Prater's stairs

[Joshua Rogan]

Fair point Jon. Reading it again, the article does mention the location of the room separately, as well as it being her room, so probably the numbering was a bit squiffy. Then again, it also says 'she had heard nothing during the night', so no mention of Diddles or screams of murder...

[Wickerman]

The police did caution witnesses not to give details to the press. Given that the Daily Telegraph interview was dated the 10th, I would assume Prater kept the important details to herself until the inquest.

[Joshua Rogan]

That makes sense, and also explains why they didn't appear to know about Blotchy either.

[Ozzy]

I vaguely recall asking you about your 3D work before richard.
I couldn't use it at the time as I only had Linux on my PC.
I do have a Windows 8.1 box working now as well but from what I can understand you have lost your 3D work?
Is Unity still not working on Linux?

"WASD to move" - I see somebody is/was a PC gamer! I got to the stairs and instinctively started to hit the space bar to jump up!
Years ago, around 2002, I thought about making a map in the Quake 3 engine of Mitre Square. But I never got far.

This loaded quickly for me probably as I do have the needed Unity player, for Firefox, already. But it's probably worth pointing out for others that to view it the Unity player is needed. At least that's my understanding of how it works.

[Joshua Rogan]

I've just found this account of a murder that took place (as far as I can make out) in the room above 13 Miller's Court, and contains a description of a struggle that took place on the first floor landing between it and the first floor front room of no. 26! There's a lot to read, and much of it is confusing (to me at least) but hopefully it will allow you to form a 3D model that is accurate;

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18990109-124&div=t18990109-124

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam.
It's more than opinion though isn't it, we have there in black and white, "first floor front room"...."over the shed".

Quite so, Jon. Actually, when I said "opinion" I was tempted to use the word "fact", but thought better of it. I know that the exact relationship of Prater's room to Kelly's has long been an article of faith in ripperology

[Wickerman]

I've just found this account of a murder that took place (as far as I can make out) in the room above 13 Miller's Court, and contains a description of a struggle that took place on the first floor landing between it and the first floor front room of no. 26! There's a lot to read, and much of it is confusing (to me at least) but hopefully it will allow you to form a 3D model that is accurate;

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brows...=t18990109-124

Thankyou Joshua.
I had forgotten about that. This case was mentioned when we were debating the layout of No.26 over on Howards forum.

So here we find that the room above Kelly's was not 14, but 19 (unless it is a typo?), and that there was a landing/passage of some 9 ft wide between the front room (No.20), and the back room (No.19), on this first floor.

The separation was by partitions not internal walls. That the doors of rm 19 & 20 faced each other (directly or indirectly, is not clear) across the landing/passage.

It is also not clear whether the landing is separate from the passage, or two names for the same space.

It is also stated that there is another spare room between the front (No.20) & the back room (No.19). Though this must be a very small space and does not impede anyone going from 19 directly across to 20. So perhaps this room was at one end of the landing, 9ft wide by a few feet deep?

[richardh]

But what about the position of the stairs? From the [Prater's] passage door would the stairs be running parallel to No. 13's partition, or perhaps one had to turn immediate right to climb the stairs to the 1st floor?

Thankyou Joshua.
I had forgotten about that. This case was mentioned when we were debating the layout of No.26 over on Howards forum.

So here we find that the room above Kelly's was not 14, but 19 (unless it is a typo?), and that there was a landing/passage of some 9 ft wide between the front room (No.20), and the back room (No.19), on this first floor.

The separation was by partitions not internal walls. That the doors of rm 19 & 20 faced each other (directly or indirectly, is not clear) across the landing/passage.

It is also not clear whether the landing is separate from the passage, or two names for the same space.

It is also stated that there is another spare room between the front (No.20) & the back room (No.19). Though this must be a very small space and does not impede anyone going from 19 directly across to 20. So perhaps this room was at one end of the landing, 9ft wide by a few feet deep?

[GUT]

Thankyou Joshua.
I had forgotten about that. This case was mentioned when we were debating the layout of No.26 over on Howards forum.

So here we find that the room above Kelly's was not 14, but 19 (unless it is a typo?), and that there was a landing/passage of some 9 ft wide between the front room (No.20), and the back room (No.19), on this first floor.

The separation was by partitions not internal walls. That the doors of rm 19 & 20 faced each other (directly or indirectly, is not clear) across the landing/passage.

It is also not clear whether the landing is separate from the passage, or two names for the same space.

It is also stated that there is another spare room between the front (No.20) & the back room (No.19). Though this must be a very small space and does not impede anyone going from 19 directly across to 20. So perhaps this room was at one end of the landing, 9ft wide by a few feet deep?

I see it as more a storage room than a room, but I guess 9' wide by a few feet is about the size of the bedroom by brother Abd I shared for about 16 years.

[GUT]

Thankyou Joshua.
I had forgotten about that. This case was mentioned when we were debating the layout of No.26 over on Howards forum.

So here we find that the room above Kelly's was not 14, but 19 (unless it is a typo?), and that there was a landing/passage of some 9 ft wide between the front room (No.20), and the back room (No.19), on this first floor.

The separation was by partitions not internal walls. That the doors of rm 19 & 20 faced each other (directly or indirectly, is not clear) across the landing/passage.

It is also not clear whether the landing is separate from the passage, or two names for the same space.

It is also stated that there is another spare room between the front (No.20) & the back room (No.19). Though this must be a very small space and does not impede anyone going from 19 directly across to 20. So perhaps this room was at one end of the landing, 9ft wide by a few feet deep?

Also forgot to say, the room numbers may well have changed over time.

[Wickerman]

But what about the position of the stairs? From the [Prater's] passage door would the stairs be running parallel to No. 13's partition, or perhaps one had to turn immediate right to climb the stairs to the 1st floor?

The stairs cannot go across the width of No.26, they must run up one side, much like they did at 29 Hanbury St.


The stairs run up the left side wall, and turn 90deg to the right.
Stairs are typically 45-48" wide in older houses.

If the first floor landing was 9 ft wide, I suspect this was because the stairs that arrived at the first floor landing level immediately turned around a banister to go up to the second floor, thereby requiring any first floor landing to be (2x48" = 96"), 9ft wide.

The difficulty will be to interpret how those witnesses (in the link by Joshua) described the features of this first floor landing.

What is the exact relationship between Partition, Passage & Landing?
The answer to that will require some study.

[GUT]

The stairs cannot go across the width of No.26, they must run up one side, much like they did at 29 Hanbury St.


The stairs run up the left side wall, and turn 90deg to the right.
Stairs are typically 45-48" wide in older houses.

If the first floor landing was 9 ft wide, I suspect this was because the stairs that arrived at the first floor landing level immediately turned around a banister to go up to the second floor, thereby requiring any first floor landing to be (2x48" = 96"), 9ft wide.

The difficulty will be to interpret how those witnesses (in the link by Joshua) described the features of this first floor landing.

What is the exact relationship between Partition, Passage & Landing?
The answer to that will require some study.

That's my guess, and I still suspect hat the right turn is the reason Mary's bed head wasn't pushed right against the wall. That turn lowered the height of her ceiling.

[richardh]

GUT, If the stairs lowered the height of Mary's ceiling then does that mean the room directly above No.13 was not the same dimensions as No.13? I have always thought that the room above No.13 was pretty much the same dimensions and layout with the fire (chimney) in the same position. Only difference would be the absence of the small window. If the stairs encroached Mary's ceiling then they would also encroach the room above?

As you can see I'm having great difficulty visualising all this!

That's my guess, and I still suspect hat the right turn is the reason Mary's bed head wasn't pushed right against the wall. That turn lowered the height of her ceiling.

[Wickerman]

That's my guess, and I still suspect hat the right turn is the reason Mary's bed head wasn't pushed right against the wall. That turn lowered the height of her ceiling.

Hi GUT.
I suspect the turn of the stairs was outside the back room, in this case we can see wainscoting just at the top of the stairs (bearing in mind this is 29 Hanbury St.), so the room on the other side of that wainscoting would be Kelly's room, if this were 26 Dorset St.

So I guess we differ on that point

[GUT]

GUT, If the stairs lowered the height of Mary's ceiling then does that mean the room directly above No.13 was not the same dimensions as No.13? I have always thought that the room above No.13 was pretty much the same dimensions and layout with the fire (chimney) in the same position. Only difference would be the absence of the small window. If the stairs encroached Mary's ceiling then they would also encroach the room above?

As you can see I'm having great difficulty visualising all this!

Yes it would, but my problem is that the 9 foot passageway must encroach into one of the rooms.