Proof of Innocence?

[Chris Phillips]

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.

Thanks. I see what you mean about 1 September 1888. The Recreation Ground Juniors apparently batted first, but could have declared in their second innings, therefore the match could have been completed. The report of the match on 29 May 1889 says (if I understand correctly) that this was allowed by a "new rule". (I wonder if anyone knows when it was introduced?)

Otherwise we'd have to suppose the scores in that match were reported in the wrong order. I think that leaves only two reports where the scores do seem to be in the wrong order - 2 August 1888 (game at Blandford where the report says the visitors batted first, but Blandford's scores are given first) and 15 September 1888 (where the team whose scores are listed second had two innings, despite leading in the first innings).

If the scores are given in the right order in the Druitt game, I think we agree that the fact the first innings was completed is an argument in favour of this having been planned as a two-innings game?

[Michael Banks]

Thanks. I see what you mean about 1 September 1888. The Recreation Ground Juniors apparently batted first, but could have declared in their second innings, therefore the match could have been completed. The report of the match on 29 May 1889 says (if I understand correctly) that this was allowed by a "new rule". (I wonder if anyone knows when it was introduced?)

Wiki says that the rule was first proposed at an MCC Annual General Meeting in 1906 but that the first captain to declare was in 1890 for Nottingham against Kent. This might mean that the rule was employed in lower level games before it got proposed for inclusion at county level.

Otherwise we'd have to suppose the scores in that match were reported in the wrong order. I think that leaves only two reports where the scores do seem to be in the wrong order - 2 August 1888 (game at Blandford where the report says the visitors batted first, but Blandford's scores are given first) and 15 September 1888 (where the team whose scores are listed second had two innings, despite leading in the first innings).

If the scores are given in the right order in the Druitt game, I think we agree that the fact the first innings was completed is an argument in favour of this having been planned as a two-innings game?

Absolutely Chris, along with the fact that the game at Purbeck was a 2 innings game. Unfortunately, even if it was it doesn’t get us any closer to a time. I still tend toward the fact that a proposed 2 innings game would have started earlier though. But what time though?

[Chris Phillips]

Absolutely Chris, along with the fact that the game at Purbeck was a 2 innings game. Unfortunately, even if it was it doesn’t get us any closer to a time. I still tend toward the fact that a proposed 2 innings game would have started earlier though. But what time though?

We don't have many starting times to go on. From memory, one about midday and another at 1.30. We should bear in mind that (on a quick count) only 23 out of the 53 matches from 1887-1889 for which we have scores were decided on two innings, so it wouldn't be a question of allowing time for even half of the matches to be completed. That proportion is similar for the matches played at the Blandford Recreation Ground on Thursdays - 10 out of 19.

[Edward Stow]

I have probably said this before, but this issue is potentially of wide ranging significance in influencing our understanding of this whole case. Potentially it could be the most significant discovery for several years. If for example Mary Kelly's true identity was discovered, it would give true colour to her life and in a way honour her memory, but I doubt that it would alter any preconceptions about the case in general.
Druitt is significant, partly because his identification as a suspect is part of the mythos of the case (an aspect her shares, but less so, with Mary Kelly). The drowned doctor, the middle class suspect - all that stuff.
It is significant to those who favour Druitt as a suspect - but information discovered cannot realistically help their case, only potentially demolished it.
But more fundamentally this could undermine totally the belief that the police had any sort of clue about likely suspects. Of the three mentioned by Macnaghten, if Ostrog and now potentially Druitt can be eliminated, what does that say about their abilities - what does it say about Kosminski - what does it say about the so called Canonical Five... with other murders excluded.

That is why it is important to list sources and dates of those sources accurately... the train time snippets for example!

[Christer Holmgren]

I have said much the same for a long time now. Take the 134 years that have passed since the Ripper murders and back down in time the same distance. Where do we end up? We end up at a remove in time where there were still ongoing witch processes in Europe and where the top scientists of the day reasoned that swallows spent the winters sleeping on the bottoms of lakes.
Just as we are willing to ascribe professional insights to men like Anderson and Macnaghten, we should also realize that the scientific grounds they based their thinking on left a lot to be desired. Druitt is so wrong for so many reasons, for example - but caught in his own era, Macnaghten did not have that insight. To him, killers were more likely to do away with themselves the more horrific their crimes were. The truth is that it is the other way around.

I agree with Edward that a potential dismissal of Druitt must also to a significant degree be a dismissal of the ones who speculated about the murders identity back in the late nineteenth century. In Sweden we talk about learning money when we speak of mistakes, maybe it is the same in Great Britain. Regardless, the bill has been a hefty one and so very little has come of it.

And now, back to the cricket scoreboards and train time tables.

[Edward Stow]

And weather reports, don't forget the weather reports.

[Chris Phillips]

Talking about cricket, the weather and public transport. The very epitome of Englishness.

[David Green]

In reference to post 871 on declarations.

In March 1889 the MCC passed several new laws. One of these was the five ball over previously discussed (Law 13). Another law was that a bowler was not allowed to bowl two overs consecutively in one innings (Law 14). A third law concerned declarations: on the last day of a match, or at any time during a one-day match, the captain of the in-side was allowed to declare an innings at an end (Law 54). This new declaration rule enabled many matches to be finished to a result. It would have come into effect for the 1889 season.

[Edward Stow]

By saying declarations were now allowed to enable matches to finish with a result... it kind of suggests that unfinished matches were counted as drawers. But we know that unfinished matches did end in a decision where the first innings was complete.

[Chris Phillips]

In reference to post 871 on declarations.

In March 1889 the MCC passed several new laws. One of these was the five ball over previously discussed (Law 13). Another law was that a bowler was not allowed to bowl two overs consecutively in one innings (Law 14). A third law concerned declarations: on the last day of a match, or at any time during a one-day match, the captain of the in-side was allowed to declare an innings at an end (Law 54). This new declaration rule enabled many matches to be finished to a result. It would have come into effect for the 1889 season.

Thanks. That makes sense regarding the rule about declarations.

But you also mention something else that's quite important with reference to the Druitt match - the rule about the same bowler not bowling two consecutive overs.If that was in force in 1888, seeing that we know Druitt bowled 10 overs, that would mean the Blandford innings was at least 19 overs in total.

On the recommendation of my cricket adviser, I have been using this website.

https://archive.acscricket.com/research/Laws_of_Cricket/index.html

From that, it appears that the change in 1889 wasn't a prohibition of bowling two consecutive overs (which was already prohibited in 1884) but permission for the bowler to change ends as often as he wished (rather than "not more than twice").

[Chris Phillips]

I've been remiss in not reading these laws fully before.

Some relevant points:

(1) Law 1. A match is played between two sides of eleven players each, unless otherwise agreed to; each side has two innings, taken alternately, except in the case provided for in Law 53 [following on]. The choice of innings shall be decided by tossing.

In 1888 the Laws of Cricket did not provide for any such thing as a one-innings game. Cricket was a two-innings game.

(2) One Day Matches.Law 2. The match, unless played out, shall be decided by the first innings.

It was part of the laws that if the match was not completed it was decided by the first innings.

(3) Law 13. The ball shall be bowled in overs of four balls from each wicket alternately. ...
But: One Day Matches. Law 3. Prior to the commencement of a Match it may be agreed that the over consist of 5 or 6 balls.

In a one-day match an over could be either four balls, or (by prior agreement) five or six balls.

[Michael Banks]

I have said much the same for a long time now. Take the 134 years that have passed since the Ripper murders and back down in time the same distance. Where do we end up? We end up at a remove in time where there were still ongoing witch processes in Europe and where the top scientists of the day reasoned that swallows spent the winters sleeping on the bottoms of lakes.
Just as we are willing to ascribe professional insights to men like Anderson and Macnaghten, we should also realize that the scientific grounds they based their thinking on left a lot to be desired. Druitt is so wrong for so many reasons, for example - but caught in his own era, Macnaghten did not have that insight. To him, killers were more likely to do away with themselves the more horrific their crimes were. The truth is that it is the other way around.

I agree with Edward that a potential dismissal of Druitt must also to a significant degree be a dismissal of the ones who speculated about the murders identity back in the late nineteenth century. In Sweden we talk about learning money when we speak of mistakes, maybe it is the same in Great Britain. Regardless, the bill has been a hefty one and so very little has come of it.

And now, back to the cricket scoreboards and train time tables.

There are no hard and fast rules Fish unless we set them for ourselves. Even a person that might be considered statistically unlikely by some is still a possible. What would we achieve by dismissing possible suspects on mere statistics? Druitt is no less likely than Lechmere because we don’t know anything near enough about him. He got married, had a family, worked etc. We have no known childhood trauma to go on apart from family loss which occurs to everyone. Of the two men, Lechmere and Druitt, for which one do we have evidence of any kind of mental health issue? I’ve no issue with anyone not rating Druitt as a suspect, many don’t (but many do) but those kinds of statistics and talk of ‘these types of people behave in this way’ don’t Impress me although they do some of course. There are no solid grounds for dismissing Druitt. Call him a rubbish suspect and that’s fine if that’s what you want. But there’s nothing that makes him any more unlikely than any other suspect.

As you say, back to the topic at hand.

[Gary Barnett]

I've been remiss in not reading these laws fully before.

Some relevant points:

(1) Law 1. A match is played between two sides of eleven players each, unless otherwise agreed to; each side has two innings, taken alternately, except in the case provided for in Law 53 [following on]. The choice of innings shall be decided by tossing.

In 1888 the Laws of Cricket did not provide for any such thing as a one-innings game. Cricket was a two-innings game.

(2) One Day Matches.Law 2. The match, unless played out, shall be decided by the first innings.

It was part of the laws that if the match was not completed it was decided by the first innings.

(3) Law 13. The ball shall be bowled in overs of four balls from each wicket alternately. ...
But: One Day Matches. Law 3. Prior to the commencement of a Match it may be agreed that the over consist of 5 or 6 balls.

In a one-day match an over could be either four balls, or (by prior agreement) five or six balls.

Chris, I’m seeing numerous references to single innings matches in 1888 which appear to have been intended that way, at least there’s no indication that they were truncated two innings matches. Some of them are charity matches or impromptu matches, but it’s clearly not the case that cricket was only a two innings game.

[Chris Phillips]

Chris, I’m seeing numerous references to single innings matches in 1888 which appear to have been intended that way, at least there’s no indication that they were truncated two innings matches. Some of them are charity matches or impromptu matches, but it’s clearly not the case that cricket was only a two innings game.

I think the best way of putting it is that by the Laws of Cricket, cricket was a two-innings game, but in a one-day match if the game wasn't played out it was decided on the first innings. That is there in black and white and I don't think it can be disputed.

What isn't clearly laid out is exactly how the decision not to play it out would be made. It's implicit in the laws that the umpires could decide that play couldn't continue because of weather. We know that in practice there could be a time limit. In the case you quote apparently they agreed to stop after a single innings. But those are all cases in which for one reason or another a complete match wasn't played.

I don't think references to a "one innings game" necessarily mean that, though. Certainly some of the Blandford matches are described as that because they were decided on one innings, even though a second innings was started.

[David Green]

Michael: the 1884 Code (which applied in 1888) prohibited a bowler (a) from changing ends more than twice in the same innings, and (b) from bowling more than two overs in succession. Thus, Law 14 allowed a bowler to bowl two overs consecutively but not three. In 1889 this Law was amended to prohibit a bowler from bowling two overs consecutively.

In theory, at Blandford in 1888 Druit could have bowled five out of the first seven overs; if Druitt bowled a total of 10 overs then the Blandford innings must have been at least 17 overs in total (not 19).

Let's assume Druitt and Oakley were the only two bowlers for Purbeck. Given that neither bowler could change ends more than twice and neither bowler could bowl more than two overs in succession, then it’s possible that the innings was over in 17 overs

Over 1 (Druitt)
Over 2 (Druiit)
Over 3 (Oakley)
Over 4 (Druitt)
Over 5 (Druiit)
Over 6 (Oakley)
Over 7 (Druitt)
Over 8 (Oakley)
Over 9 (Druitt)
Over 10 (Oakley)
Over 11 (Druitt)
Over 12 (Oakley)
Over 13 (Druitt)
Over 14 (Oakley)
Over 15 (Druitt)
Over 16 Oakley)
Over 17 (Druitt)