Prater's 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?

[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.

[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]

Hi David.

Just a question, I'm trying to understand the chronology of these three inquiry's.
- we have the trial at the Old Bailey - Central Criminal Court.
- we have the Police Court.
- we have the Coroner's Court.

So, I'm assuming the Coroner's Court came first, in order to inquire into the death of Eliza Roberts.
No testimony from the accused.

Then we have the Police Court where Charles Amory gives his residence at 26 Dorset St., room 20.
This account is where we read that there is "6 - 7ft" between rooms 19 and 20, but who provided this statement?
I notice it is written below two 'x's ("xx"), which I assume was Amory's mark in place of his signature?
So who spoke next to provide this 6 - 7ft estimation?
Was it P.C. Hawkyard, who also provided the plans?

Finally, we have the Old Bailey testimony, where Charles Amory indicates he no longer lives at 26 Dorset St.
(Amory makes a passing reference to being examined at a Police Court)
This is where Amory provides the 9ft estimation.

[Dorian Gray]

Partition

Richard,

First, let me thank you for your fine work. Your images of Kelly's room in post #608, especially image 1, provided a clarity to the room's layout I'd not experienced before. Also, your overall "Goad's Plan" map strikes me as the logical and best fit with* the extant material and your reasoned eye.

Given that Roberts states, "there is a space of between 6 & 7 feet the two rooms" (Post #685 of this thread) and the tenants of Room #20 can see the door of Room #19 (Post #285 of this thread), the face or wall of the storage shed is the partition wall mentioned. No doubt the room/space behind the wall, the wall's structure, and its connection to Amery's sidewall was sufficient for Roberts's kick to be heard.

Regards,

Dorian

[David Orsam]

Hi David.

Just a question, I'm trying to understand the chronology of these three inquiry's.
- we have the trial at the Old Bailey - Central Criminal Court.
- we have the Police Court.
- we have the Coroner's Court.

So, I'm assuming the Coroner's Court came first, in order to inquire into the death of Eliza Roberts.
No testimony from the accused.

Yes, sort of. The inquest was held by Wynne Baxter on 29 November 1898. PC Fry had been examined the previous day, 28 November, at Worship Street Police Court (so that Marshall could be remanded in custody), but the main hearing, before Mr Haden Corser, was on 6 December. Kate Marshall gave evidence on neither occasion but she was examined on oath at Worship Street Police Court on 13 December. The trial was on 11/12 January 1899.

Then we have the Police Court where Charles Amory gives his residence at 26 Dorset St., room 20.
This account is where we read that there is "6 - 7ft" between rooms 19 and 20, but who provided this statement?
I notice it is written below two 'x's ("xx"), which I assume was Amory's mark in place of his signature?
So who spoke next to provide this 6 - 7ft estimation?

The "xx" indicates cross-examination. So it was Amery who provided the estimate.

Amery, incidentally, could write and he spelt his surname "Amery" when signing his deposition.

[David Orsam]

Some of the posts in this thread leave me scratching my head.

How can the partition and the store room be the same thing in the light of Amery's evidence:

"There is a partition and a little store-room between us".

AND

"There is a wooden partition between, also a little store room".

And then there is the evidence of Roberts at the trial:

"I kicked against this partition, which separates the witness Amory's room from the staircase; the partition ends at a small room called the storeroom".

Surely the partition and the store room are separate things entirely, no???

[richardh]

David,
At this minute I am moving the stairs and stuff around the ground & 1st floor landing. I now have a configuration that actually increases the landing space which would actually provide TWO small rooms. We've already got the store room in place but I have an extra bit of space which was upsetting me because I couldn't work out why! Maybe there was a store AND an extra bit?

I'll post a picture in a bit.


standby

Some of the posts in this thread leave me scratching my head.

How can the partition and the store room be the same thing in the light of Amery's evidence:

"There is a partition and a little store-room between us".

AND

"There is a wooden partition between, also a little store room".

And then there is the evidence of Roberts at the trial:

"I kicked against this partition, which separates the witness Amory's room from the staircase; the partition ends at a small room called the storeroom".

Surely the partition and the store room are separate things entirely, no???

[Stephen Thomas]

Thoughtful people reading David's transcriptions here (and thanks again David) will have noticed that the corridor/passage between the two rooms and the landing where Eliza Roberts died are two separate things yet are now supposed to be the same. The passage described could only have been inside what would have been the original back parlour leading to the landing in front of #20.

This so called Goad's Map depiction of the staircase going up through the centre of the house doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps somebody cleverer can produce some 2D floorplans of the four storeys including this dopey stairwell.

[richardh]

Indeed... I need pictorial help!

Thoughtful people reading David's transcriptions here (and thanks again David) will have noticed that the corridor/passage between the two rooms and the landing where Eliza Roberts died are two separate things yet are now supposed to be the same. The passage described could only have been inside what would have been the original back parlour leading to the landing in front of #20.

This so called Goad's Map depiction of the staircase going up through the centre of the house doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps somebody cleverer can produce some 2D floorplans of the four storeys including this dopey stairwell.

[richardh]

In my Goad Plan/Model, does that store room HAVE to go there? Also, could #20 be irregular shaped rather than being parallel with #19's facing wall?

This is proving to be a monumental task!

EDIT:
"I kicked against this partition, which separates the witness Amory's room from the staircase; the partition ends at a small room called the storeroom".
Could the staircase in this statment actually mean the staircase going UP to the next floor? If so, it opens up quite a few options for me!

[Wickerman]

In my Goad Plan/Model, does that store room HAVE to go there? Also, could #20 be irregular shaped rather than being parallel with #19's facing wall?

This is proving to be a monumental task!

EDIT:
"I kicked against this partition, which separates the witness Amory's room from the staircase; the partition ends at a small room called the storeroom".
Could the staircase in this statment actually mean the staircase going UP to the next floor? If so, it opens up quite a few options for me!

Yes of course Richard, there is no direction implied by the use of "staircase".

[richardh]

"I room at 26 Dorset St. number 19 – the first floor back room. To get to that room you have to go up Miller’s Court. …" This suggests to me that the occupier uses a separate staircase to those occupying #20

"My room adjoins that occupied by the last witness. There is a wooden partition between, also a little store room, but it is on the same floor as Roberts. I can hear what goes on in the room….My window looks into Dorset St & that of Roberts into Miller’s Court. " This statement implies that although the two rooms are on the same floor the partition & storeroom come directly between them.
Could it be that The Thomas Plan configuration might be the way to go? TWO staircases?

I can't work out WHY there should be two staircases but the fact that there is a door in the passageway would suggest this door led directly to a staircase. Obviously #26 had a front door, front room, back room and staircase - you wouldn't have to go out the front door and down the passage to get upstairs. So why put a door in the passageway if the upper floors are all accessible via #26?
Having said all that, why couldn't the occupants of #19 use the same door (front door) and staircase as used by the occupants of #20 to get to their rooms?

The door in the passageway and the 2nd stairs are a huge amount of work and expense just to allow access to a single room (#19).

Still more confused than ever!

[David Orsam]

"I room at 26 Dorset St. number 19 – the first floor back room. To get to that room you have to go up Miller’s Court. …" This suggests to me that the occupier uses a separate staircase to those occupying #20

Not to me it doesn't. He seems to be just making the point that it is not the front door to 26 Dorset Street that gets one to his room.

[Wickerman]

"I room at 26 Dorset St. number 19 – the first floor back room. To get to that room you have to go up Miller’s Court. …" This suggests to me that the occupier uses a separate staircase to those occupying #20

No Richard, he is only describing how to get to room 19, not that room 20 has a different access.
We know from the testimony that the doors to rooms 19 & 20 face each other across an open space, a landing or passage.

You also have, in the Goads version, a partition that runs from the room 20's partition, to the wall of room 19. This is the face (partition) of your storage room.
And the testimony does say that there is a partition between the two rooms.

I can't work out WHY there should be two staircases but the fact that there is a door in the passageway would suggest this door led directly to a staircase.

Right, and there is no need to trouble yourself about this hypothetical second staircase, there's no justification for it.

Obviously #26 had a front door, front room, back room and staircase - you wouldn't have to go out the front door and down the passage to get upstairs. So why put a door in the passageway if the upper floors are all accessible via #26?

The same argument applies to Kelly's door. That room was accessible from within No. 26 at one time, so why not leave it that way?

The fact remains two side access doors were created for separate entrances, one for Kelly, and one to the rest of the upper floors of the house.

That front door to No. 26, which is part of the 'shed' may not have functioned anymore, so no access to the original staircase of No. 26 directly from Dorset St.