Prater's stairs

[Pierre]

just in case the poster known as Pierre has not understood

I will no longer debate with him, it is pointless. he does not understand the purpose of this site, if he did he would not ask such questions.

Elamarna

Hi Steve,

I do apologize if I put forward to advanced questions. But a lot of people will ask those questions in the future, if Richardh presents his model to them.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Without MJK1 and MJK2 we would never have a visual representation with which to work with to accompany our 'mind's eye' when discussing the investigation. Crime scene photo are crucial to our understanding and unfortunately we have very little of that material available.

But we can attempt to recreate things to give interested people a guide to the environment that was never photographed but exists in the form of notes, testimony and statements.

How accurate it is is debatable (as we know from this Looooong thread!) but I think a model that we can all settle on as being 'close' is better than no model at all.

It's like the facial reconstructions we see of skulls of say King Richard III or the plaster and bone models of the dinosaurs - they are a tangible link to the past and they work together with our mind's eye to fill the gaps missing in the photos and written media.

Here's a 'for instance'

In my model we can visually see room #20. We can stand in it and close the door. We can now consider all that stuff between #20 and the rest of the house and appreciate how far (or near) #13 is. Would it be easy for Prater to hear an 'oh murder' uttered from #13 from this room?

This medium is our Google Street View. It is another tool in the investigators box and when used correctly is invaluable.

I'd like to create a model that, if not wholly accurate, is a damn near fit and satisfies a majority.

OK. I just thought you perhaps wanted to make a world famous accurate model.

Regards, Pierre

[richardh]

I'm still waiting on your drawings/plans Pierre, so I can get to work on your ideas.

Send it to me via PM or even here and I can get going on it.

Would be good to have all versions for comparison and discussion.

Also want to know from Stephen (Thomas) if my model of his drawings/plan is how he wants the final version to look.

OK. I just thought you perhaps wanted to make a world famous accurate model.

Regards, Pierre

[richardh]

I've update the Sketchfab Goad Plan with the latest version of the model:

Please take a look and tell me what you think.

HERE

https://sketchfab.com/models/b53af01f7aa44b61be93a538ec135620

[Pierre]

I'm still waiting on your drawings/plans Pierre, so I can get to work on your ideas.

Send it to me via PM or even here and I can get going on it.

Would be good to have all versions for comparison and discussion.

Also want to know from Stephen (Thomas) if my model of his drawings/plan is how he wants the final version to look.

Hi Richardh,

Thanks a lot, I will do this as soon as I have the time. I am very grateful.

Kind Regards, Pierre

[Wickerman]

Another day, another try

This image below has all the right measurements now.

Hi Richard.

It's amazing how you've managed to turn witness statements into something tangible, given that the purpose those details were provided was not for someone to recreate the house as you have done.

The end result is really impressive, but one detail that concerns me the most is what you make reference to here:
"On the 1st floor (#20/#19) I put a partition in the middle of the landing and gave it a door frame shape for easier identification but this could easily have been just a 3ft high balustrade or waist high wooden partition."

I have to wonder, if we are correct in placing a partition at that spot, in reality what purpose did it serve?
I know we put it there to justify a sentence, there may be another answer if we think about it a bit longer.

[jerryd]

Wickerman,

if you are right that the photos were taken 4pm ish then we can almost certainly count out the light source as being natural light. By 9th November, the light would be fading fast in London.

I prefer the time line:

initial viewing,
door opened.
maybe quick check of scene, but not essential.
photos taken, maybe 2.30 to 3.
post mortem conducted.

Truth is could be either or something else.

Sorry to go back so far in thread, but I found the following reference to the time the photographs may have been taken. According to this news clip, they were taken before the post-mortem examination and Elamarna's timeline would be correct.

Echo London Middlesex November 9, 1888

[richardh]

Thank you Jon.
Regarding that partition on the landing; Yes that partition does seem extraneous - put there for the purpose of satisfying testimony.

Having thought about it, searched images on the internet and perused the model, I think that the only logical thing that would go there would be a boxed in cupboard. There is a 4ft x 2ft floor space which could be partitioned off to create a cupboard.
If the stairs going from ground level to 1st floor were also boxed in then the impression could be described as a partition between the two rooms.

I've updated the model to reflect that HERE:

https://sketchfab.com/models/b53af01f7aa44b61be93a538ec135620

and here's an image of what I mean:

Hi Richard.

It's amazing how you've managed to turn witness statements into something tangible, given that the purpose those details were provided was not for someone to recreate the house as you have done.

The end result is really impressive, but one detail that concerns me the most is what you make reference to here:
"On the 1st floor (#20/#19) I put a partition in the middle of the landing and gave it a door frame shape for easier identification but this could easily have been just a 3ft high balustrade or waist high wooden partition."

I have to wonder, if we are correct in placing a partition at that spot, in reality what purpose did it serve?
I know we put it there to justify a sentence, there may be another answer if we think about it a bit longer.

[Stephen Thomas]

Also want to know from Stephen (Thomas) if my model of his drawings/plan is how he wants the final version to look.

Hi Richard

Well it's not all that but isn't too bad. There are too many doors . Anybody walking through that near door in room #19 would smash their skull or break their neck if they stepped out of it. Also it's doubtful that there would be two doorways to room #20. Your computer reconstruction of the ground floor of 29 Hanbury is quite magnificent and I can tell you that the ground floor of 26 Dorset would have been identical. You're a pleasant young man and obviously very talented but please apply reason and common sense and known facts to any problems you encounter. Your 'Goads' plan seems to have loads of 'groupies' so don't mind me.

[richardh]

Hi Stephen
Thanks for the feedback.

Not sure what you mean by the near door in #19. Are you talking of the door near the yellow square (above Prater's door)? if so that was put there as an after thought to utilise the space (that yellow square). It will be removed. Not sure what you mean by 'smashing skulls or broken neck', do you mean they would fall down to the 1st floor?

The two doors in #20 were placed there because I'm sure you have two doors in your drawing. Same with the store room. I'm not able to see the drawing at the moment - perhaps I mis-interpreted it. I'll check and make changes.

As for the 'young man bit'.. I love you for that

Regarding Goad's and groupies: These are two versions of a plan that can be interpreted in many ways. Unless we have concrete proof* that one or the other is correct then surely it's best to keep an open mind and examine all possibilities (even Pierre's)?


*If you have concrete proof please share it because it means I'm wasting my time with the Goad's plan

Hi Richard

Well it's not all that but isn't too bad. There are too many doors . Anybody walking through that near door in room #19 would smash their skull or break their neck if they stepped out of it. Also it's doubtful that there would be two doorways to room #20. Your computer reconstruction of the ground floor of 29 Hanbury is quite magnificent and I can tell you that the ground floor of 26 Dorset would have been identical. You're a pleasant young man and obviously very talented but please apply reason and common sense and known facts to any problems you encounter. Your 'Goads' plan seems to have loads of 'groupies' so don't mind me.

[richardh]

Well it's not all that but isn't too bad. There are too many doors . Anybody walking through that near door in room #19 would smash their skull or break their neck if they stepped out of it. Also it's doubtful that there would be two doorways to room #20.

Stephen,
Just had a look and can confirm that the doors I have placed in the model are taken, and accurately depicted, from your original drawing (apart from the extra door I put into #19 (above Prater's door) to depict a cupboard).

I'll remove by extra door from #19 and the door connecting the storeroom to #20.

Please let me know if there should be any other changes as I really would like to get this the way you'd like it to be.

thanks for your help.
R

[Wickerman]

The same point applies to that rough sketch.

The back wall of the house is supporting the ceiling/floor joists for rooms 13 & 19, which reach out to the window wall.

So, how many of those joists are being cut off, short of the supporting wall in order to install this second superfluous staircase, and what is now supporting these joists?

[richardh]

Jon,
Could the 2nd staircase have been just wooden steps that were simply fixed to the floorboards (i'm assuming the floor in #26 was boards)
like these?


this would do-way with cutting up floor joists.

If they used this sort of thing then they only needed to smack a whole in the passageway wall to create a doorway.

Almost considered a temporary measure 'codge job'?

The same point applies to that rough sketch.

The back wall of the house is supporting the ceiling/floor joists for rooms 13 & 19, which reach out to the window wall.

So, how many of those joists are being cut off, short of the supporting wall in order to install this second superfluous staircase, and what is now supporting these joists?

[richardh]

Stephen,
I've now updated the 'Thomas' model:
Removed the doorway from #20 into store.
Removed the doorway in #19 that was not part of the original drawing.
Removed the doorway from the 2nd stairway into the store
Store now only has one door leading from the 1st floor landing.
Replaced the solid stairs (Prater's Stairs) with steps to reflect an installation of 'cabin steps'.
I didn't box the cabin steps in because I wanted the supports and struts to be visible. But the model shows where the boxed up the step-supports might have formed a 'back wall' between the cabin steps and the shed.

LINK

Let me know what you think.

thanks
R

[richardh]

Regarding the Goad's Model & the Thomas Model.

These are my own thoughts as I look at the models as they currently stand. Please correct me if any of these statements are incorrect.

Good and bad points - Goad's Model:
Good points:
Fits the Goad Plan pretty much spot on.
Agrees with the testimonies/statements of the Kate Marshall case
No need for a 2nd set of stairs.
Prater would be able to reach her room (#20) via the door in the passageway.
Bad points:
The staircase is facing the wrong way when entering the front door of #26
There's no logical path from the front door to the back wall of the shed - From the front door you'd have to walk up a passage to a dead end, turn right then left then right again to get up the stairs.
The 1st floor partition is represented by a boxed-in cupboard (not mentioned in the testimony).
Prater's door midway up the passage way and seems extraneous given the front door would serve the same purpose in allowing access to the stairs.


Good and bad points - Thomas model:
Good points:
Main stairs are in the correct place (facing the front door).
Prater's door and the 2nd steps are in a position and location that supports her assertion of seeing light as she ascends the stairs.
Shed can be conveniently partitioned from the rest of the house but the front door can still be used to access the upper floors.
Bad points:
Lots of work & expence adding a new doorway, stairs and partition.
The 1st floor layout doesn't agree with the testimony of the Kate Marshall case.
Prater lived in the front room (#20) but there is no direct access to #20 from 'Prater's door or steps'
The partition would intrude the floor space of #13 & #19 by 3ft reducing the size of the rooms.