'26' in the picture.

[Tom_Wescott]

If Sam Flynn says it there, it might just be. This is the first I've heard of a 26.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Here's the relevant section of the Lamoureux photo, as posted by RJM, on the left. What I've done on the right is to heighten the contrast in the area immediately around the "26", and blur the background so that it's even clearer. If you switch your gaze between the two images, the "26" on the original ought then to be quite readily seen:



As Rob points out, it doesn't appear on the Lacassaigne print, which ought to cast some doubt on the matter - that said, is it not possible that the method Lamoureux used to develop his print was somehow more sensitive?

[The Grave Maurice]

Looks like "28" to me. And which one of you rubbed out the "FM", hah?

[perrymason]

I think all this discovery really highlights is that the term "partition wall" was inaccurate then and now, and that there was indeed a doorjamb in that location on the wall that at one time led to the stairs and the exit under the archway......the exit to my surprise has only been "common knowledge" here for a few years, even though its clear in period photographs that only the shed door faced the street, thereby requiring a number to be on it. The archway door would require no number I would think.

Ive heard some argue that her door in corner was likely a feature that was original, having some building knowledge I can say thats unlikely by the photos....and unnecessary by the virtue of the doorway leading to the archway exit.

maybe some courtyard rooms opened up to the courtyard....seems natural....this however wasnt a courtyard room, it is the rear of the house that faced Dorset Street, and it was said to have been a parlor...which again, explains the stylized hearth rather than the traditional open, kitchen style hearth in that room. My bet is that one of the 2 windows was added when it was converted as well. Their respective heights, sizing and spacing seems a little shoddy if not.

Best regards all

[Sam Flynn]

I think all this discovery really highlights is that the term "partition wall" was inaccurate then and now, and that there was indeed a doorjamb in that location on the wall that at one time led to the stairs and the exit under the archway.

Or, if that really is the erstwhile front door of #26, that McCarthy (or his predecessor) reused any old bits of wood to act as the partition wall.

[Sam Flynn]

Looks like "28" to me.

... if you take a smudge on the image to complete the north-eastern quadrant of a figure 8.



Smudge duly removed. (NB: the smudge is of a demonstrably different density under close examination, so I'm not cheating!)

[DVV]

Now I can see clearly.

"26 more and I give up."

Amitiés,
David

[The Grave Maurice]

Yikes! It is a 26. So, now we know for certain that.... Sorry, I've forgotten what we were trying to prove.

[Sam Flynn]

Yikes! It is a 26. So, now we know for certain that.... Sorry, I've forgotten what we were trying to prove.

The question was: "What does 2x13 equal?"

[The Grave Maurice]

"2 x 13"? Don't tell me now, I'll get it.

[RJM]

As Rob points out, it doesn't appear on the Lacassaigne print, which ought to cast some doubt on the matter - that said, is it not possible that the method Lamoureux used to develop his print was somehow more sensitive?

How the photo was set for each book can help to account for the differences, Gareth. Both books were published by Storck-Masson out of Lyon, five years apart, using the same print. Both of the reproductions are small, and slightly different in size. In Lamoureux the picture is shrunk down to a height of 10.6 centimeters by a width of 7.9 cm. In Lacassagne it is slightly larger, measuring 11.4 cm x 8.7 cm.

I own a copy of Lacassagne, which I have scanned. I also have a second scan from a library copy. I do not own a copy of Lamoureux, but had it scanned at the highest resolution the repository was capable of. The number 26 does not appear on any of the Lacassagne's regardless of resolution, but there are other things that come and go depending on the resolution. Sometimes "noise," or information is introduced that is not necessarily present on the page. I know, because I can consult the original book, under magnification, any time I wish. I can't do that with the scan of Lamoureux. Before I am satisfied that there is a number 26, I would like to consult the book it was scanned from.

I may yet find the original photograph that B. Delaye used to set for Lamoureux, but herein lies another problem, we don't know how many generations removed from the original negative of the 13 Millers Court photograph of Mary Kelly the print obtained for French publication is. We don't even know if MJK1 and MJK2 were both taken from the original negative. It's conceivable they are both one or more generations removed from the original negative. It may account for differences in the two prints. Each generation away from the original negative both adds and removes information. Even if all known prints were taken from the same negative, they could each have been developed by the photographer (or his assistant) differently.

Degradation problems exist with each generation, starting with the development of the negative. Factors such as imperfections in the design and manufacture of the enlarging lens, dust or dirt on the front or rear element of that lens, dust and dirt on the slide, vibration in the enlarger, focusing inaccuracy, glare or flare on the lens are just the start of how the quality of the print can be effected. Incorrect paper storage, reflection or other fogging of the paper, contamination, improperly mixed or exhausted processing chemicals, improper washing of the print. Loss of resolution in the print seen as loss of detail and loss of sharpness. All this even with properly exposed prints, and prints aren’t always properly exposed.

I'm not boring you with all of these photographic details to explain away what may be the number 26 on Mary Kelly's wall. I'm mentioning it as a cautionary tale to be careful how bold you make a pronunciation without any corroborative evidence from the other prints, or other sources.

Go to your book collection some time and compare how differently all the MJK1s are reproduced, or the MJK2s. Notice how the details change slightly from volume to volume.

The #26 is significant if it's actually there. I reserve judgment for the time being that the Lamoureux picture is evidence of a partition door at 13 Millers Court.

Cheers,

Robert

[Stephen Thomas]

I think all this discovery really highlights is that the term "partition wall" was inaccurate then and now, and that there was indeed a doorjamb in that location on the wall that at one time led to the stairs and the exit under the archwayto the archway exit.

Hi Michael

Sorry to disagree with you once again but the term 'partition wall' is totally accurate. That wall was a partition and if it wasn't a partition it would not have been described as a partition by so many people. It would have been referred to as a 'a wall'. Check the January 1889 Old Bailey transcript of the Kate Marshall murder trial in the room above. The original ground floor of 26 Dorset Street would have consisted of a front parlour, a back parlour and a kitchen with a corridor to access them and the stairs to the upper floors. This layout can be seen in the 29 Hanbury Street photos except that in that house the kitchen was in a basement as opposed to a ground floor back extension. When it was decided to use the ground floor of #26 for business purposes, the dividing walls would have been removed to make one large open space. In order for the upper floors to be accessed, 'Prater's staircase' and the partition were constructed. The doorjamb you mentioned elsewhere would therefore not have been behind Kelly's bed but immediately to the right behind the side door in the alley. At the top of these stairs, #26 tenants would turn right and walk through a store room, formerly another back parlour and now a corridor, to get to the main stairwell.

Happy New Year Michael

ps There ain't no 26 on the wall. It's just 'noise' on the photos.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael

Sorry to disagree with you once again but the term 'partition wall' is totally accurate. That wall was a partition and if it wasn't a partition it would not have been described as a partition by so many people. It would have been referred to as a 'a wall'. Check the January 1889 Old Bailey transcript of the Kate Marshall murder trial in the room above. The original ground floor of 26 Dorset Street would have consisted of a front parlour, a back parlour and a kitchen with a corridor to access them and the stairs to the upper floors. This layout can be seen in the 29 Hanbury Street photos except that in that house the kitchen was in a basement as opposed to a ground floor back extension. When it was decided to use the ground floor of #26 for business purposes, the dividing walls would have been removed to make one large open space. In order for the upper floors to be accessed, 'Prater's staircase' and the partition were constructed. The doorjamb you mentioned elsewhere would therefore not have been behind Kelly's bed but immediately to the right behind the side door in the alley. At the top of these stairs, #26 tenants would turn right and walk through a store room, formerly another back parlour and now a corridor, to get to the main stairwell.

Happy New Year Michael

ps There ain't no 26 on the wall. It's just 'noise' on the photos.

Hi Stephen,

Well then we disagree,... because I certainly see the 26 and have no doubt it is there in the photo, and the wall that was referred to as a "partition" wall is actually load bearing. A "partition" generally refers to the separation of a sum of parts,... thereby making a chinese screen a partition. Load bearing walls would not be referred to as such, only in error, as they are structural, not used to "separate" spaces.

The only old door on that wall is in the existing doorjamb, it was not a wall of old doors which has been suggested.

The parlour, which this was, would have access to the house but not the courtyard directly, and there would have been a small space between the staircase and that wall, so the rear of the shed and the rest of the lower floor could be accessed, at one time.

Marys room very probably was once a parlor with one window and no corner door, and you accessed that room and left it via the doorway that also was used to access the staircase and the archway door. Where the old door with "26" can be seen. Doors and doorjambs were expensive, they still are.. relatively, so why would the builder put 2 doors on that same wall 15 feet apart?


Best regards Stephen, and Happy New Years eve!!

[Sam Flynn]

I'm mentioning it as a cautionary tale to be careful how bold you make a pronunciation without any corroborative evidence from the other prints, or other sources.

... oh, not a bold pronouncement at all, Robert - more italic, if you catch my drift! It is surely significant that the "26" appears on no other print we have, and I'm inclined to believe that it may well be an artefact, too. The one thing that keeps my particular door ajar is that the "26", infuriatingly, seems to be of roughly the right proportion and located where one might expect to find a house-number to be.

Whether it used to be the front door or not, it's reasonable to assume that whoever erected the partition wasn't likely to have used sheets of finest English Oak!

[KatBradshaw]

Thanks for pointing that out Gareth! I really couldn't see it before but now it has been shown to me I can't not see it, if that makes sense.