Prater's stairs

[Pierre]

I think, that the passageway (arch) was part of the building of #27 and the entire #27 building from front to rear owned and occupied the 34 inch width that is above the arch. The window that we know as the one above the arch was contained within the confines of #27.

Look at the two Leonard Matters photographs of the front of Miller's Court. See where the drainpipe is? that's the boundary wall between the 27 & 26 going right back to the rear.

IMO

Why do you think so?

What do you think the archway contained?

Regards Pierre

[richardh]

I think, that the passageway (arch) was part of the building of #27 and the entire #27 building from front to rear owned and occupied the 34 inch width that is above the arch. The window that we know as the one above the arch was contained within the confines of #27.

Look at the two Leonard Matters photographs of the front of Miller's Court. See where the drainpipe is? that's the boundary wall between the 27 & 26 going right back to the rear.

IMO

[MysterySinger]

Just from experience, I would doubt that there was a way to get from 26 to 27 over the arched passage (we called that type of thing a ginnel where I came from). Sometimes the whole area above the ginnel was part of one house but it could also be that half belonged to one house and half the other (front and back).

[Robert St Devil]

Hello MBDecre.
This was my thought, that the two houses were connected by that arch passage. But i see two groups forming over these goad drawings. The major group thinks all those lines are exact replications of openings and their locations. I am in the minority thinking all the lines just indicate the location and types of walls b

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael and others.

How Michael puts it is how I understood it too. Main access for 26 and 27 via front doors on Dorset St. Access to other upper areas behind (probably the later additions/modifications to the original house) via stairs like Prater's. (Maybe the latter was once an original back door to 26 before MJK's room extension was added, if that's the real chronology.)

But I think Pierre was trying to explain the window above the Court passage arch at it's rear end. I think his point was, why have a window there unless there was a connecting route between the two properties, or was there a room there?
The question is worth asking.

Ps: I'm a new poster here Michael, good to speak to you. Read a lot of your posts in the past. Good insights.

Hello back at you, and thanks for the support, it can be hard to find sometimes. On your point above about the perception of what that archway window indicates, I believe its the window that Elizabeth heard the cries from that night, and it was either in a back alcove area within her room, or that it was air flow for the upstairs hallway in 26.

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

I would suggest if we are going to carry on with these discussions, we use the thread" Pierre’s research so far", to use this thread is not fair on Richard.

[Elamarna]

Dear MBDecre,

Looking at the Goad plan, the area of the archway in which the window is, was a separate area, it is certainly linked to 27, there is an opening in the wall. Maybe it is an extension to a room in 27, therefore a window makes perfect sense.

There is no way that a single window would provide light for the whole of the area from the street to the back of the archway in the assumed corridor. if it was used as a corridor surely one would expect a window onto the street as well.

However as I always say, the map is not 100% accurate in what it shows, so we cannot know for sure

Elamarna

[MBDecre]

Hi Michael and others.

How Michael puts it is how I understood it too. Main access for 26 and 27 via front doors on Dorset St. Access to other upper areas behind (probably the later additions/modifications to the original house) via stairs like Prater's. (Maybe the latter was once an original back door to 26 before MJK's room extension was added, if that's the real chronology.)

But I think Pierre was trying to explain the window above the Court passage arch at it's rear end. I think his point was, why have a window there unless there was a connecting route between the two properties, or was there a room there?
The question is worth asking.

Ps: I'm a new poster here Michael, good to speak to you. Read a lot of your posts in the past. Good insights.

[Robert St Devil]

OK Robert. But as you see on the drawing, the wall canīt cut right through the archway where there is a window.

Regards Pierre

Huh, Pierre?

I thought the window was at the end of the "passageway" on the map, and that broken line indicates a wall running 3 or 5 ft behind the window (creating a corridor between 26 and 27.)

[Michael W Richards]

From Pierre;

"So hypothesizing that there was a doorway into the archway is one way of solving the problems with believing number 26 was filled with stairs in the shop and number 27 not being accessible from any other entrance than from McCarthys shop (S). And remember that number 26 was also a similar shop (S).

"Hypothesizing"? that there was an entry door to 26 in the archway...to 26 Im assuming? This is a statement of fact, not a hypothesis, it mentioned in almost every article that covers the archway and this murder. And no-one had to go through McCarthys shop at all, in fact it was blocked off from accessing the house by the tenants, as you were advised already, people in 27 entered via the door on the street, 26 had the shed.

[Michael W Richards]

A few posts back Pierre was asking how the people in 27 got to their rooms, that is answered by the door on Dorset Street. The front door to 26 was to the shed at the time of those pictures, but not the street door in 27.

Its probable that both 26 and 27 originally had those Dorset facing doors as the main access to the interiors and the stairs, the entrances under the archway would have been secondary access points, likely for fire safety as well as the additional stair/salon access.

[MBDecre]

Pleasure, Pierre. No problem being honest. No one knows everything, or half of everything! Grin.

Just some thoughts for Richard's work, and re your discussions with others here. The dashed line on the Goad map running down the left side of the millers court passage sounds like it could be a wooden partition on the first floor (in England that's above the ground floor).

Looking at the Goad maps, they usually have a double diagonal cross through the entire undivided/open area of spaces that are covered above by roof or floor. (See many areas behind Millers Court.) I think No. 25 has this. With a label "dwelling and loft" (or similar). In light of this, your idea of people passing over the (millers court) passage between the top of prater's stairs (above 26) and upper floors at 27 might be possible through the partition (dashed line).

Alternatively, on ground level. Looking at your last period drawing, the passage looks broader than in the photos of it. Perhaps it was later widened. The central post could be added to the overall original passage structure, to support the arch, and a wooden partition placed along the length of the passage to meet with this post by the window. This partition might contain stairs to the upper floors of 27. IF true, though, it might all be a bit later than the MJK period. Perhaps as a later solution to the problem of using Prater's stairs to access 27 over the passage, as you proposed before. But seems difficult to believe that kind of money would be spent on these sort of poor lodgings.

Books on period dwellings all over london, re landlords of various qualties of properties, show they had constructed some extraordinary and bizzare staircases and access routes to get around other dwellings before finally reaching the desired door. I think a studio used by one famous period artist (?Whistler) had an incredible length of stairs and passages to enter by.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;364463]

No Steve. Your problem is that you have chosen to simply refuse anything I say. And how could you get any knowledge by using that principle?

I know you and some of the others here only want to show everyone else that "Pierre is wrong". And therefore you have developed some strategies for doing just that. You do not want this case to be solved. And I can understand that. Writing in this forum, getting cred from the others, makes people think they are clever. But I donīt have any interest in trying to show others that I am clever (which I am not). So the strategies are of no interest for me. But the destroy any possibility of a serious discussion.

Pierre,


it is not considered normal to talk about oneself in the 3rd person. but that is your right i guess. it says more about you than anyone else ever could.

How can you say that I do not want this case to be solved, you know nothing about me or what my own take on the murders is?

As a matter of interest, when the infamous shawl was being discussed, i was hopeful DNA may have put us closer to the truth.

DJA has a suspect, if he is right good for him, the same with the "Gramptons" and even you.

However it will require hard evidence. the other two mentioned by me, do not post thread after thread on the same subject. just how many threads does it take to talk about 13 millers Court?

If you were to discuss one or the other murders, or why you believe the torso murders are by the same hand, i think people would take you more seriously.

You make me laugh, I am here for pleasure. In the real world I am involved in local politics these days.
With all due respect this is a hobby, along with Egyptology, computers and a few other things, its done to relax.
I don't require cred from anyone, on here. I know my own self worth.

Are you suggesting there is a planned conspiracy against you? I don’t know anyone on this site, apart from one whom I discuss Egyptology with, who has hardly made any comments on your posts.

I may tell you I think you are wrong.

A good researcher will challenge any new theory, (if only you would give us one).

I ask you to provide evidence and you often don't; twice I have asked you general questions about your evidence, which would not give anything away about your theory, and you have refused to answer both times.
Such is your right of course, but it does help us gain knowledge nor have any possibility of a serious discussion.


WE REALLY SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING THIS SORT OF THING ON THIS THREAD. Richard has put alot of work in, it is serious and this devalues it

[Pierre]

I dont know Why Perre. I am just reading whats on the legend key. Ive googled goad legend key and its the same description for his canadian maps too it seems to mean that some flors had wooden or partition walls.

OK Robert. But as you see on the drawing, the wall canīt cut right through the archway where there is a window.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Fraid not Pierre. Might be in one of the main JtR books (Encyclopedia of..., Mammoth book.., Sourcebook of...; that sort of place, but I think quoting a period text, not just a mention.)

Memorised this basic info for understanding the locality and buildings.

Well, thanks anyway. At least you are honest.

Regards Pierre