Proof of Innocence?

[Edward Stow]

Yes I think it would only have been necessary to get to Wareham.

[Chris Phillips]

Yes I think it would only have been necessary to get to Wareham.

And if they got to Wareham under their own steam in the morning, a 12 noon start for the game would have been feasible. Perhaps the timetables don't tell us very much about the likely start time.

[Edward Stow]

Yes, I would assume the team assembled at Wareham and travelled from there... with Druitt meeting them along the way or at Blandford.

Even a 12 o'clock start makes getting the 4.55 problematical... given the extreme likelihood that for most of the period between 12 and 2 it would have been raining. Then they would have had to wait for the ground to dry, then the match would take a good two hours, maybe two and a half. Then he has to change and get to the station.

[Edward Stow]

Getting to Blandford for 12 means getting the 9.23 from Wareham and changing at Wimborne for the 10.35, arriving at Blandford early at 10.56.

Or, I think more likely, the 10.49 from Wareham, changing at Poole for the 11.57, arriving at Blanford at 12.30 for a 1 o'clock start- or more likely later than 1pm as I can't see these players rushing around changing into their whites.

The next train to Blandford arrived at 3.03 which seems too late to arrive.

[Chris Phillips]

Getting to Blandford for 12 means getting the 9.23 from Wareham and changing at Wimborne for the 10.35, arriving at Blandford early at 10.56.

Or, I think more likely, the 10.49 from Wareham, changing at Poole for the 11.57, arriving at Blanford at 12.30 for a 1 o'clock start- or more likely later than 1pm as I can't see these players rushing around changing into their whites.

See my post above - according to the 1887 Bradshaw that would involve changing at both Poole Junction and Poole. The alternative would just involve one change at Poole Junction, but still gets them to Blandford at the same time.

[R. J. Palmer]

And all the meterological data we have, tells us that any rain in Blandford was between around 12 and 2 pm. Not for a five minute spell. The rainfall that day included thunder and lightning. We also have newspaper reports explicitly saying the weather was bad in Blamdford... and the weather reports prove this can only have been between 12 and 2 pm - or at least in that ball park (or Recreation Ground).

Is it possible that you are a little overconfident on this point?

The account of the Industrial Exhibition alludes to "unfortunate weather" on both Wednesday and Thursday afternoons, and considering the doors didn't open until 2 pm., this unfortunate weather must have been later than 2 pm.

The same report describes "heavy storms" on Wednesday afternoon, yet the weather reports posted by Chris show .13 inches at the station in Stowell, and only .093 in Southampton,, which doesn't sound enough for a "heavy storms." (The information for Hurst Castle for that day wasn't posted).

Blandford may have been hit harder, but we don't really have any reliable information. One weather station is eighteen miles away, the other thirty-five.

Why would they refer to "unfortunate weather" on Thursday afternoon, if the storm had already passed before the exhibition opened?

[Chris Phillips]

Is it possible that you are a little overconfident on this point?

The account of the Industrial Exhibition alludes to "unfortunate weather" on both Wednesday and Thursday afternoons, and considering the doors didn't open until 2 pm., this unfortunate weather must have been later than 2 pm.

The same report describes "heavy storms" on Wednesday afternoon, yet the weather reports posted by Chris show .13 inches at the station in Stowell, and only .093 in Southampton,, which doesn't sound enough for a "heavy storms." (The information for Hurst Castle for that day wasn't posted).

Blandford may have been hit harder, but we don't really have any reliable information. One weather station is eighteen miles away, the other thirty-five.

Why would they refer to "unfortunate weather" on Thursday afternoon, if the storm had already passed before the exhibition opened?

For the Agricultural Weather reports (the handwritten ones), the column heading doesn't mention rain per se, but only "Unusually heavy rainfall", along with thunderstorms, lightning etc. So I don't think we can conclude there was no rain at all after 2pm. The indications seem to be that the thunderstorm would have been over by about 2pm, but according to Southampton the showers (some very heavy) at intervals continued for another couple of hours.

In contrast to Thursday's, the previous day's weather map shows rain everywhere, though again the coastal weather stations at Hurst Castle and Prawle Point - together with Jersey - show no rainfall on that day either (see below).

[R. J. Palmer]

As an aside, Sickert seems to be enjoying generally favorable swimming weather in Saint-Valéry-en-Caux

[Michael Banks]

I am very used to black being presented as white, and what is asserted as plausible or even likely on one thread being dismissed, by the same person, as nonsense on another. C'est la vie!

We have an excellent example in this discussion over batting on a sticky wicket.
A sticky wicket being a wet wicket - after rain.
The term originated in 1882 when Australian batsmen were discomforted by a wet wicket after rainfall. They were batting on a sticky wicket.
A wet wicket was universally regarded as a difficult surface for batsmen, which resulted in a low scoring game and wickets falling left right and centre.

Yet... yet... the non Druittist Druittist claims the opposite!

And all the meterological data we have, tells us that any rain in Blandford was between around 12 and 2 pm. Not for a five minute spell. The rainfall that day included thunder and lightning. We also have newspaper reports explicitly saying the weather was bad in Blamdford... and the weather reports prove this can only have been between 12 and 2 pm - or at least in that ball park (or Recreation Ground).

And I’m used to opinions skewed by blatant bias. A sticky wicket isn’t a waterlogged wicket. Waterlogged wickets don’t dry out in quick time. It’s why today they have invented technology to do that. Technology which wasn’t available in 1888.

My opinion is based on the known facts, not your distorted version of it. I’ll keep on viewing things openly; you carry on with your usual manipulations if that’s what you want to do.

On the subject of the ‘sticky wicket.’


In cricket

If rain falls and the wicket becomes wet, the ball may not bounce predictably, making it very difficult for the batsman.^[5]Furthermore, as the pitch dries, conditions can change swiftly, with spin bowling being especially devastating, as the ball can deviate laterally from straight by several feet. Once the wet surface begins to dry in a hot sun "the ball will rise sharply, steeply and erratically. A good length ball ... becomes a potential lethal delivery. Most batsmen on such wickets found it virtually impossible to survive let alone score."


“On occasions in the history of cricket unusual tactics have been employed to extract the best use of a sticky wicket. One example is the First Test in the 1950–51 Ashes series.^[7] As recorded in The Ashes' Strangest Moments, as the pitch at the Gabba began to dry,”

A wet pitch can produce uneven bounce as the quote says but the main problems with a sticky wicket comes when the pitch begins to dry - exactly as I said.

Also, was a making it up when I said that wet conditions make it difficult for bowlers? Let’s see….

“The disadvantages of bowling in these conditions are many. The ball will get wet quickly, fielding is hard meaning you could leak runs easily and you can't be sure of your footing. For all bowlers, the condition of the ball is critical. There is no substitute for keeping the ball dry and clean.”

We should stick to the facts and not resort to wish-thinking.

[Michael Banks]

As an aside, Sickert seems to be enjoying generally favorable swimming weather in Saint-Valéry-en-Caux

[Chris Phillips]

Just to add another thread to the rich tapestry ...

No doubt someone will correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but on page 41 of the 1887 Bradshaw there is a train shown leaving Blandford at 6.02pm and arriving at Templecombe (Upper Station) at 7.09pm [Edit: Correction: it arrived at 6.45 and departed at 7.00]. Templecombe was on the main line between Exeter and London, and on page 49 of Bradshaw are trains leaving Templecombe Junction at 7.13pm, 8.05pm and 8.57pm, arriving at London Waterloo at 11.28pm, 10.46pm and 12.03am respectively. I don't understand the details of how the railway lines joined up, but I get the impression it may effectively have been the same station called by two different names.

Unless I've misunderstood, this would give Druitt an extra hour and 10 minutes or so to leave Blandford in time to get to London.

[Edit: And there is a later train leaving Blandford at 7.58pm and arriving at Templecombe (Uppper) at 8.40pm!]

[R. J. Palmer]

[Edit: And there is a later train leaving Blandford at 7.58pm and arriving at Templecombe (Uppper) at 8.40pm!]

Well spotted.

Well, that changes things. It seems that if MJD wanted to get to London that night, he could have.

It might be argued that Druitt would have been oblivious to this alternative route to Waterloo, but I noticed earlier that 'G. Smart' who was playing cricket for Blandford that afternoon was either the Blandford stationmaster or his son (also George) so they would have been able to drop the hint, had someone needed to get to London that night.

Here is the entry in the 1881 census; by 1891 they are listed as coal dealers and salt merchants. It's a little difficult to read. It says "Station Master" and "Telegraph Clerk."

[Michael Banks]

Well spotted Chris.

I can almost hear the howls of disappointment from some quarters.

[R. J. Palmer]

I don't understand the details of how the railway lines joined up, but I get the impression it may effectively have been the same station called by two different names.

The Wikipedia article on Templecombe Station, coupled with the map in your link, seems to suggest that by the two stations were just different platforms in the same general compound. There may have been a short walk.

"In January 1887 the Lower station was closed and replaced by Templecombe Lower Platform a little further south, but since 1867 many S&DJR trains had called only at the Upper station. The original Lower station was absorbed into the goods yard and locomotive depot."

[Chris Phillips]

The Wikipedia article on Templecombe Station, coupled with the map in your link, seems to suggest that by the two stations were just different platforms in the same general compound. There may have been a short walk.

"In January 1887 the Lower station was closed and replaced by Templecombe Lower Platform a little further south, but since 1867 many S&DJR trains had called only at the Upper station. The original Lower station was absorbed into the goods yard and locomotive depot."

Without having looked closely at the timetable, I should think this would have been a viable route between Wimborne and London as well - some of the trains from Templecombe were so fast - so I should think he would have been well aware of it.