Room 13 Miller's Court

[Nemo]

Thanks Stephen - that makes sense

...Though would that not indicate a 2 room space being used as the shed on the ground floor - with the stairs at the rear corner of the house (before the 2 storey rear extension was added on to No.26?

Are the stairs in their original location, pre-extension?

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi Nemo

'Back extension' is an architect/builder term to describe a smaller and lighter structure at the back of a house with presumably less solid foundations. It doesn't mean 'something added later'.

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi Nemo

Sorry I didn't answer your post fully.

The stairwell would be just like in 29 Hanbury Street.

[Nemo]

Hi Stephen

Thanks very much for the information. That explains a few things for me as regards the back extension - I did not know that...

Does your sketch of the first floor (UK) derive from similar houses? Are you an architect or something similar?

I would be very interested if that sketch in any way resembles the true layout

I'm not doubting your proposed layout (yet) but, as usual, Prater's room does not look quite right to me, and also the two flights of stairs.

I expected one flight of stairs accessible through the first door on the right in the passageway, and via a door in the left rear corner of the "shed" area. ie you would enter the shed-room via the doors on Dorset St and pass though this door into a small "hallway" with the bottom step to your immediate right and the door exiting into the passageway at your immediate left. There would also be, in this position, a door directly in front of you leading into No.13.

[Stephen Thomas]

I expected one flight of stairs accessible through the first door on the right in the passageway, and via a door in the left rear corner of the "shed" area. ie you would enter the shed-room via the doors on Dorset St and pass though this door into a small "hallway" with the bottom step to your immediate right and the door exiting into the passageway at your immediate left. There would also be, in this position, a door directly in front of you leading into No.13.

Hi Nemo

I understand what you mean regarding a possible small lobby area at the foot of the back stairs there but there is no reference to it apart from Dew who says there was a locked door behind Kelly's bed. The word 'partition' is used over and over again implying that a room has been partitioned, in this case the kitchen or scullery of the house. Of course there would have been originally a doorway in the left rear corner of the shed area to access the kitchen. I'm certainly not an architect as you may have guessed by my drawing but I am familiar with the usual layout of old terraced houses of more than two storeys in London and the norm is a stairwell about 6 feet square from the bottom to the top of the house with landings to access the rooms as in my illustration. I really can't see that back staircase as being original and if it were it begs the question as to where the stairs to the two upper floors might have been.

[Nemo]

That's great Stephen - gives me a lot to consider

Someone once posted some plans of typical London houses of the period which showed the stair location(s). (apologies for not remembering the poster).

I can't really say myself that it would be practical to have two staircases as in your sketch

I would have thought that "Prater's" stairs were the only ones in the building

The construction of new stairs or moving original stairs would have been a major undertaking that was unnecessary in my view. I think partitioned rooms etc would be formed around the original staircase

I have seen houses from this period in Leicester that had a stair arrangement as I described - accessed by a door to the rear left of the front room.

If the gates/doors at the front of the shed were accessible to the public as has been reported, then the obvious thing would be to block access to the stairs from the shed by blocking this doorway.

Mary's room, being a self-contained unit would also have access to the stairs blocked - by the partition and the door

It was pointed out to me in the past (by Sam if I remember correctly) that a number 26 can be seen on the door behind Mary's bed. That would indicate that there was not necessarily a doorway in that location but that the old front door from No.26 was used to partition the room. (apparently the front of No.26 had gates to allow entrance for costers barrows).

If the door at the rear of the shed allowed access to the "kitchen" at the rear, then surely there was at least a small hall type area at the bottom of the stairs - probably only 2 or 3ft square?

If the stairs are as you describe - then this small hall area could have been as large as 6ft x 3ft as the 6ft square footprint of the stairs may have abutted against the right hand main wall of No.26 as viewed from the front of the house.

[Stephen Thomas]

I can't really say myself that it would be practical to have two staircases as in your sketch

I would have thought that "Prater's" stairs were the only ones in the building

Hi Nemo

Well there wouldn't have been two staircases to begin with, only the one in the stairwell in the main body of the house the foot of which would look like the Hanbury Street photo as you entered the front door. If Prater's stairs were the only ones in the building as you say, there would be no way to get to the two upper floors. It would appear that at some point it was decided that the ground floor of #26 was to be used for business purposes and another way had to be found to allow tenants access to the upper floors, hence the creation (not too big a job) of the other staircase and the rickety partition. At the top of these stairs tenants would turn right and walk through the store room to get to the original stairwell.

[Nemo]

Hi Stephen

Apologies - I have just read the whole of this thread and seen the extensive discussion regarding the layout

I tend toward Rob Clacks diagrams really but it is a mystery to me why the layout is so contentious

Are there not similar houses in London that we can see the plans of?

The houses in Dorset St seem to have been built according to a standard pattern.

[John Casey]

Kelly's Window

Hi, was looking at the photos at the beginning of this thread and something struck me. The broken window looked to be very low set in the wall.

If we take a height of 3 inches (yes, I am sad enough to have gone outside and measured a brick!!) per brick, that would mean the lower edge of the bottom panes were roughly 2 ft 6 from ground level. The central crossbar would be rougly 4 ft 2 above ground level and the top edge of the higher pane would be 5 ft 10 above ground level.

In the pic I've attached, I've scaled the bod as best I can, to somewhere between 5 and 5 ft 6. Looking at it, it seems to me it would be easier to actually reach through the top pane to get to the door latch. Could this mean we're chasing red herrings looking for a broken window at the bottom? Or have I got my maths totally wrong?

Bear in mind I'm a wheelchair user, so estimating what would be comfortable for an able bodied person to do is a little difficult for me! lol!

[Fisherman]

"Two panes in the lesser window were broken" was what Phillips said, if that is any help. One of them was in the upper half of the window and the other in the lower half.

The best, John!

Fisherman

[perrymason]

"Two panes in the lesser window were broken" was what Phillips said, if that is any help. One of them was in the upper half of the window and the other in the lower half.

The best, John!

Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

On the above, I cant recall whether it was 3 rows of 5 panes or vice versa, but the lower right hand pane was broken...the one that was used to access the latch..(and far too convenient a place for an "accidental" break in my opinion), and the other was in the upper left hand frame, which would make sense as the "pane broken during an argument"....it would have been around chest or head high, and a likely spot where a flung dish, mug or plate was aimed.

Which of course would mean that the lower right hand pane was probably broken on purpose, by Joe or Mary when they returned from being out and realized they had lost their key.

The Latch Access method I think would be clearly evident by seeing the location of the pane broken in relation to the latch from that alcove, and Im sure Barnett was either asked for the key or to explain how he would normally get into the room with the door locked ...so its a real mystery why McCarthy forces his own property open unnecessarily.

Cheers FM, all the best.

[lemonjelly]

Here's a close-up of the bottom broken (?) pane -

[ATTACH]1460[/ATTACH]

hello Mr Evans - good surname by the way

Am I right in thinking that in Trevor Marriott's book (21st century investigation) where he uses the minutes of the inquest it is stated that there were 2 broken panes?

Can't recall the exact page off the top of my head...

[harry]

The sketch by John Casey showing the relative height of the upper broken pane,would to me explain that if a latch,as opposed to a lock,was the method used to hold the door closed,then some questions are answered.A latch would more likely be situated on the inside of the door at a height equal to the upper broken pane,making access easy.A latch,of a certain kind would also be self locking when the door was closed.Some worked on a bevel system instead of spring loading.It would need to be manually opened from the inside,hence the hand through the window.(Of course it could also be engaged or disengaged with a short object held in the hand)It would give the impression of being firmly closed,so neccessitating some force to open.(I remember posting examples on the old boards).
It was relatively cheap,and was capable of being left in a position where the latch was prevented from engaging in a locked position.Useful if leaving the premises for short periods.Was often used in conjunction with key locks as added protection.Handy if a lock became invalid due to a lost key.
Such means of access,would I think,point to only a small number of persons with the knowledge of it being used,but because it could be a means of entry by the killer,it has to be considered.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Harry,
I recall there was some mention that kelly used a piece of string to assist entry, I will have to look up that .
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I am proberly wrong[ whats new] however were there not two doors, at the end of the passage one which Prater entered , before kellys room.?
I am mentioning this as the photograph depicting kellys door [ kindly shown by Stewart] appears not to show this, if the door was kellys , where was the other, as the passage starts immediately, or was it halfway along .
confused...Richard.