The missing key?

[GUT]

Many years ago, late 90's I think it was, Bob Hinton constructed a physical mock-up of that window & its relationship to the door. All the dimensions used to size the door, and window, and their relationship to each other, were taken from the dimensions of the standard house brick, plus the typical width of the cement line between.

At the time I was discussing this with Bob I was employed in the Engineering Dept. for Westinghouse and was able to use AutoCad to create a three dimensional image for this exercise using the same house brick dimensions.
Don't ask me what they were now, its too long ago

Anyhow, both Bob and I worked on the same assumption (same as Richard), that the broken pane was the nearest to the corner.
I don't work with AutoCad anymore so I'm not able to repeat the exercise for this "furthest" pane.

G'day Jon

Not sure if it was by you and Bob but I did see a summary at one stage based on brick size, the only problem is brick sizes have changed over the years, but in such a small room it's not going to make a real big difference. fully accept that my summary above was not scientific but still submit that in a room 12X12 or 12X10 it wasn't a long reach from that window to the door.

[Wickerman]

G'day Jon

Not sure if it was by you and Bob but I did see a summary at one stage based on brick size, the only problem is brick sizes have changed over the years, but in such a small room it's not going to make a real big difference. fully accept that my summary above was not scientific but still submit that in a room 12X12 or 12X10 it wasn't a long reach from that window to the door.

Hey, its all guesswork when you get right down to it
Though we did use a brick size from the period.

We have two sizes for the room, in one press account it is 12 x 12, in another it was given as 12 x 15.

[GUT]

Hey, its all guesswork when you get right down to it

We have two sizes for the room, in one press account it is 12 x 12, in another it was given as 12 x 15.

I've also seen one as 12X10, I forgot the 12X15, I am also unsure as to which is the shorter dimension if it is not square.

So as said it is all guess work.

[Wickerman]

Well, I think we can be reasonably certain that the width of a house was not 12ft, that is far too narrow for a house.
Even 15ft is narrow but I think it is the safest dimension to use of the two, for the width (window wall).
The door wall is the depth, for this I would use the 12ft dim.

[Wickerman]

Here's a Goads Plan showing No. 26 Dorset St.
As you can see the back room where Mary lived was slightly wider than it is deep.

[GUT]

Here's a Goads Plan showing No. 26 Dorset St.
As you can see the back room where Mary lived was slightly wider than it is deep.

Thanks Jon

wonder if the difference can be accounted for by the cupboard and fireplace being along the wall adjoining 25, so one measurement is wall to wall and one wall to cupboard, I don't think it matters a lot might add 6" or so to the space between window and door.

Also at the end of the corridor, near Mary's door the Goad Map seems to show a door, or am I reading the plan wrong?

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Everyone is forgetting the report of a piece of string near that vicinity , that was usually present , but not that morning, according to the report, one could tell if Kelly was present in the room, and it saved friends knocking , they just went straight in.....
Is it not possible , that the length of string was visible it meant she was out, and if not visible in...It could have been attached to the lock, ,and when she went out , it could be seen, and she would use it to gain entry, and when she was in, it was not visible , and attached internally ..
I know I am rambling. but no one ever takes that report into consideration..
Regards Richard.

[GUT]

Hi.
Everyone is forgetting the report of a piece of string near that vicinity , that was usually present , but not that morning, according to the report, one could tell if Kelly was present in the room, and it saved friends knocking , they just went straight in.....
Is it not possible , that the length of string was visible it meant she was out, and if not visible in...It could have been attached to the lock, ,and when she went out , it could be seen, and she would use it to gain entry, and when she was in, it was not visible , and attached internally ..
I know I am rambling. but no one ever takes that report into consideration..
Regards Richard.

G'day Richard

Yes the string is an explanation, except Joe doesn't mention it.

Though it may have been Mary's answer, rather than reaching in and introduced after Joe left her, thus he wasn't aware of it.

[Wickerman]

Piece of string?
Where is this mentioned?

[Amanda Sumner]

Two panes/

[ATTACH]16116[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]16117[/ATTACH]




If anyone can see a bottom broken pane then I need to go to the opticians!

As for string, I've never read about that until on this thread, yesterday.:

[Wickerman]

There are definite differences in shades of grey/black in three of the four panes in the smaller window, but equally there are shades of grey/black in various panes of the larger Georgian window on the left.
So that in itself is not an absolute indication of missing glass.

[Amanda Sumner]

There are definite differences in shades of grey/black in three of the four panes in the smaller window, but equally there are shades of grey/black in various panes of the larger Georgian window on the left.
So that in itself is not an absolute indication of missing glass.

It's clearer on my computer than on here, but one can see the jagged pieces of broken glass and the large gaping hole in the top right pane. There are no similar jagged images in the other three. I have zoomed in most carefully and examined all the panes. I believe there is a cloth or coat that hangs down giving the different shades you see, but I can see no other breaks.
I know what Bowyer said in his statement but he refers to one broken pane at one point and he talks about the farthest pane, and then he has to further explain himself in court, exactly what he meant. Hardly someone one can really rely on, when here we have reasonable visual proof that only one pane was broken. The peering down to look through the bottom pane makes no sense either. The large hole at the top would be the logical choice, if indeed there was a smaller hole at the bottom. Looking at the door, the window is low down, seeming only a foot or so from the ground. None of this, I know, proves anything but I like to be as factual as possible. If Joe managed to reach the door from that top pane, then he is a better contortionist than most of us. I'm doubtful about the string. I've asked where the story came from and no one has explained yet.

Cheers, anyway,

Amanda

[Janner]

It's clearer on my computer than on here, but one can see the jagged pieces of broken glass and the large gaping hole in the top right pane. There are no similar jagged images in the other three. I have zoomed in most carefully and examined all the panes. I believe there is a cloth or coat that hangs down giving the different shades you see, but I can see no other breaks.
I know what Bowyer said in his statement but he refers to one broken pane at one point and he talks about the farthest pane, and then he has to further explain himself in court, exactly what he meant. Hardly someone one can really rely on, when here we have reasonable visual proof that only one pane was broken. The peering down to look through the bottom pane makes no sense either. The large hole at the top would be the logical choice, if indeed there was a smaller hole at the bottom. Looking at the door, the window is low down, seeming only a foot or so from the ground. None of this, I know, proves anything but I like to be as factual as possible. If Joe managed to reach the door from that top pane, then he is a better contortionist than most of us. I'm doubtful about the string. I've asked where the story came from and no one has explained yet.

Cheers, anyway,

Amanda

But there is a darker area on the lower pane which looks as if it could have been broken, and looks almost as if it's been squared to take away any jagged edges? Dunno, very difficult to say with any certainty...

[Amanda Sumner]

But there is a darker area on the lower pane which looks as if it could have been broken, and looks almost as if it's been squared to take away any jagged edges? Dunno, very difficult to say with any certainty...

I agree, we can not be 100% certain, but the fact that the jagged edges are clear on the top one, why are they not apparent at the bottom? Why hide that fact, if indeed that was the case. I find that very unlikely...

You do see my point, I think. So much is taken for granted and accepted as such but here we have visual evidence that, at least, questions the statements of those involved.

[Wickerman]

I know what Bowyer said in his statement but he refers to one broken pane at one point and he talks about the farthest pane, and then he has to further explain himself in court, exactly what he meant. Hardly someone one can really rely on,....

I think it is the fact he was required to be more specific that makes his comment reliable. Also, do not forget Bowyer was not alone in commenting on the broken pane. Dr. Philips said he looked through "the lower pane", which not only provides confirmation but also informs us that one upper pane was also broken - likely the one on the right.
So as Phillips did so, why not Bowyer?