Prater's stairs

[Wickerman]

I've assumed the stairs (non-blue ones) are original.




Thoughts?

Hello Richard.

If the grey stairs are original, then the blue stairs are a later addition?

So the question remains, what purpose does constructing a second set of stairs serve that was not already served by the original set?

Now a second question arises.
What purpose did that side door serve if there were no 'blue' stairs originally?

From the point of view of a landlord in a low-income area, expensive renovations are to be avoided.
It is far more cost effective to remove/rework a wooden partition, and install or move a door here or there, than to build two sets of stairs that lead to the same landing.

With respect to the problem of Prater seeing light through Kelly's partition as Prater ascends the stairs, maybe the stairs were of open construction, only treads with no risers, like this:



Prater could then see through as she goes up the stairs.

[richardh]

Ha! thanks for the feedback.

So.... at this point which plan (discounting my attempt) has the most merit?

Goad or Thomas or is there an alternative?

Oh! also:
The side door (Prater's); is that an original part of the house?

[richardh]

Yes, pretty much 2.5ft (maybe 3ft).

Richard, just returning to this previous rendition for a moment.

If this wall between the brown 'door' and the corner of Kelly's room was 2.5ft, then are you saying the stairs running up the side wall from that side passage door (Praters door) are only 2.5ft wide?
Those stairs appear to meet Kelly's wall in the space we are talking about, but on the other side of the wall.

[richardh]

Another question:
Was the 'partition' a sealed up door or more?

[richardh]

Geez! even more questions.

This is my line of thought....

Looking at the goad's plan (3D): The stairs (Prater's) are ORIGINAL. The 'opening' between #26 and #13 (otherwise known as the partition) is ORIGINAL. The stairs and the opening would therefore never hinder each other - by that I mean the opening could not be 'overlapping' the space given over to the stairs so that 'glimmers of light' could be seen between the solid stairs.

When Prater was ascending the stairs was she seeing glimmers between the stairs (just treads) or was she looking over the Bannister and across to where the partition would be visible as a blocked-up door?

Q: Is Prater's stairs original?
Q: Is Prater's (passageway) door original?
Q: Is the partition a door or more?
Q: are the stairs 'treads and risers' or just steps (treads only)?

[Wickerman]

Ha! thanks for the feedback.

So.... at this point which plan (discounting my attempt) has the most merit?

Goad or Thomas or is there an alternative?

A reasonable answer would be the interpretation that best suits what we have for evidence.
The purpose of the second stairs, and in consequence the second wall, remains to be addressed for one of the proposals.

Oh! also:
The side door (Prater's); is that an original part of the house?

Options are:
- It could have been original.
- It may have been an addition by a previous owner to McCarthy.
- McCarthy may have had it installed.

For it to appear on a fire insurance map means the change had to be submitted by an architect, and that means officially approved.
I'm inclined that rules out option 3, that McCarthy would incur such costs.

To install an opening in a load-bearing wall is a serious renovation. We know it was load-bearing due to the direction of the apex of the roof.

Another question:
Was the 'partition' a sealed up door or more?

We can only guess.
Although we see 'a door', it may have been a spare door used as a panel to enclose an opening that was wider than a single door.
Much rests on the words of Dr. Phillips, and his profession was medical not architectural, so we shouldn't put all our eggs in his basket for that particular observation.

[Wickerman]

Geez! even more questions.

This is my line of thought....

Looking at the goad's plan (3D): The stairs (Prater's) are ORIGINAL. The 'opening' between #26 and #13 (otherwise known as the partition) is ORIGINAL. The stairs and the opening would therefore never hinder each other - by that I mean the opening could not be 'overlapping' the space given over to the stairs so that 'glimmers of light' could be seen between the solid stairs.

Agreed, correct.

When Prater was ascending the stairs was she seeing glimmers between the stairs (just treads) or was she looking over the Bannister and across to where the partition would be visible as a blocked-up door?

That, we may never know.

Q: Is Prater's stairs original?
Q: Is Prater's (passageway) door original?
Q: Is the partition a door or more?
Q: are the stairs 'treads and risers' or just steps (treads only)?

The trial records of the Kate Marshall case in Jan. 1899 at the Old Bailey may still reside in the archives of the London Metropolitan Archives.
The floor plan of No.26 Dorset St. produced at this trial may have been too large to keep (it would have to be large enough for the jury to see across a room).
However, a smaller copy may have been preserved in the records, its a long shot but if anyone is in commuting distance of the L.M.A., it may be worth making an inquiry.

[richardh]

Okay Jon,
In this one I have positioned the partition to be pretty much central on the back wall of #13 (6 ft from the passageway wall). Looking at the MJK image of the bed and wainscoting behind, as you say we have no way of knowing where the corner of the room is in that photo so let's say this image (below) is where that partition is positioned. Now, from Prater's doorway (lower image) this is where the partition is positioned. This is assuming that the stairs are open plan and the hall (from the front door to the partition is like the Hanbury St configuration.

[Pierre]

Geez! even more questions.

This is my line of thought....

Looking at the goad's plan (3D): The stairs (Prater's) are ORIGINAL. The 'opening' between #26 and #13 (otherwise known as the partition) is ORIGINAL. The stairs and the opening would therefore never hinder each other - by that I mean the opening could not be 'overlapping' the space given over to the stairs so that 'glimmers of light' could be seen between the solid stairs.

When Prater was ascending the stairs was she seeing glimmers between the stairs (just treads) or was she looking over the Bannister and across to where the partition would be visible as a blocked-up door?

Q: Is Prater's stairs original?
Q: Is Prater's (passageway) door original?
Q: Is the partition a door or more?
Q: are the stairs 'treads and risers' or just steps (treads only)?

Richardh,

Could you please try this?

It uses what is already on the Goad´s map including the archway. This archway is the same width as the passage under it. So it seems very natural that they used it as a passage to reach the rooms in number 26 and 27.

There is a window at the end of the upper passage facing Miller´s Court.

There are no other walls or stairs in number 26. The partition around the stairs is separating Amory´s room from the stairs.

Standing on top of the landing, before turning left into the corridor, Prater should have been able to see a light from the top of the door in the doorway between 13 and 26.

Praters stairs are exactly at the entrance door in the passage shown in Goad´s Fire Insurance Plan.

The doorway between 13 and 26 is in the exact place according to the map.

The "store room" is the same as the storage space under the stairs. If there is a doorknob in Kelly´s room, this storage space could explain it.

I think it is the most scientific solution considering the sparse material.

Regards Pierre

[richardh]

Yes Pierre I will certainly construct a modle based on what you've described. I will have to do it tomorrow night (Tuesday) as I'm working all night tonight (Monday) and thus asleep 'tomorrow til tea'.

Although, for the record, I'm dubious as to your assertion about the passageway from 26 to 27.

Richardh,

Could you please try this?

It uses what is already on the Goad´s map including the archway. This archway is the same width as the passage under it. So it seems very natural that they used it as a passage to reach the rooms in number 26 and 27.

There is a window at the end of the upper passage facing Miller´s Court.

There are no other walls or stairs in number 26. The partition around the stairs is separating Amory´s room from the stairs.

Standing on top of the landing, before turning left into the corridor, Prater should have been able to see a light from the top of the door in the doorway between 13 and 26.

Praters stairs are exactly at the entrance door in the passage shown in Goad´s Fire Insurance Plan.

The doorway between 13 and 26 is in the exact place according to the map.

The "store room" is the same as the storage space under the stairs. If there is a doorknob in Kelly´s room, this storage space could explain it.

I think it is the most scientific solution considering the sparse material.

Regards Pierre

[Wickerman]

Yes, I think your assumptions are valid Richard.

The tentative position of this door may be of concern to some.

If the room, according to the Goad scale was approx. 15ft wide, and the 3ft? wide door is placed central in the wall. The photograph of the bed suggests the headboard was positioned by the architrave , so 18"? west of center. Then the bed (if a Small Double/three-quarter?) is 75" long, minus 18" from center of room, so ends 57" east of center.
(18+57=75)
Which leaves 33" from the foot of the bed to the east wall (fireplace) of the house.

How does that look?
And, does the placement of the bed now contradict anything else we know?

Ah,....we are told that when the police forced open the door, it hit a table that was positioned beside the bed?
Maybe the bed is too far away from that opening door for it to hit a table with a 36" arc of swing?


This is like playing chess...

[Pierre]

Yes Pierre I will certainly construct a modle based on what you've described. I will have to do it tomorrow night (Tuesday) as I'm working all night tonight (Monday) and thus asleep 'tomorrow til tea'.

Although, for the record, I'm dubious as to your assertion about the passageway from 26 to 27.

That is fantastic! I am very grateful.

It is a very interesting model for discussions here, and it will give us many new ideas. We will probably also see new problems or possibilities.

You are a true artist and also a very scientific one.

Thanks a lot Richardh!

Regards Pierre

[richardh]

While I'm doing this Jon, I assume the bed must have been moved to this position during the investigation because a bed in this position at any other time would not allow the door to open up and hit against the table. Right?

Yes, I think your assumptions are valid Richard.

The tentative position of this door may be of concern to some.

If the room, according to the Goad scale was approx. 15ft wide, and the 3ft? wide door is placed central in the wall. The photograph of the bed suggests the headboard was positioned by the architrave , so 18"? west of center. Then the bed (if a Small Double/three-quarter?) is 75" long, minus 18" from center of room, so ends 57" east of center.
(18+57=75)
Which leaves 33" from the foot of the bed to the east wall (fireplace) of the house.

How does that look?
And, does the placement of the bed now contradict anything else we know?

Ah,....we are told that when the police forced open the door, it hit a table that was positioned beside the bed?
Maybe the bed is too far away from that opening door for it to hit a table with a 36" arc of swing?


This is like playing chess...

[Pierre]

While I'm doing this Jon, I assume the bed must have been moved to this position during the investigation because a bed in this position at any other time would not allow the door to open up and hit against the table. Right?

That is a very intelligent observation.

Regards Pierre

[Wickerman]

While I'm doing this Jon, I assume the bed must have been moved to this position during the investigation because a bed in this position at any other time would not allow the door to open up and hit against the table. Right?

On that thought, which I agree incidentally, I located a press opinion to back it up.
"They made a preliminary examination of the body, and sent for a photographer, who took several photographs of the remains."

So they did enter the room, make a preliminary examination (requiring moving the bed?), and then sent for a photpgrapher. Either that, or after the preliminary exam, the photographer arrived and took photographs before the post-mortem that afternoon, which took about 2 hours.

So yes, the photo may not capture the original position of the bed, as found when the door was opened.