Prater's stairs

[Pierre]

Pierre.
A dashed line (_ _ _ _ _) also means a wall beneath a room.

Millers Court passage shows a solid line on one side because this wall extends through all floors of the property, it is a load bearing wall. This is also the property line, whereas the dashed line only exists at the ground floor level, the floor above passes over the wall beneath and is part of No.27.

As the legend below points out:

WOODEN OR PLASTER PARTITION, OR WALL SOME FLOORS ONLY



All options of the symbol (yes, a dashed line is a symbol) must be considered, but as internal partition walls are not shown in the Goads Plan, it can only be a .....WALL, SOME FLOORS ONLY.

Wooden & Partition walls do exist, but externally, as rooftop structures, a Penthouse or Loft, and at ground level, as a Gallery which is a type of Boardwalk, for instance.

I know. And it doesn´t matter if there was a partition (in the corridor which could have been kicked at in the Marshall case) or a wall. The upper passage hypothesis is the same.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Michael

Thank you for pointing out:

" The assumption that the window over the archway was in a corridor between the buildings isn't substantiated anywhere in the historical literature."

For Pierre to continue to state the entrance to the upper floors of 27 must be via 26, because of the lack of doors in the 27 side of the passageway is the is an exercise in stubbornness and failed logic.

1. There are no doors shown for 26 or 27 at all apart from the opening in 26 passageway. He will not accept that external doors are assumed and not shown, I fail to understand why?
There is no front door for 27 shown, which you suggest was the way to the upper floors of 27 and does seem reasonable. Neither is there a front door to 26 or the door for 13 shown on the Goad Map.

Pierre argues that there are no doors shown in the passageway therefore there cannot have been any. Applying this logic, neither of the 3 doors above exist. Please Pierre could you explain?

2. Pierre believes there is an opening from 26 into the area he calls the corridor.

There is however no opening shown on the Goad map from 26 into this corridor.
Following the logic above, how can he suggest it exist, when he believes the map is 100% accurate and shows everything in the correct position.

I am sure Pierre will claim, i am not listening and don't want to solve anything.

He has been asked to explain the apparent "cherry picking" detailed above many times, his response is either to say we are ignoring the evidence and don't understand or he just does not reply.

Pierre, if you can explain the apparent inconsistencies in your thinking please do. I seriously want to understand the logic involved


However if you cannot explain please stop.

it is the season of good will.



put up

[Pierre]

I think you will find that Pierre will only accept a final plan that put the "partition door" in exactly the position shown on the Goad map. Is that true Pierre?
There can be no consensus because that is how he sees it.

Yes, Steve. I think the Goad´s Fire Insurance Plan is the most reliable and valid source there is for the issue of the door in Mary´s room. After it comes the photograph MJK1.

"Gut feeling", "personal opinions" and stuff like that can not be used to write history.

Regards Pierre

[Wickerman]

In the drawing, the arch is placed OVER this wall but it can not have been looking that way. This is very clear when one compares it to Goads: The archway can only have started at the wall marked _ _ _ .

Pierre.
A dashed line (_ _ _ _ _) also means a wall beneath a room.

Millers Court passage shows a solid line on one side because this wall extends through all floors of the property, it is a load bearing wall. This is also the property line, whereas the dashed line only exists at the ground floor level, the floor above passes over the wall beneath and is part of No.27.

As the legend below points out:

WOODEN OR PLASTER PARTITION, OR WALL SOME FLOORS ONLY



All options of the symbol (yes, a dashed line is a symbol) must be considered, but as internal partition walls are not shown in the Goads Plan, it can only be a .....WALL, SOME FLOORS ONLY.

Wooden & Partition walls do exist, but externally, as rooftop structures, a Penthouse or Loft, and at ground level, as a Gallery which is a type of Boardwalk, for instance.

[Michael W Richards]

Once again its prudent to remember that the street facing door at 27 accessed the interior of 27, and the access way in the archway was to the tuck shop. The assumption that the window over the archway was in a corridor between the buildings isn't substantiated anywhere in the historical literature. I could see that window being in a back alcove of a room on that floor, a feature which only finely detailed drawings would show. If that's correct it may have offered that room its only ventilation, since I believe it did not have a Dorset street window.

[Pierre]

Pierre, Glad you've turned up

Is it the red or blue window you are interested in?

Hi Richardh,

It is the red one!

That window should be a window in the upper passage, that is, in the corridor where there should have been doors giving access to the upper rooms in both 26 and 27.

It was just a simple corridor I think and the stairs can only have been placed in number 26, since there is one door leading to the stairs from the ground passage.

But there is a problem with the drawing from the newspaper. If you look at Goad´s, there is no way that the wall (marked with _ _ _ _ _ ) in McCarthys shop (S) could have cut through the window above since the passage has the same width on both sides.

In the drawing, the arch is placed OVER this wall but it can not have been looking that way. This is very clear when one compares it to Goads: The archway can only have started at the wall marked _ _ _ .

So the question is if one should believe Goad´s or the newspaper.

According to Goad´s, it could have looked like this.

I am waiting patiently to see the new model and am really looking forward to see it and hear what all the others think about it.

Best Wishes Pierre

[Elamarna]

I think you will find that Pierre will only accept a final plan that put the "partition door" in exactly the position shown on the Goad map. Is that true Pierre?
There can be no consensus because that is how he sees it.

[Wickerman]

But as long as people are happy there is no reason to be accurate.

Yes. Everything can be moved as long as people here like it. Mary gets killed over and over again.

Would I be right in thinking you are not pleased about something?

[GUT]

Yes. Everything can be moved as long as people here like it. Mary gets killed over and over again.

What?

[richardh]

Pierre, Glad you've turned up

Is it the red or blue window you are interested in?

But as long as people are happy there is no reason to be accurate.

[Pierre]

This just gets better & better Richard.
Well done!

I especially like pic #2, and with that in mind, does this mean the passage door (Praters Door), moves a little closer to Kelly's room?

Yes. Everything can be moved as long as people here like it. Mary gets killed over and over again.

[Pierre]

It was 5,11 ft from the wall according to Goad's.

This just gets better & better Richard.
Well done!

I especially like pic #2, and with that in mind, does this mean the passage door (Praters Door), moves a little closer to Kelly's room?

But as long as people are happy there is no reason to be accurate.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman
Yes I am happy to accept what you say of course.
The evidence fully backs your view that the photos were taken around 4pm.

I wasn't aware I implied that, there were two times the photo's could have been taken.

If I came across as disagreeing with you that was not my intention.
Regards
Steve

No, I didn't see any disagreement, I was trying to condense what I wrote as it was spread across two different posts.

Disagreement is good, keeps the brain cells active

[Wickerman]

Thanks Jon & GUT

Here's a .gif update of the Goad Plan with things in place in #13 (bed, chair and partition correctly positioned).

Terrific!

Jon
Do Prater's stairs HAVE to go in that direction? could there be alternatives that would allow Prater's door close to #13's door?

Not at all, try as many variations as you can think of.
I think it's important to keep all the parameters in mind, thats all, as we have tried to do with this version.
We can't possibly 'know' where the stairs were.

Is our aim to get Prater's door on the other side of the partition?

No, the reason I asked if that door could move forward is just to be sure that this side door does not conflict with a partition across the back of the 'shed'.
I can see from this new .gif that it looks good.

Also
I could do with some advice on the split between the shed and the stairs.

Are you talking about that zig-zag wall that I see you have removed?
If so, I would just run that rear partition with, the brown door, across the back of the shed, and leave it at that.
The space you end up with on the ground floor, between the shed and room 13, should (in my opinion) be the same as the space above.
There could also have been a 'storeroom' on that level too, or at least a room the same size.

[Elamarna]

In all fairness Steve & Pierre, I had pointed out that there were two opportunities.

The press reported that the photographer arrived and took photo's after the preliminary examination, but before the post-mortem, which began at 2:00 pm, or thereabouts.
Then we read that the photographer removed his camera at 4:30, the body had been removed at 4:00 pm.
So it seems the camera was left in the room until 4:30.

The photographer in Victorian London is an artist, whereas the doctors & detectives are professionals. Class distinctions were very much observed in those days.
Once the post-mortem has commenced, the artist will wait until they are finished if he had been told to use his camera after the post-mortem, as he had before the P.M.

There must have been a reason for him to remain at the scene, otherwise we would expect him to have left once the P.M. began to go and process his plates.

Wickerman
Yes I am happy to accept what you say of course.
The evidence fully backs your view that the photos were taken around 4pm.
If I came across as disagreeing with you that was not my intention.
Regards
Steve