Millers Court - Illustrations in The People (recovered thread)

[Dan Norder]

Trying to reupload some images that used to accompany the text, we'll see if this works....

This is G o o g l e's cache of http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-5324.html as retrieved on Feb 9, 2008 10:40:18 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.


Millers Court - Illustrations in The People


.

.

.
chris
31st December 2007, 06:28 PM
I am currently transcribing some issues of The People for Stephen regarding the Kelly murder and the issue of November 18 included three illustrations of Millers Court I had not seen before which I am posting here.
The first is entitled:
Entrance to Court, Dorset Street
Scene on Friday

[ATTACH]3[/ATTACH]

[John Bennett]

Nice one, Dan. It worked!!!

[Dan Norder]

chris
31st December 2007, 06:30 PM
The second is entitled:
Glimpse of the Court Full of Detectives


[ATTACH]4[/ATTACH]

[Dan Norder]

chris
31st December 2007, 06:33 PM
The last is entitled
Back of House & Room

[ATTACH]5[/ATTACH]

[John Bennett]

By jove, I think you've got it!

[Dan Norder]

robert
31st December 2007, 07:07 PM
Great stuff, Chris. But I'm very confused by the last one. The door and boarded up window, and the lamp (!) don't look right at all.

Robert

.

.

.
aspallek
31st December 2007, 07:27 PM
There must have been some liberties taken with that last one. It's showing a window on the same wall as the door and I don't believe that was the case.

.

.

.
chris
31st December 2007, 07:34 PM
Hi guys
I admit the last one puzzled me but it was obviously meant to be all of a piece with the other two
The original layout below (much reduced) shows how they were placed together
Chris

[ATTACH]6[/ATTACH]

[Dan Norder]

Hey John,

Unfortunately the following bits used to have images I don't have copies of. Maybe the original uploaders can add them later.

[Dan Norder]

.

.
aspallek
31st December 2007, 08:11 PM
Hi Chris,

But if that is supposed to be Kelly's room, the door should be around the corner from the window(s) according to the way I remember the photos. I don't think there would be room for a window next to the door on the same wall like that.

Interesting that the drawing of the view through the passageway seems to show some sort of wiring above the heads of the detectives. Perhaps they are just clotheslines. I am having fun imagining the man in the high bowler to be Abberline.

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
31st December 2007, 08:27 PM
Re. picture #3: Is it perhaps the view from just inside the archway, looking across at numbers 1 & 2 Miller's Court and the lamp opposite Kelly's door? "Back of house" in this instance might refer to the back of 27 Dorset Street, which would be to the extreme left of this view.

Re. picture #1: Mrs McCarthy and friend looking out of the top window of 27?

.

.

.
rclack
31st December 2007, 09:05 PM
There's a similar drawing in 'The Weekly Dispatch' 11 November. I believe it's what Mary would have seen if she looked out the larger of her windows.

Rob

.

.

.
chris
31st December 2007, 09:06 PM
Hi Sam
Yes I saw the figures in the top window of 27, wonder who they were?
With regard to Pic 3, two things come to mind:
1) If the artist had managed to gain access into Millers Court why would he sketch the opposite side and not Kelly's room itself?
2) The window next to the door appears to be boarded up, again suggesting this is meant to be Kelly's room
Chris

.

.

.
robert
31st December 2007, 09:13 PM
Perhaps it's meant to be the back of Kelly's room, with the back of McCarthy's shop next to it, and the passageway in between has simply been reduced to wafer-thin proportions. But that lamp shouldn't be there.

.

.

.
jcoram
31st December 2007, 09:39 PM
Hi All,

Brilliant pics Chris - many thank.......

PIcture number three is the house just inside the entrance on the left hand side as you went in, just as Sam said. I've posted up my reconstruction of the long view of the court. The house in question is the one on the left hand side of the picture there, so hopefully people can get their bearings. Sorry it's a bit dark, hope you can see it okay.

I don't think the windows are boarded up in the illustration, I think the artist just did a rush job on what are probably shutters.

xxxxx

.

.

.
jcoram
31st December 2007, 09:43 PM
Sorry, just to say, that Mary's door would have been just out of shot on the right hand side on that illustration. The artist was literally standing in Mary's doorway to do the sketch. I think that the thin line on the far right of the pic would mark the right hand edge of Mary's door.

xxxxxx

.

.

.
aspallek
31st December 2007, 11:03 PM
Thanks, Jane, for posting your illustration. You say the house in the drawing is the nearest house on the left of your illustration? Then the window to the left of the door (drawing) must be just out of frame in your illustration?

This still sounds wrong to me. Such a drawing would not seem to coincide with the drawing's caption of being the "back" of Kelly's room. I think somebody just goofed.

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
31st December 2007, 11:15 PM
would not seem to coincide with the drawing's caption of being the "back" of Kelly's room.
Hi Andy,

It just says "back of house" and "<unnamed> room", which may redeem the situation somewhat. If so it was a missed opportunity - like visiting Niagara Falls and coming home with a photograph of the car park

.

.

.
aspallek
31st December 2007, 11:17 PM
Exactly. But why publish an irrelevant picture?

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
31st December 2007, 11:20 PM
Exactly. But why publish an irrelevant picture?
...to illustrate what a view of a typical Miller's Court room looked like, maybe? Perhaps the text makes some reference to the "row of whitewashed houses provided with green shutters" that were mentioned in the press elsewhere?

.

.

.
robert
31st December 2007, 11:59 PM
According to this Lloyd's Weekly sketch it was the only building in the court.

.
.

.


.

.
jcoram
1st January 2008, 12:09 AM
Hi Andy,

Yes, the window in my view of Miller's Court is out of shot in the illustration to the right, and the window that you can see on the left of it in the illustration is just out of shot in my pic on the other side.

I partly used the technically unnamed photograph of a tenement court for the basis of it, which is very probably Miller's Court, although others will be probably be able to say more about how true that might be. There are other sketches though which do show the house directly opposite Mary's door which seem to show the same thing though.

Here is the photo in case anyone hasn't seen it. It might not be Miller's Court, but it is a very close copy of it if not.

xxxxxx

.

.

.
robert
1st January 2008, 12:23 AM
Hi Jane

The Parlours reckon that's Miller's Court, but I think it's disputed.

.

[Dan Norder]

.

.
rclack
1st January 2008, 12:34 AM
Here's an illustration from The Weekly Dispatch.

10017

Rob

.

.

.
Simon Wood
1st January 2008, 12:35 AM
Hi All,

If it is a photo of Millers Court, can anyone identify the tall building in the background which would have been in Brushfield Street?

Regards,

Simon

.

.

.
aspallek
1st January 2008, 01:02 AM
I think that drawing from the Weekly Dispatch settles it as it is clearly meant to be the same house as in the one in The People. If indeed, the perspective is as Jane describes, where are the detective and the bobby standing? This is clearly impossible. Besides, in the Weekly Dispatch the building in question is clearly labeled "house," implying the murder house.

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
1st January 2008, 01:19 AM
where are the detective and the bobby standing? It appears that they're standing against the wall opposite Room 13 and looking, over the pump I daresay, straight towards Mary Kelly's windows.

.

.

.
Simon Wood
1st January 2008, 01:23 AM
Hi All,

A Very Happy, Peaceful and Prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Simon

.

.

.
aspallek
1st January 2008, 01:58 AM
It appears that they're standing against the wall opposite Room 13 and looking, over the pump I daresay, straight towards Mary Kelly's windows.

I don't think so. They are standing with backs to a wall that is at a 90 degree angle to a building clearly labelled "house", i.e. "murder house." Their position is an impossibility if the perspective is as Jane describes. If it is as you say, Sam (and it may well be), then the house is mislabelled.

.

.

.
anna
1st January 2008, 02:10 AM
Hi everyone, I thought the only lamp in the court was situated outside Julia Venturneys room? The only window in Mary's room looked out into the courtyard behind her room, with the water source in an alcove beside the window. Great finds again Chris.

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
1st January 2008, 02:22 AM
Hi Andy,I don't think so. They are standing with backs to a wall that is at a 90 degree angle to a building clearly labelled "house", i.e. "murder house."
The label, in its entirety, actually says "back of house", by which the illustrator probably meant the "back yard" - i.e. the Court itself. I agree that Jane's - and my - original suggestions for the perspective is wrong, but the drawing now makes better sense to me. The detective and the constable must have been standing roughly where the green "X" is, and the People's sketch artist a couple of yards in front of the "X", looking West, in the following illustration:

10021

.

.

.
jcoram
1st January 2008, 02:58 AM
Hi All,

Something has gone wrong here. I've just looked at that illustration again and it's wrong. There aren't that many windows on the other side of the gas light, so even though the bobbies do look as if they are standing by the wall of the pump yard there is still something wrong. This needs a serious think. The gas lamp is directly opposite Mary's door in this sketch!

Some smashing new pictures coming up here though, keep them coming!!!

xxxxxxx

.

.

.
jcoram
1st January 2008, 03:21 AM
Anyone else confused?


xxxxx

.

.

.
jcoram
1st January 2008, 03:32 AM
These two sketches don't show any windows at all on the other side of the lamp post. I'm giving in gracefully and hitting the bottle. Anyone works out what's going on, let me know.

Happy New Year everyone!!!

xxxxxx

.

.

.
aspallek
1st January 2008, 04:09 AM
Jane,

I think the detective and bobby are standing where the "dustbin" is in the diagram you posted. I also think the artist played a little bit fast and loose with the perspective in order to get the lamp and some other details in.

.

.

.
jukka ruskeeahde
1st January 2008, 12:41 PM
Hello you all!

Now a strange thought;

What if The People illustrator had never even visited Miller's Court? Thus, the sketches are based on what he was told?

All the best
Jukka

.

.

.
jcoram
1st January 2008, 03:42 PM
Hi Andy and Jukka,

I think you are right. I think that the two sketches I posted last are probably more accurate as they are rather nicely done and show an attention to detail. The others look as if the artist was in a rush and are rather loosely drawn. Those two bobbies do look as if they are where Sam indicated on the map though.

I suppose it's possible he was doing it from memory once he got back to the office and just misremembered some of the details, or as is suggested, he used a bit of artistic licence to make a more interesting picture. Still great to see some new perspectives and compare notes.

Happy New Year.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Dan Norder]

.

.

.
Celesta
1st January 2008, 04:37 PM
Hi All,

Something has gone wrong here. I've just looked at that illustration again and it's wrong. There aren't that many windows on the other side of the gas light, so even though the bobbies do look as if they are standing by the wall of the pump yard there is still something wrong. This needs a serious think. The gas lamp is directly opposite Mary's door in this sketch!

Some smashing new pictures coming up here though, keep them coming!!!

xxxxxxx


This thread started out good and is just getting better. I wonder why there were not more photos taken of this site. It had to be the site of morbid interest to many folks. Surely some would have thought to take pictures?

I wonder if it would make more sense for the lamp to be more to the right, on this plan, to illuminate that area of the pump and that spot where it is situated a bit more?



.

.

.
chris
1st January 2008, 06:51 PM
I thought this snippet from The People article might be of interest

.

.

.
jukka ruskeeahde
1st January 2008, 07:03 PM
Hello Chris!

Interesting indeed, for the first time a possibility of some vics knowing each other a bit better! And... with a recorded info!

Then the evitable question; how reliable was the source of the reporter?

All the best
Jukka

.

.

.
Simon Wood
1st January 2008, 07:10 PM
Hi Chris,

Good catch. As Jukka says, I wonder who—and how reliable—was the source.

There is a press report somewhere about a Star reporter and a sketch artist getting onto the roof of either 26 or 27 Dorset Street and looking down on Millers Court.

Maybe there is an aerial view in an issue of The Star.

Regards,

Simon

.

.

.
chris
1st January 2008, 07:13 PM
Here is the description of Millers Court in The People of Novemer 11:

The Scene of the Murder.
A correspondent who saw the room in which the murder was committed says it is a tenement by itself, having formerly been the back parlour of 26 Dorset street. A partition had been erected cutting it off from the house, and the entrance door opened into Miller's court. The two windows also faced the court, and, as the body could be seen from the court on Friday morning, it is evident that, unless the murderer perpetrated his crime with the light turned out, any person passing by could have witnessed the deed. The lock of the door was a spring one, and the murderer appparently took the key away with him when he left, as it cannot be found. The more the facts are investigated, the more apparent become the cool daring of the murderer. There are six houses in the court besides the tenement occupied by the deceased. The door of Kelly's room is the first on the right hand side on entereing from the street, and the other houses - three on either side - are higher up the passage.

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
1st January 2008, 08:00 PM
The door of Kelly's room is the first on the right hand side on entereing from the street
Well, the reporter got that a wee bit wrong, Chris, unless Elizabeth Prater could walk through walls

.

.

.
aspallek
1st January 2008, 08:02 PM
Hi Andy and Jukka,

I think you are right. I think that the two sketches I posted last are probably more accurate as they are rather nicely done and show an attention to detail. The others look as if the artist was in a rush and are rather loosely drawn. Those two bobbies do look as if they are where Sam indicated on the map though.

That spot marked by Sam corresponds to the "dustbin" on the diagram, if I interpret all the maps, photo, and drawing correctly. I'm reasonably sure that any artist would have make at east rough sketches at the scene and probably taken notes (e.g. "woman in upper window," etc.) and finished the artwork in his office/studio. Of course, there was the rush to make the press deadline.

As to why there were not more photographs taken, first the press would have little interest in photographs since reproducing photographs in newspapers was not yet perfected or even satisfactory. Second, the light was poor most of the day as it was overcast. Finally, we don't really know what other photographs might have been taken by the authorities or other interested parties after the body was removed. More may yet be found.

.

.

.
Celesta
2nd January 2008, 10:46 PM
As to why there were not more photographs taken, first the press would have little interest in photographs since reproducing photographs in newspapers was not yet perfected or even satisfactory. Second, the light was poor most of the day as it was overcast. Finally, we don't really know what other photographs might have been taken by the authorities or other interested parties after the body was removed. More may yet be found.


Hi Andy,

I was thinking of curious people with cameras, not necessarily right around the time of the murder but later on, perhaps even some years later. People who were interested in the case and had the daring to go into the area to take a picture.

.

.

.
katbradshaw
2nd January 2008, 10:57 PM
It does seem interesting that, with the glut of pictures the Victorians took of everything from posed dead people to the street people, there are so few photos of the areas the murders happened. They remained unchanged for a long time after the murders and we know that reporters were still vsiting the area for a long time after the killings.

.

.

.
Celesta
2nd January 2008, 11:08 PM
It does seem interesting that, with the glut of pictures the Victorians took of everything from posed dead people to the street people, there are so few photos of the areas the murders happened. They remained unchanged for a long time after the murders and we know that reporters were still vsiting the area for a long time after the killings.

Hi Kat, This is what I think as well. Perhaps someone has something and doesn't know what it is. I have a lot of old old photos of people and places I can't identify, especially as all the old folks are gone, now.

Bestg regards,

C

.

.

.
Veritas
10th January 2008, 09:00 PM
I always wodnered about the history of 13 Millers Court after the Kelly murder. Who lived there and who wopuld want to lvie there?

.

.

.
suzi
10th January 2008, 09:12 PM
Well, the reporter got that a wee bit wrong, Chris, unless Elizabeth Prater could walk through walls
Well the cat could have!!!..seriously though it was on the right side of the alley into the Court
Suz x

.

.

.
suzi
10th January 2008, 09:13 PM
I always wodnered about the history of 13 Millers Court after the Kelly murder. Who lived there and who wopuld want to lvie there?
Hi Veritas-
There's a thread on this somewhere on Casebook-just off out now will check later
Cheers
Suz x

.

.

[Dan Norder]

.
suzi
10th January 2008, 09:19 PM
Here is the description of Millers Court in The People of Novemer 11:

The Scene of the Murder.
A correspondent who saw the room in which the murder was committed says it is a tenement by itself, having formerly been the back parlour of 26 Dorset street. A partition had been erected cutting it off from the house, and the entrance door opened into Miller's court. The two windows also faced the court, and, as the body could be seen from the court on Friday morning, it is evident that, unless the murderer perpetrated his crime with the light turned out, any person passing by could have witnessed the deed. The lock of the door was a spring one, and the murderer appparently took the key away with him when he left, as it cannot be found. The more the facts are investigated, the more apparent become the cool daring of the murderer. There are six houses in the court besides the tenement occupied by the [deceased. The door of Kelly's room is the first on the right hand side on entereing from the street, and the other houses - three on either side - are higher up the passage.

Hi Chris-
I seem to recall reading somewhere down the alley to the court there were 2 doors on the right and Kell'y was the first?....was it and where did the other one go to???..... Or was the first one Mrs P's and the 2nd one Kellys? *That may make some sort of sense with Mrs P going up the stairs the other side of the 'partition' and hearing Mary moving about and seeing light through the cracks etc etc

*Had an apostrophe nasty there so left it out!]


Cheers

Suzi x

.

.

.
Grey Hunter
10th January 2008, 10:04 PM
Hi Chris,
Good catch. As Jukka says, I wonder who—and how reliable—was the source.
There is a press report somewhere about a Star reporter and a sketch artist getting onto the roof of either 26 or 27 Dorset Street and looking down on Millers Court.
Maybe there is an aerial view in an issue of The Star.
Regards,
Simon

The above extract from The People of Sunday November 11, 1888, claiming that Kelly was friendly with Chapman was published in the book Jack the Ripper Scotland Yard Investigates, Sutton, 2006, pages 189-190, and the extract is prefaced by the following observation -

"There has always been much speculation as to whether the victims knew each other. They lived in a small geographical area and were of the same class so it would not be unusual if some of them were acquainted. Although stories in the press cannot always be corroborated by other sources, the People of Sunday 11 November clearly indicated that Kelly and Chapman knew each other. As both women lived in Dorset Street this is not surprising..."

.

.

.
Stephen Thomas
10th January 2008, 10:53 PM
I seem to recall reading somewhere down the alley to the court there were 2 doors on the right and Kell'y was the first?....was it and where did the other one go to???..... Or was the first one Mrs P's and the 2nd one Kellys? *That may make some sort of sense with Mrs P going up the stairs the other side of the 'partition' and hearing Mary moving about and seeing light through the cracks etc etc


Hi Suzi

See the currently hot thread 'Lodging House Light' All is revealed there.

And Diddles gets a mention too.

.

.

.
PerryMason
10th January 2008, 11:56 PM
Hi folks,

I think Janes post, #31, is likely to be the best sketch we will have of that courtyard, from the position of the wall opposite Marys windows.

Elizabeth Prater mentions sights seen across Dorset from her room, and also hearing sounds that may have emminated from the courtyard...leading one to believe she had windows both fore and aft. Personally, I believe her back window is not the one pictured over the archway, because that would clearly look down on Marys front door, and that would have been relevant to explore in questioning. I believe her rear window....pardon the Hitchcock...was over Marys windows, and the sound she heard that night bounced from the 2 story wall opposite Marys windows, after careening off the wall opposite her door. Thats why it sounded faintish, but "as from the court". That means the sound escaped through the open door if correct.

Marys windows faced the dustbin wall, and the noise could have escaped out through the broken panes, or had the window been open at the time....but both were locked when the room was entered, and it was raining at the time the voice was heard.....also by Sarah Lewis at the Keylers. Thats why I feel the door open vs broken panes, for Sarah to have heard as well. Marys windowed wall faced a 2 story wall....the noise wouldnt have loud enough to have alerted Sarah by the time it had riccocheted all around that court.

Also, it seems some are confused with the doorways, Marys was the 2nd on the right from the street, Elizabeth entered via the door inside the archway.

My very best all.

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
11th January 2008, 12:31 AM
leading one to believe she had windows both fore and aft.Poor woman. I'd heard of a "glass jaw" before, but that's just extreme!

.

.

.
PerryMason
11th January 2008, 01:31 AM
Poor woman. I'd heard of a "glass jaw" before, but that's just extreme!


Hello my friend,

To be honest Im not certain how you meant that Sam....but aside from any jaw issues, she did have a skittish kitty.

You and I have discussed the voice and the windows re: Elizabeth, but I cant agree that she may have heard sound "as from the court" from a Dorset St window. Sarah Lewis is the best witness here anyway, on this issue.... if she heard it "as from her door", it is almost certain that the sound first encountered walls inside the courtyard, via Mary's open door, not via the windows facing a 2 story wall and a dead end. That would indicate probably that the sound would bounce around off walls, inside the court, and very little if anything would be heard from the Dorset side of the archway.

If of course "oh murder" was uttered by Mary.

Great to see you Mr F.....my very best.

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
11th January 2008, 01:39 AM
Hi Mike,You and I have discussed the voice and the windows re: Elizabeth, but I cant agree that she may have heard sound "as from the court" from a Dorset St window.
Ah, but a scream would easily carry through a thin partition, up a stair-well to the room(s) on the first floor. A person in a 1st floor room facing Dorset-street would perceive that sound as "faintish", but nonetheless coming from the direction of the Court. Now, where have I heard that before?

(See the "Lodging House Light" thread.)

.

.

.
PerryMason
11th January 2008, 01:53 AM
Hi Mike,
Ah, but a scream would easily carry through a thin partition, up a stair-well to the room(s) on the first floor. A person in a 1st floor room facing Dorset-street would perceive that sound as "faintish", but nonetheless coming from the direction of the Court. Now, where have I heard that before?

(See the "Lodging House Light" thread.)

You are a cunning adversary,.... but "as from the staircase" is not the key phrase here. Those stairs led to inside the archway, not the courtyard, and any sound coming up those stairs could have orginated from anywhere, from Dorset or the court. The direction would be I think indistinguishable...yet Elizabeth had no problem isolating the source of the sound as "from the court". Why? Because it entered via a courtyard window. Certainly the simplest answer I would think mi amigo.

I will look at the other thread too...but simple works for me here, and my position allows for some other issues to work themselves out...rather that relegating Mrs Praters sound testimony as irrelevant...which it is if she actually heard the noise coming from the staircase.

Did Elizabeth turn right at the top of the stairs to enter her room, or left? That answer might illuminate things. Because I believe it is mentioned somewhere that she turned left to get into her room....over Marys.

My best my friend...great to have a chance to disagree with you...

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
11th January 2008, 02:18 AM
You are a cunning adversary,.... but "as from the staircase" is not the key phrase here. Those stairs led to inside the archway, not the courtyard, and any sound coming up those stairs could have orginated from anywhere, from Dorset or the court. The direction would be I think indistinguishable...I think not, Mike. If someone screamed in my living room right now - and I hope they don't - I'd easily be able to tell the direction from which the sound came. I am currently on the "first floor", my living room on the ground floor, and I am separated from it by my office door, a flight of stairs, and a thin plaster-board "partition" in the hallway.
Because I believe it is mentioned somewhere that she turned left to get into her room...That would be a new one on me if it were true

.

[Dan Norder]

Celesta
11th January 2008, 02:44 AM
I think not, Mike. If someone screamed in my living room right now - and I hope they don't - I'd easily be able to tell the direction from which the sound came. I am currently on the "first floor", my living room on the ground floor, and I am separated from it by my office door, a flight of stairs, and a thin plaster-board "partition" in the hallway.
That would be a new one on me if it were true



I have a similar set-up in my home. I can hear when my husband calls me from his workshop, on what would be the equivalent of your ground floor. The door, at the bottom of the stairwell, is usually closed. I can't always discern what he is saying, but I can detect the tone of it. I.E. whether he needs me to come down quickly because of an accident, or whether he is just inquiring about something. The building materials would make a difference in how well sound carries, along with anything that might buffer it. There probably weren't a lot of buffers, in terms of curtains and other material. There is also the ambient noise, such as rain, wind, or carriages on the street, etc.

Best to everyone,

C

.

.

.
PerryMason
11th January 2008, 02:48 AM
Hey Sam,

I do see the point you make, but I believe had Mrs Prater heard the noise via Marys partition wall up the staircase, she likely would have said it sounded as "from Marys room", or from the stairs, ....but "as from the court" is what she said...no hedging at all...., "gee Mr Coroner, it might have been from Marys room, or the stairs, or the court, or even from someone entering from Dorset"...she said what she said.

To identify the source of the sound as from the court implies that she could in fact hear noise from the court, and would recognize it as originating from there. That can only be if she has a window facing into the court Sam...and Ive seen sketches of that cul-de-sac that have a window on the floor above Marys windows. Sam.....its the only reasonable position on her statement I feel. She was location specific. So was Sarah.

I believe the stumbling block for you is the fact that she is an unfortunate and couldnt afford more than a room with a single window, but it seems that she could see across Dorset, and hear noise from the court, but not see Marys door, and a window above Marys allows for the sound to be isolated as court based without offering Mrs P a vantage point to see exactly who, and where, the noise came from. She may have lived there when Mr Prater was around, and the digs were more spacious than she could afford when he left...but due to the fact that it appears almost no-one else occupied that house at the time, maybe she was allowed to use the larger suite...with front and back windows. At some point many people live in that house, but not when Mary is killed. There must have been a few empty rooms on that floor.

If Mrs Prater saw the Lodging house lights were out across Dorset street, and heard a faintish scream as from the court, it would seem she had the capacity to be able to make those determinations. Windows fore and aft Sam...

On the left hand turn at the top of the stairs, I believe its a press account, not her own statement.

My best and bon soir Sam.

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
11th January 2008, 02:52 AM
"as from the court" is what she said...no hedging at all....
"As from" is definitely hedging where I come from, Mike.

Now, "From" the court would be a different matter entirely, and one would think that a woman whose windows were chilled by the naked air rising from that courtyard would have known pretty much for certain whether it came from outside or inside the building.

.

.

.
PerryMason
11th January 2008, 03:31 AM
"As from" is definitely hedging where I come from, Mike.

Now, "From" the court would be a different matter entirely, and one would think that a woman whose windows were chilled by the naked air rising from that courtyard would have known pretty much for certain whether it came from outside or inside the building.

Ok, you will get one last counter from me tonight.

I believe her use of the word "as" is not what we would imagine is todays version of "as if",...its a contemporary definition, something in Victorian speech that infers "It seemed"....to which she ascribed a location. A location that can be corroberated by Ms Lewis's "as at my door", which can only be a result of sound waves reaching her door relatively undiminished, ...as they would surely be if the faintish scream was behind Marys closed door, with only two broken panes to allow the sound to escape, across to a 2 storey wall opposite them. If Marty screamed loud enough to push the sound through two small orifices, across to a wall that would reflect the sound waves back at the source a few times before even entering the court and getting to Sarah in the far corner unit, through she believed her door, then surely Elizabeth could have isolated the location as from Marys room.

If Mary's cry is soft, not a cry for help, it would need some help to get out of that room into the far end of the court and still be loud enough to startle Sarah, and Liz might not hear it "as from Marys room"...but if the cry was loud, Liz would be able to say definitively that it was from Marys room, or that location....not what was said...."as from the court" or "as at my door".

Marys door being open makes it all easy Sam, as does Elizabeth having a courtyard window. Now opened by whom, or whether that was done from the inside, or from the outside, ...that is the real bitch.

My best as always Gareth...great talking with you..I'll be back soon.

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
11th January 2008, 03:55 AM
I believe her use of the word "as" is not what we would imagine is todays version of "as if",...its a contemporary definition, something in Victorian speech that infers "It seemed"....to which she ascribed a location. That's not a counter, Mike - it's almost an agreement! Except inasmuch as, in actual fact, "as from" back then certainly meant "as if from".

However, the location from which "it seemed" the sound had emanated was in the direction of the courtyard... no, wait a minute - forget "courtyard" - she said "from the court". As opposed to "from the Street", perhaps?

Whatever, if Prater indeed lodged at the first floor front of 26 Dorset Street (as I'm now 99% certain she did), then Kelly's room was assuredly in the direction of the courtyard. Any muffled sound arising from either the courtyard or Kelly's room would have sounded much the same from Prater's perspective.

.

.

.
PerryMason
11th January 2008, 05:15 AM
Hi again Sam,

I was not intending any agreement there Sam, so I may not have explained that point properly. The fact remains that Elizabeth Praters room, or some of it, was either over directly Mary Kellys room, or slightly to one side, it could not be that Mrs Praters room was only directly over the shed in the front of the house, while Marys room was in the back of the house at ground level. There is no way Elizabeth Prater could hear a noise she thinks was orginating from the courtyard with only a Dorset St window,... If it was loud enough to carry out the archway, she would have heard it from insidethe building she was in. And Marys door would have had to be open, or she and her killer just outside of it. But....She didnt say it came from inside the house.

Mrs Prater in some accounts suggests she hears sounds occassionally from Marys room when Mary is moving about....that wouldnt occur when the room Prater is in is on the second floor front of the house, and Mary is at the back of the house, at ground level.

Her proximity to Marys wall when going to bed, and her proximity to the suppressed cry are her only potentially valuable contributions here Sam..surely you arent telling me that those salient observations mean absolutely nothing now, since she couldnt posibly tell where the voice orginated from, being literally as far from Kellys room, and that courtyard, as is possible in that house, with her only window facing onto the mean street of Dorset.

Why would she even be considered important after 1:30am if she couldnt possibly contribute anything viable....such as an attribution of a location as the source of the cry...a location she supposedly has no window exposure to, if she is on the opposite side of the house, and the location means 10-15ft of archway to carry a sound through, then bouncing across the street, and back up to her sole window.

If you are right....her "cry" testimony is worthless then....because there is no way she could distinguish sound origins accurately under those parameters. But I think she did indeed have the proximity to Marys room when in her own, and to the sounds from the court as well as the street, ....that made them feel she warranted consideration on this point.

As always Sam, cheers.

.

[Dan Norder]

Stephen Thomas
11th January 2008, 12:09 PM
The fact remains that Elizabeth Praters room, or some of it, was either over directly Mary Kellys room, or slightly to one side, it could not be that Mrs Praters room was only directly over the shed in the front of the house, while Marys room was in the back of the house at ground level. There is no way Elizabeth Prater could hear a noise she thinks was orginating from the courtyard with only a Dorset St window
.

Hi Michael

On the Lodging House Light thread Sam has conclusively demonstrated that Prater's room was in no part directly above Mary's. The 12 foot long stairwell behind Mary's wall would only allow for a staircase at about 45 degrees and a small landing at the top with a door on either side. Jake has provided a description of the stairway from a newspaper article about the later murder. That being said, Prater's door was actually only a few feet from Mary's room so she would indeed hear a lot of what went on in there. The 'as from the court' phrase I reckon simply means 'from the direction of the court as opposed to the street' ie she heard the sound through her door and not her window which overlooked Dorset Street. Like a lot of people I'd always thought that Prater lived directly above Kelly. If she didn't then it's strange that the room's occupancy or non-occupancy is not mentioned in all those reports.

Best wishes


.

.

.


Sam Flynn
12th January 2008, 03:55 AM
Hi Stephen,If she didn't then it's strange that the room's occupancy or non-occupancy is not mentioned in all those reports.Not too strange, perhaps. Miller's Court had some twenty or so rooms, but apart from Kelly's we only know of around six that were occupied at the time - those of Cox, Prater, Venturney, the Keylers and the Picketts.

It's a fair bet that McCarthy had more than six tenants, whose existence is lost to history because they didn't hear or see anything of consequence at the time of the murder. There is also no reason to suppose that McCarthy had a full complement of tenants in any case, and the room above Kelly's may simply have been vacant at the time.

.

.

.
robert
12th January 2008, 03:57 PM
Gareth, I wonder, if McCarthy did have some unoccupied space, whether he let Bowyer kip there for free? It would have made sense, work-wise.

Robert

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
12th January 2008, 04:04 PM
Gareth, I wonder, if McCarthy did have some unoccupied space, whether he let Bowyer kip there for free? It would have made sense, work-wise.Hi Rob,

Bowyer lived at a lodging-house in 37, Dorset Street (which was also owned by McCarthy, I recall).

.

.

.
Nemo
12th January 2008, 04:26 PM
Hi All

I remember a couple of remarks regarding the occupants of Millers Court but I cannot find them again - as usual

One said that it was believed (by the police) that though they had statements from some of the occupants - that the occupants were basically fabrcating or embellishing their stories so that they could claim some connection with the events - I take it that some of these statements were discarded and the people involved were not called to be witnesses at the inquest.

The other I am sure was a press report stating that the "couple" who lived above Mary's room had been questioned but they heard nothing during the night. This could be Prater and her man - and it was not correct that nothing was heard - there could have been a couple directly above Mary's room on the 1st floor who heard nothing and so were not good witnesses - the couple may have lived on the 2nd floor - or they did not exist at all...

I am doing my best to track down the quotes but my time is very limited recently - sorry all

.

.

.
Ben
12th January 2008, 04:33 PM
That being said, Prater's door was actually only a few feet from Mary's room so she would indeed hear a lot of what went on in there.

Indeed, Stephen. This is the salient point.

If Prater's bed occupied the space nearest the door of room #20 (which would be logical to avoid the cold of outside walls), she'd be very close to the staircase and that attendant partition she described as "so thin". With this arrangement, she'd be in an arguably better position to detect noises from #13.

All the best,
Ben

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
12th January 2008, 05:05 PM
If Prater's bed occupied the space nearest the door of room #20 (which would be logical to avoid the cold of outside walls)A shame we'll never know for certain, but a reasonable supposition Ben. Unless she occupied the easternmost room on the first floor, in which case her door would have been further away from the stairwell. There are certainly two windows on the first floor front of #26, and we don't know whether Prater's was the one immediately to the right of the archway.
she'd be very close to the staircase and that attendant partition she described as "so thin". With this arrangement, she'd be in an arguably better position to detect noises from #13.Close enough to hear a scream, certainly, and close enough to tell whether it came from the back (Miller's Court) or the front (Dorset-street) of the house. As to less piercing sounds? Let's just say that there would have been a threshold below which Prater would have been quite oblivious, no matter where her room was positioned.

.

.

.
suzi
12th January 2008, 05:51 PM
Hi Sam-

Right I may be totally wrong here but I imagined Mrs Prater (and Dids) occupied the room above Mary and may have used the door previous (aka the first one on the right down the Court!)...... (behind the partition) to gain access to her room...hence the seeing a light on and hearing movement etc etc and MOST certainly close enough to hear a scream frpm the North South East or South of that room .....from God knows where.......it could have been from anywhere in Millers Ct and or Dorset Street!.... or someone who had a 'nastiness' in the street and considered they'd better keep quiet for some reason[s]....so did!

Hmmmmmmmmmmm if she did occupy the easternmost room there may have been a network of partitioned 'alleyways' between rooms.......eeeeeeek curiouser and curiouser!!!.... [Bet Dids used the window!]... NOW all flippancy aside....the cat could have used the stairs (complicated!) or the windows/and stairs]

Just a thought that sort of seems sort of right.......in parts.....just tring to imagine what may be practical........first time for everything!

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
12th January 2008, 06:06 PM
Hi Suzi I imagined Mrs Prater (and Dids) occupied the room above MaryYou haven't got it wrong - I think you, myself, and scores of others over the years have imagined it too

Just a thought that sort of seems right
Not according to a very thorough report in the Daily Telegraph of 10th November 1888, Suzi - which not only describes the layout of Miller's Court and 26 Dorset-street in meticulous detail, but also states quite clearly and unambiguously that Prater occupied the "first floor front room" of 26 Dorset-street. Prater herself, when interviewed, states - again, clearly and unambiguously - that she lived "above the shed". On other occasions Prater says that her room was "almost above" Kelly's, and the majority of reports concerning her record that she lived in "a" room (as opposed to "the" room) above the deceased.

Taking all this into consideration, I'm pretty certain in my mind that the idea that Prater lived directly above Kelly's room is a myth born out of nearly a century's-worth of misinterpretation. See the "Lodging House Light" thread for info, but I'll just note here that Prater's statement about her being able to see light and hear movement in Room 13 was made in the context of her climbing the stairs, those sights and sounds being admitted by the thin, makeshift partition to the left of the stairwell as she ascended to her room.

.

.

.
Ben
12th January 2008, 06:16 PM
Hi Gareth,

There are certainly two windows on the first floor front of #26, and we don't know whether Prater's was the one immediately to the right of the archway.

Difficult to say for certain, but it would seem likely in light of Prater's "almost above" observation, in addition to Jake's interesting find with regard to the location of room #19.

As to less piercing sounds?

Another tricky one! I guess it would depend how piercing the scream was in th first place. Loud enough to alert those in that very immediate locality, but apparently insufficient to reach Mary Cox's end of the court.

All the best,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

Sam Flynn
12th January 2008, 06:23 PM
I guess it would depend how piercing the scream was in th first place. Loud enough to alert those in that very immediate locality, but apparently insufficient to reach Mary Cox's end of the court.
True, but I wouldn't be surprised - the topology of the Court would mean that any sound emerging from Kelly (even if the windows were completely missing) would need to veer left and bend round a corner, in order to reach the bottom of the narrow cul-de-sac where Cox lived.

.

.

.
suzi
12th January 2008, 06:27 PM
Hmmmmmm Gareth- Good point!!

Mrs P's room may have (Oooh luxury) have extended over 'The Shed' though that's how I imagine it.......hmmmmmmmm ...

That would mean that she (if she was looking out of a front window)....was there one???....think there was.... could have seen the comings and goings of Dorset St....unlikely though at that time of night......does anyone check their front window before falling into bed??
And as a by the by ... The 'Two men harnessing horses' seen up the street still fascinates me! Hmmmmmmm.....a getaway car(t)!!!??

Suz x

.

.

.
Ben
12th January 2008, 06:28 PM
Well, it would probably have bounced and reverberated round the enclosed court it was a piercing shout, but the chances are it wasn't...so point taken.

.

.

.
Celesta
12th January 2008, 06:46 PM
Does anyone know when #13 became a separate dwelling? I.E. when did it become a rental property?

.

.

.
suzi
12th January 2008, 06:49 PM
Hi Ben-
Assuming it was loud!!! A call from a next door room can be quite quiet to the caller and quite loud to an awake listener! (Did that make sense)

The SCREAM or the cry of OH MURDER are a matter of contention....how loud?? and how awake were the women who heard/reported it

God sorry am getting a tad pedantic here!!!


Suz xx

.

.

.
Sam Flynn
12th January 2008, 06:50 PM
Mrs P's room may have (Oooh luxury) have extended over 'The Shed' thoughThere's a flight of stairs going up the middle of the building, Suzi - and a landing, too, don't forget. Not much in the way of luxury there, methinks. Just three or four poky rooms either side of the stairwell.

.

.

.
suzi
12th January 2008, 06:56 PM
Does anyone know when #13 became a separate dwelling? I.E. when did it become a rental property?

Sadly no! not the date that Mc Carthy started up with his separate rooms ...good point!!! Chris Scott/Rob Clack/Philip Hutchinson may know

Suzi x

.

.

.
suzi
12th January 2008, 07:00 PM
Yep Sam I know...Now did Mrs P have one that was over the Shed and did she pass Mary's room on a regular basis (via the stairs and the 'partition') and turn right to her room over the shed??
Ah that may work......

Suz x

.

.

.
suzi
12th January 2008, 07:34 PM
We do know that 13 Millers Court was in effect -the ground floor (partitioned)back room of 26,Dorset St (which was....going Up towards Commercial St)must have been 'The Shed'- which must have at some time before that been the front room (!) of No 26...next door to Mc C at No 27.

I'd love a plan of how someone sees the upstairs of Mc Carthy's rents....Got a funny feeling someone's done it at some point!

The downstairs are a tad confusing too but I think I've got a grip on that
...it's the upstairs and their stairways /partitions that intrigue me!!

Suz x

.

.

.
katbradshaw
12th January 2008, 08:13 PM
How is this listed on the census?? As 13 Millers Court or as 26 Dorset Street?

.

.

.
chris
12th January 2008, 08:22 PM
The numbering of Millers Court is intriguing.
I suppose that technically it was only the six houses (three either side) that made up Millers Court proper. Kelly's room is referred to as Room 13 and Prater's as Room 20 but they were in effect part of 26 Dorset Street.
The logical supposition would be that the six small houses were each subdivided into 2 units each and that these made up Nos 1-12 Millers Court. The numbering then started on the rooms in what was really 26 Dorset Street, with Kelly's being No 13. As Prater's was designated Room 20, it is logical to assume that there were another 6 rooms (Nos 14-19) within the body of 26 Dorset Street.
Chris

.

.

.
Celesta
12th January 2008, 08:49 PM
Sadly no! not the date that Mc Carthy started up with his separate rooms ...good point!!! Chris Scott/Rob Clack/Philip Hutchinson may know

Suzi x

Thanks, Suzi. I've been looking for where it first appeared in the Census data. It shows up in the 1901 Census, as posted by Chris on Occupants of Miller's Ct Rents and Miller's Ct but doesn't seem to be on the 1851 through 1871, as posted by Sam. Sam graciously steered me towards this info. I have to find the 1881 and 1891 Census data. Number 13 must have been considered part of 26 Dorset, as Chris points out, at the time of the 1851 -1871 censuses.

C

.

.

.
suzi
12th January 2008, 09:07 PM
Hi Celesta
The rooms and the numbering were and
still are a tad confusing.....mind you we live in the sticks and the numbers follow 21,22 etc down one side of the road and suddenly start at 8,9 on the other!!!There's Wickham for you!!

Gosh 'graciously steering'..what a thought!! .............

.............Sam!!!!!!!!!!!!(Get the ballroom dancing image out of your head this instant NO galleons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..stately or otherwise!!!!!)

Suzi!!!

[Rob Clack]

This is the drawing I posted from 'The Weekly Dispatch' 11 November 1888



Rob