into the category of "ephemera" that might not be held by the British Library. Anyhow, if people can suggest anything likely to be held in London, I'll add it to my list, to see if I get the chance.
                          Just Druitt-related or the case more generally?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                            Just Druitt-related or the case more generally?
                            Just related to this potential alibi.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

                              I’ve just gone through that list Chris.

                              Of the reports of 22 games that were definitely cut short, 21 stated explicitly that the games had been cut short and were decided on one innings (some, but not all, give the reason for the games being cut short) The other game, whilst not mentioning being ‘decided on one innings’ or mentioning any reason for being cut short was very unmistakably a 2 innings game as 3 innings were reported.
                              I'm looking at four matches that seem to have been decided on one innings, despite a second innings being begun, but where the reports don't say so or give a reason why the game finished prematurely:
                              12 July 1888, 1 September 1888, 3 July 1889 and 7 August 1889.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                                I'm looking at four matches that seem to have been decided on one innings, despite a second innings being begun, but where the reports don't say so or give a reason why the game finished prematurely:
                                12 July 1888, 1 September 1888, 3 July 1889 and 7 August 1889.
                                My apologies Chris, I think that a visit to the opticians might be in order for me. I’ll certainly agree on 3 of those 4. The 1st of September game could have been a completed one though as there was an innings played after the uncompleted one. There could have been a declaration by the Juniors.
                                Regards

                                Michael🔎


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X