The coat at Miller's Court window

[Phil H]

Michael - my assumption has consistently been that 26 Dorset St was built as a private house and was subsequently adapted to other uses. I see no logical reason to assume otherwise.

Where do you get your ideas from?

I advise you to check out some of the earlier threads where this has all been gone into thoroughly.

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

Point 1: I would suggest that the store was a later adaptation, made once the street had descended somewhat in the social context. Further, I would hazard that the original door was where the shed was later put.

Point 2: So where was the kitchen, in your reconstruction?

Phil

Hi Phil,

I can pretty much assure you that the door facing Dorset Street was the only front facing door since the house was constructed, and it always accessed the shed. I believe you are assuming that 26 Dorset Street was built to be a lodging house or a private residence, based on the 2 points above, and I dont believe that was the case. Not all the houses on Dorset were built as Lodging Houses, in which you would expect to find a communal kitchen for the tenants. Many private homes were converted for usage by multiple tenants illegally and this was the cause of some serious overcrowding in the East End at that time. In a private home of course there would be a kitchen.

In this case I believe we have what amounts to a short term lease building where the tenants would be charged by the week, not the day, ...and the fact that McCarthy ran a tuck shop accessed inside the archway, at #27, might be an indicator of that sort of dwelling. People unable to cook in their room......(Marys fireplace is likely unique in that building), would need some foods that required no cooking as snacks for their room. Cookies. Muffins. Pies. That sort of thing.

Think of it as a no frills Motel. They would have been originally designed to provide shelter, a shower and a bed, and very little else. Many Restaurants and snack bars attached to Motels today are owned and operated by parties unaffiliated with the building ownership. Being a landlord was a full time business, Im sure McCarthy didnt spend all his time catering to tenants. In fact we know that McCarthy becomes somewhat of a slum landlord eventually, buying quite a few buildings in the East End over the coming years.

Its probably the reason he allows Marys arrears...he doesnt have the time to go chasing down overdue rents.

Best regards

[Phil H]

I have found another pic of the fireplace.

[Phil H]

You have to keep in mind that the primary door to access the house was inside the archway leading to the courtyard, where Elizabeth Prater goes in and up the stairs. The only Dorset facing door is to the shed, which was for the convenience of offloading and storing goods from the street.

I would suggest that the store was a later adaptation, made once the street had descended somewhat in the social context. Further, I would hazard that the original door was where the shed was later put.

The idea that it would have been a kitchen is a good one since the pump is just outside and there is a sizable hearth to work with, but it is never mentioned in terms other than as a parlour to my knowledge.

So where was the kitchen, in your reconstruction?

I'll try to find the earlier discussion on all this, and link to it.

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

On the issue of what room 13 originally was used for, it is reported that it was a parlour, just like someone mentioned earlier. You have to keep in mind that the primary door to access the house was inside the archway leading to the courtyard, where Elizabeth Prater goes in and up the stairs. The only Dorset facing door is to the shed, which was for the convenience of offloading and storing goods from the street.

So when people wanted to enter the house they would access that door inside the archway, and off to the left of the staircase would have been a sitting room or parlour, with a fireplace and a window to view the courtyard. When the room was segmented from the rest of the house a wall was constructed just to the left of the staircase, sealing in that room. Im not sure whether a doorway and door would have been a part of that room originally, but it was required once the room had been partitioned. The wall was comprised of old doors and re-used materials. It was plastered and papered, but Liz could see through the cracks when she went upstairs.

The idea that it would have been a kitchen is a good one since the pump is just outside and there is a sizable hearth to work with, but it is never mentioned in terms other than as a parlour to my knowledge.

Best regards

[DRoy]

Hi DRoy,
The press reports[ Casebook] should reveal the source I was referring to, about the residents of the court concern.I will dig it out for you in the morning.
I doubt McCarthy senior would be mistaken for a youth, I believe he was somewhat older then Dew himself.
I have had a inkling for some time that the events in informing the police, were not exactly as stated, I believe that young McCarthy, was sent to the police station followed by Bowyer, whilst his father remained outside the crime scene.
It seems inconceivable that he would abandon that position , and as urgency was a premium, why send a slower messenger.?
Regards Richard.

Richard,

McCarthy could have looked young, he didn't have to be a youth to be Dew's guy. There is much discussion of Dew's recollection not being that accurate so can we say confidently that he was right in this particular circumstance?

You're young McCarthy theory would go against the statements given at the inquest. I can't see this as possible. You're also speculating that Bowyer was so old he was slow? How do we know Bowyer was slow?

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Thats a good effort DRoy, but what if when Maria last saw it the spout was attached but as a result of the overheating Ive suggested when Mary went to put the kettle on when she came home the spout detached.

My real point here is that there is no reason to suspect that a large fire was responsible for the spout being detached, because we dont know the condition of the kettle before any fire that night..unless your correct in guessing that Maria was asked about it, something I seriously doubt myself, probably not on the list of things the police wanted to speak with her about,....and it was probably repeated overuse that caused the melted solder anyway.

Also be advised that Maria left that room for good on the 3rd, anytime she had been back there was to visit, not to sleep over. So technically.. she was not around most of that time. The police wouldnt be able to learn Marys activities the past few days from Maria, but they could learn about the last day from her. Maria was with Mary in her room all afternoon on the 8th.

Its one reason I suggest they may have been doing that washing and folding that afternoon....and why I suggested the spout issue may have resulted from those multiple heatings over the fire for hot water.

Michael,

You are right that I'm speculating. I only suggested Maria may have been asked about the kettle since it was brought up by Abberline at the inquest. He says that there was evidence of a large fire to go along with the melted spout evidence. Since he thought it important to mention them then you could assume he did some investigation on them. But yes, i'm just speculating.

Again, i'm assuming the policemen actually investigated and questioned witnesses when I suggest they would have asked Maria as much as they could about Mjk and her room and contents. I'd also assume they would have asked Barnett similar questions regardless of him moving out. Again, there was very little contents in the room so it wouldn't be difficult or time consuming for them to ask those who had been in the room.

Your suggestion they did laundry that afternoon makes perfect sense.

Cheers
DRoy

[Phil H]

Room 13 was described as the parlour, that it had been the parlour for No.26 before the house was divided up with partitions.
A parlour is generally the 'best' room, reception room, where you receive guests...Of course it may be described incorrectly...
Although the layout is not exactly that same (though similar?), No.29 Hanbury St. had the kitchen room at the back overlooking the yard.

Not sure what your conclusion is here, Wickerman.

Therer was a detailed discussion of this topic on Casbook some time back (maybe on the old boards) I'll try to find it and link. My recollection is that the conclusion was that the room had probably been a kitchen (though I could well be misremembering). It would certainly be an odd place for a "parlour" in my view, which could even originally have been on the first (UK) second (US) floor at the front.

Phil

[Wickerman]

Room 13 was described as the parlour, that it had been the parlour for No.26 before the house was divided up with partitions.
A parlour is generally the 'best' room, reception room, where you receive guests.
Of course it may be described incorrectly.

Although the layout is not exactly that same (though similar?), No.29 Hanbury St. had the kitchen room at the back overlooking the yard.

.

[Bridewell]

I have always had reservations about McCarthy sending the elderly Bowyer to fetch the police, when he had a fitter , more sprightly 14 year old son close at hand

Do we know that Bowyer was 'elderly'? How old was he? He was drawing an army pension, but that isn't really a reliable indication of great age, I would't have thought.

[richardnunweek]

Hi DRoy,
The press reports[ Casebook] should reveal the source I was referring to, about the residents of the court concern.I will dig it out for you in the morning.
I doubt McCarthy senior would be mistaken for a youth, I believe he was somewhat older then Dew himself.
I have had a inkling for some time that the events in informing the police, were not exactly as stated, I believe that young McCarthy, was sent to the police station followed by Bowyer, whilst his father remained outside the crime scene.
It seems inconceivable that he would abandon that position , and as urgency was a premium, why send a slower messenger.?
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Trying again with the sketch:

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael,
Just to point out that Mrs Harvey did stay with Kelly on the Monday/Tuesday night[ inquest] and was with her Thursday afternoon,
As you have pointed out , it is entirely plausible that the damage to the kettle was not known by Mrs H, and melted after she left Kelly that afternoon, but that is not what I would personally subscribe to.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Herewith a picture of a RANGE (with kettle) perhaps a bit posh for No 13; and

the sketch of the room I mentioned.

Phil

[Phil H]

Do we know where the kettle was in relation to the fire - or fireplace?

If, as some have reasoned, Kelly's room was the kitchen of the original larger house, then the fireplace might have comprised a "kitchen range" - that is an iron grate with built-in ovens and perhaps a water heater, and the kettle MIGHT then have been on a hinged arm that could be swung over the hot coals or out into the cooler air.

I believe that there is one rather crude sketch of the far (fireplace) end of the room.

I would suggest that these might be factors which would bear on the issues being discussed.

In the meantime, while I try to find the sketch, I attach a reconstruction by Jane Coram

Phil