Prater's stairs

[richardh]

Last one for tonight!
this is the latest attempt to satisfy the statements, testimonies, reports and photos.

this one is a view down into the landing with #19 & 20. The landing is 7 ft wide. The stairs top off just by door to #20 so #19 is to the left.



This one below shows Prater's door with the stairs next to the partition going up. Prater's door is in the position indicated as an opening on Goad.

I might be able to faff and get Prater's door on the other side of the partition IF I make the landing (between 19 & 20) 9ft instead of 7ft. But it'll be a bit of a squeeze!



thoughts on this version please.

[Wickerman]

As per this model you mean?

I don't see anything wrong with this. It is practical, and it suits the testimonies, and the door to access the ground floor front room (under #20), is moved to the east end of this partition, beneath the store room?
The old position being covered by the stairs.

[Wickerman]

No, because the width of the 1st floor landing between #19 and #20 is only 7 ft wide. L shaped stairs wouldn't fit and a turn in the stairs would also be too wide.

We originally had this distance at 9ft, right?
Is "6-7ft" an estimate, or was it measured?
When we have two contradictory statements, we can't dismiss either of them without some third piece of confirming evidence.
I appreciate this makes your job more difficult, but it's too early to dismiss the 9ft suggestion altogether.

That statement of 'a partition between rooms #19 & #20' is also confusing me. there is no partition between the two rooms.

The front wall of the "storage room" is a partition, this partition runs between rooms 19 & 20, does it not?

[Sam Flynn]

As per this model you mean?

Yes, that's a possible (and reasonable) interpretation of the statements we've seen regarding the layout. Not that I'm saying it's definitive, but it would work.

[richardh]

As per this model you mean?

It could mean that the partition is at right angles to room 20, creating a "corridor" between it and room 19, and serving as the "front wall" of the storage cupboard. No reason why a partition couldn't also house a cupboard door.

[Sam Flynn]

So what would 'separated by a partition' mean to you?

It could mean that the partition is at right angles to room 20, creating a "corridor" between it and room 19, and serving as the "front wall" of the storage cupboard. No reason why a partition couldn't also house a cupboard door.

[richardh]

So what would 'separated by a partition' mean to you?

Where is the partition they are quoting? Is it the partition that is the actual wall and doorway of #20? the partition that is the actual wall and doorway to #19? ( so 'separated by TWO partitions') or another partition on the landing between the two?

Hello Richard. This might help:

When I sit on my sofa, the TV and I are "separated by" a coffee-table, but neither of us is physically connected to the table itself. Indeed, the table is quite detached and in the middle of the room, yet still we're "separated by" it.

Then there are the floorboards - I might say that the television and I are "separated by" 4 metres of parquet flooring and a coffee-table.

[richardh]

Here the stairs are mirrored and crammed in to fit the available space on the ground floor to accommodate a doorway on the other side of the partition with stairs going up in an L shape. I've had to make the 1st floor landing 9 ft wide (rather than the 7ft width as per the statements). And even doing all this creates the problem of HOW it would be possible to struggle across the landing from #19 and be able to kick at the partition of #20 avoiding the door to #20 which is the only bit of #20 accessible on the landing?

the top of those stairs has to be positioned around that point in order for someone ascending to describe #19 'to the left'.

None of this is possible.

[Sam Flynn]

To me 'separated by' means a wooden divide right between two areas so if you knock on one side you hear it on the other.

Hello Richard. This might help:

When I sit on my sofa, the TV and I are "separated by" a coffee-table, but neither of us is physically connected to the table itself. Indeed, the table is quite detached and in the middle of the room, yet still we're "separated by" it.

Then there are the floorboards - I might say that the television and I are "separated by" 4 metres of parquet flooring and a coffee-table.

[richardh]

If you simply flipped those stairs, mirror image, we would still maintain all the parameters that have been identified to date.

No, because the width of the 1st floor landing between #19 and #20 is only 7 ft wide. L shaped stairs wouldn't fit and a turn in the stairs would also be too wide.

I'm going to have to think about this!

That statement of 'a partition between rooms #19 & #20' is also confusing me. there is no partition between the two rooms. they are separated by a 7 ft landing. To me 'separated by' means a wooden divide right between two areas so if you knock on one side you hear it on the other.

[richardh]

I don't know about anyone else but I am totally and utterly confused now!

Stephen, The statements provided do not corroborate with the Thomas Plan because the store room is right between the two rooms with no way for either door to see each other. Coming out of #19 you are faced with a tiny landing with the [down]stairs to the right and a doorway which seemingly leads right into the store cupboard!
#20 's door faces the stairs that lead down to the shed not the side (Prater's) door. There is NO partition divide that separates #20 from #19

To stumble out of room #19 (during a struggle) and be in a position to kick at #20's wall is impossible according to the Thomas Plan.

The Goad Plan (my model) is also wrong if we go by the statements. The stairs can't go up the partition wall because the top is close to #20. And they ca't go straight up (from passageway to 1st floor) because there just not room for a straight set of stairs. They can only really go against the passageway wall from back (#13) up to front (#20) which means the partition would be behind anyone ascending the stairs (Prater's stated she was sometimes able to see light from the partition when she ascended stairs - which would mean she'd be looking behind her)

Like I said, I'm utterly confused.

First of all may I thank David for his work here. There's a newspaper article on this that I saw some years ago but of course it was not so detailed. As far as I can see from this, Amory's door opened on to the landing of the main stairs from where he wouldn't be able to directly see Robert's door as he supposedly stated at the Old Bailey trial. Of course the policeman's assertion that there was a staircase between the two rooms must refer to the back stairs.



That's because it's the only logical plan, Richard.

[Wickerman]

using this quote literally it must surely mean that the ONE flight of stairs MUST be parallel to the partition (rooms 13 & 19) on the left? So, no turn in the stairs?

Richard.
There never has been a detail that locates the stairs. We only followed the Hanbury St. plan, but this could have been completely mirror image for all we know. That would bring the stairs up against Amory's partition.
Whether the side door (from Millers Court passage) opened at the foot of the stairs (as has been assumed), or underneath these stairs, meaning you would need to walk around them to ascend the stairs, is all conjecture.

If you simply flipped those stairs, mirror image, we would still maintain all the parameters that have been identified to date.

[Stephen Thomas]

First of all may I thank David for his work here. There's a newspaper article on this that I saw some years ago but of course it was not so detailed. As far as I can see from this, Amory's door opened on to the landing of the main stairs from where he wouldn't be able to directly see Robert's door as he supposedly stated at the Old Bailey trial. Of course the policeman's assertion that there was a staircase between the two rooms must refer to the back stairs.

I can't help but think of the Thomas Plan when visualising the statements.

That's because it's the only logical plan, Richard.

[Wickerman]

The only details I see that might have an impact is;

- Mr Roberts said: "My wife was lying at the top of the stairs about six feet from our door, near Mr Amery’s door."
And also Amery said, "the deceased fell outside my door."

Frank Oliver said:
On the landing outside this room there was blood viz.: a small pool on the top stair, and another small pool on the next stair. (or next step?).

So the stairs that came up from the ground floor beside Amory's door. Therefore, his partition wall separated room 20 from the stairs?
And, the top step is where the victim laid bleeding, next to Amory's door.
Yet from the previous account there was also corner next to Amory's door.

This seems to suggest Amory's door was near a corner of the landing, to one side, and near the top step of the ground floor stairs, to the other side.
Amory's door was possibly not in the center of that partition wall, but towards one end.

[David Orsam]

David,
using this quote literally it must surely mean that the ONE flight of stairs MUST be parallel to the partition (rooms 13 & 19) on the left? So, no turn in the stairs?

I know nothing about staircase design so can't answer this. All I can say is that Roberts described the top of the stairs as being close to Amery's room, i.e. he referred to "the top of the stairs near Mr Amery’s front room door". This is corroborated for me by the fact that the dying woman was moved from the top of the stairs into number 20, which must have been the closest room to where she was sitting. That suggests to me that the staircase is on the wrong side of the landing in the model you posted above but frankly I'm a bit confused by it all.