Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Joshua Rogan 11 hours ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Joshua Rogan 11 hours ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Joshua Rogan 12 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Michael W Richards 12 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Michael W Richards 12 hours ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Kattrup 13 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (7 posts)
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - (7 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Jane Kelly

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-12-2018, 08:28 PM
richardh richardh is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 774
Default ORIGINAL doors in Miller's court

The front door is original. there would be a back door which would be either Mary's room door (No.13) or poss the small window of No13 that was bricked up into a small window over the course of the house's life.

The other door in the passage way (prater's). Would this be an original door? I can see no reason for having an original doorway in this passage when the front door was perfectly adequate. Prater's door would not have been an original feature (used as the back door) because obviously it wasn't in the back of the house. So it must have been added after. Added for what purpose?
If it was to access the upper floors when they utilised the shed then they must have also built a new staircase which would be a big and costly task when they could simply partition off the shed from the original front door and keep using the front door. the Shed could be accessed via the double barn doors.

I want to ascertain the original features (doors & windows) of No.26 before the modifications were added.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------
JtR3D.com JtR 3D Blog
---------------------------------------------------
HHAP
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-12-2018, 09:43 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,437
Default

Used to be a tall gate at the end of the passage.

Fair bit of discussion on this a year or two ago.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=363648
__________________
My name is Dave.

Last edited by DJA : 02-12-2018 at 09:47 PM. Reason: Link
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-12-2018, 10:04 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richardh View Post
The front door is original. there would be a back door which would be either Mary's room door (No.13) or poss the small window of No13 that was bricked up into a small window over the course of the house's life.

The other door in the passage way (prater's). Would this be an original door? I can see no reason for having an original doorway in this passage when the front door was perfectly adequate. Prater's door would not have been an original feature (used as the back door) because obviously it wasn't in the back of the house. So it must have been added after. Added for what purpose?
If it was to access the upper floors when they utilised the shed then they must have also built a new staircase which would be a big and costly task when they could simply partition off the shed from the original front door and keep using the front door. the Shed could be accessed via the double barn doors.

I want to ascertain the original features (doors & windows) of No.26 before the modifications were added.
I have always assumed that the front room, Maryís and what is described as a storeroom, were originally a shop. So the front entry off Dorset St.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-12-2018, 10:17 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,437
Default

Think the whole shebang was a townhouse originally,with 13 being the rear parlor.
__________________
My name is Dave.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-12-2018, 10:22 PM
richardh richardh is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 774
Default

I guess, what i'm asking is... were the passageway doors (No13 & Prater's) Original? there from the get-go?
__________________
---------------------------------------------------
JtR3D.com JtR 3D Blog
---------------------------------------------------
HHAP
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:58 PM
Yabs Yabs is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richardh View Post
I guess, what i'm asking is... were the passageway doors (No13 & Prater's) Original? there from the get-go?
Iíve always thought the original back door was converted into the smaller back window. Itís the same height as the other door to the side, and about the correct width for a door.
Iím with you in thinking Kellyís door was a later knock through.
It was possibly converted into a window because I believe they used to store handcarts round the back and this would block the back exit.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-13-2018, 07:10 PM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North Kilttown, Scotland
Posts: 801
Default

Hello richardh

Good question. I have no proof; considering an original configuration for the house, Prater's door could have been in the design. If, for instance, a gate-door to the courtyard could be closed or locked, Prater's door would serve as an entrance to the house from within the court (so that a resident would not have to walk out to Dorset Street to enter the residence). I'm thinking of a design along the lines of 40 Berners Street with its' side access.
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-14-2018, 06:27 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,035
Default

I posted some years ago that the smaller rear window of room 13 may have been the original backdoor, later bricked up as a window.
This back door led to a passage which took you to the stairwell in the center of the house, there being an internal partition wall, later removed, to separate this passage from room 13.

This is the reason the door we see wallpapered over behind the bed is several feet away from the corner of the room. This, I suspect, was the original internal door to enter room 13 from the stairwell. There would have been no backdoor for room 13 originally.
This is very similar to a turn of the century Brownstone terrace house I grew up in.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-14-2018, 06:41 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
I have always assumed that the front room, Maryís and what is described as a storeroom, were originally a shop. So the front entry off Dorset St.
Hi GUT
I suspect the front room of No.26, referred to as a 'shed' in some reports, was a shop at one time.
The passage door (Praters?), would have been the common entry for the residents/tenants, to avoid them coming in through the shop.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-15-2018, 12:41 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Hi GUT
I suspect the front room of No.26, referred to as a 'shed' in some reports, was a shop at one time.
The passage door (Praters?), would have been the common entry for the residents/tenants, to avoid them coming in through the shop.
More or less how I see it. In that door to the stairs up to rooms abov3 the shop. And thatíd make Maryís room either a store room for the shop or maybe a kitchen to cook what they sold.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.