Thames Magistrate?

[magnoliasouth]

Long time lurker, but not so common poster here.

I was just rereading a few things, when something struck me as odd. Has anyone ever looked into the coincidence that most (if not all) of the victims went before the Thames Magistrate not long (between one month to a single year) before their murders?

Surely it's been discussed at some point? I just can't seem to find it. Probably because any mention of the Magistrate is followed by why the victims were there.

I imagine that a good few women like them answered to charges frequently, as they do today, but isn't it an odd coincidence?

[GUT]

G'Day Magnolia

But was it the same Magistrate?

[GUT]

Just as a by the way my research seems to indicate that there were six magistrates sitting at Thames in 1888. But I'm not 100% sure.

[magnoliasouth]

Well, I'm not exactly certain that it matters which Magistrate. Was there a primary location for files? Maybe a file clerk, or a barrister or something other than the actual Magistrate?

I'm sure a lot of those records still exist.

[GUT]

G'Day Magnoliasouth

A Barrister you say? watch out MJD they're onto you old son.

So are you suggesting just someone who saw them, rather than dealt with them, when you talk of file clerk.

[Bridewell]

Magistrates listed under the Thames Police Court for 1888:-

T.W. Saunders Esq. & F. Lushington Esq.

It may be that these were just the stipendiaries. I can't imagine that two magistrates would have been deemed anything like sufficient to deal with the workload.

Chief Clerk: J. R. Sayer Esq.

(Court was situated at Arbour Street East in Stepney).

I wonder if F. Lushington was any relation to Godfrey Lushington, the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office at the time of the Whitechapel Murders.

[GUT]

G'Day Bridewell

I found reference, I think on the Thames Police or Court site to 6 magistrates, but as you say there may have been a differentiation between Magistrate and SM.

[Ginger]

I imagine that a good few women like them answered to charges frequently, as they do today, but isn't it an odd coincidence?

As you say, I'd imagine that they were no strangers to the magistrate, but it is intriguing. One always has the sense with this case that there's some important pattern, some web of connections between the victims, hiding just out of sight. That's a lot of why it fascinates, I think.

[GUT]

G'Day Ginger

As you say, I'd imagine that they were no strangers to the magistrate, but it is intriguing. One always has the sense with this case that there's some important pattern, some web of connections between the victims, hiding just out of sight. That's a lot of why it fascinates, I think.

No doubt in my mind that there's something hiding, but I really doubt that it is just out of sight, more likely gone for good, given how much has been lost.

[lynn cates]

D & D

Hello MS. Welcome to the boards.

Is it correct that the majority of those appearances were D & D's?

Cheers.
LC

[MrBarnett]

Hi Magnoliasouth,

Why do you think it is odd? This court had jurisdiction over the area in which the victims lived and they lived lives that might occasionally bring them into conflict with the authorities.

MrB