What are the chances of….?

[etenguy]

If the police would not have asked the suspect to say anything - for the reason given - and the suspect did not say anything, then how could the witness possibly have discerned at the time of the identification that the suspect - who of necessity could not be of Jewish appearance - was in fact Jewish?

The first if is if the suspect said nothing - maybe he did, maybe not. If not there are any number of ways that the suspect might have been identified as Jewish, perhaps from something he wore, a Jewish symbol, or maybe the police mentioned the suspect was Jewish - or perhaps the witness recognised a Jewish appearance.[/QUOTE]

And they both insisted that the witness did identify the suspect.

The witness refused to make an official identification, which left the police without an identification they could use.

[GBinOz]

There is, of course, the possibility that Eddowes went to Mitre Square to meet JtR to blackmail him. It is reported she knew the identity of JtR - though if she ever did profess to know this it was more likely a blag. (Not a serious suggestion - just adding for completeness)

Hi etenguy,

You may find this interesting:

Deemings handwriting was compared to samples accredited to the Ripper, as foreign and domestic papers alleged his acquaintance with Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes. Eddowes it was reported had written to Deeming during his travels, although like many other claims this too remains unproven. On 8 April 1892 a report was published in the Melbourne Evening Standard claiming he had been identified by a London dressmaker as being in the East End the night Eddowes was murdered, seeing a photograph of Deeming she recognized him as a Mr Lawson. Whom she had kept company with on 30 September 1888, meeting him again the following day she claimed he displayed an intimate knowledge of Eddowes mutilations.

In Australia the belief Deeming was the Ripper was reinforced by accounts of his conversations with doctors at Melbourne Gaol, who were sent by the Court to determine his sanity. He told Dr Andrew Shields he had on occasions gone searching for a woman (prostitute) who had given him syphilis intending to kill her, and believed in the extermination of all such woman. Lamenting his contraction of a venereal disease he said with a peculiar intensity, "I've had my own back, anyhow, as more than one of them found out."

Deeming had a ginger moustache and used the name Lawson as an alias.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The first if is if the suspect said nothing - maybe he did, maybe not. If not there are any number of ways that the suspect might have been identified as Jewish, perhaps from something he wore, a Jewish symbol, or maybe the police mentioned the suspect was Jewish - or perhaps the witness recognised a Jewish appearance.

The witness refused to make an official identification, which left the police without an identification they could use.




Neither Anderson nor Swanson mentioned that the suspect identified himself as Jewish at the identification.

Anderson claimed that the witness 'learned' that he was Jewish, which suggests that he was somehow informed that the suspect was Jewish by a third party, not by the suspect himself.

Why would the suspect have worn a Jewish symbol at the identification, but not when he was first seen by the witness?

Why would a fair-haired man with the appearance of a sailor have been wearing a Jewish symbol and why would a Jewish witness not have noticed it?

[as for the possibility that the witness would not have been Lawende, it is hardly possible that the man seeks by Schwartz who shouted a well-known anti-Jewish insult as a man of recognisably-Jewish appearance went by was himself Jewish.

What are the chances of a witness who was never mentioned by the press, is absent from police records, and who did not appear as a witness at any inquest, somehow appearing belatedly and becoming the police's star witness?]

As for the witness recognising the suspect's Jewish appearance, why would he have failed to recognise his Jewish appearance previously?
And why would he have identified him as the suspect he had seen previously if he were unwilling to identify a fellow Jew of Jewish appearance?

Would it not have been improper for the police to have discussed the suspect's background with the witness?

Why would the police inform the witness that the suspect was Jewish when Anderson took the view that Jews would not testify against fellow Jews?

That is the very possibility he would have wished to avoid.

[etenguy]

Hi etenguy,

You may find this interesting:

Deemings handwriting was compared to samples accredited to the Ripper, as foreign and domestic papers alleged his acquaintance with Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes. Eddowes it was reported had written to Deeming during his travels, although like many other claims this too remains unproven. On 8 April 1892 a report was published in the Melbourne Evening Standard claiming he had been identified by a London dressmaker as being in the East End the night Eddowes was murdered, seeing a photograph of Deeming she recognized him as a Mr Lawson. Whom she had kept company with on 30 September 1888, meeting him again the following day she claimed he displayed an intimate knowledge of Eddowes mutilations.

In Australia the belief Deeming was the Ripper was reinforced by accounts of his conversations with doctors at Melbourne Gaol, who were sent by the Court to determine his sanity. He told Dr Andrew Shields he had on occasions gone searching for a woman (prostitute) who had given him syphilis intending to kill her, and believed in the extermination of all such woman. Lamenting his contraction of a venereal disease he said with a peculiar intensity, "I've had my own back, anyhow, as more than one of them found out."

Deeming had a ginger moustache and used the name Lawson as an alias.

Cheers, George

Hi GBinOZ

Thanks, some interesting paragraphs. Deeming makes a good candidate for JtR, except he was in another country at the time of the murders. I saw an interesting documentary about him some time ago - with images of his death mask - quite disconcerting. I had not been aware that he knew Catherine Eddowes, though I see that is newspaper speculation and not corroborated. It is not entirely convincing about the dressmaker either - no name, a bit of newspaper license perhaps.

The conversation with Andrew Shields sounds more likely but not necessarily a prostitute in Whitechapel.

[etenguy]

Neither Anderson nor Swanson mentioned that the suspect identified himself as Jewish at the identification.

Indeed - nor did they say who the witness was, nor did they say who the suspect was, nor did they say where the identification took place except in vague terms - there was a lot they did not mention.

Anderson claimed that the witness 'learned' that he was Jewish, which suggests that he was somehow informed that the suspect was Jewish by a third party, not by the suspect himself.

Anderson being as vague about this as anything else connected to the purported identification - it could mean anything.

Why would the suspect have worn a Jewish symbol at the identification, but not when he was first seen by the witness? Why would a fair-haired man with the appearance of a sailor have been wearing a Jewish symbol and why would a Jewish witness not have noticed it?

[as for the possibility that the witness would not have been Lawende, it is hardly possible that the man seeks by Schwartz who shouted a well-known anti-Jewish insult as a man of recognisably-Jewish appearance went by was himself Jewish.
As for the witness recognising the suspect's Jewish appearance, why would he have failed to recognise his Jewish appearance previously?
And why would he have identified him as the suspect he had seen previously if he were unwilling to identify a fellow Jew of Jewish appearance?

Who knows - could be hundreds of reasons - but who is to say he did not wear it when first seen by the witness. It was at night and the witness may not have seen it then. In any case, this was just a possible speculation - not a theory or possibly even likely.

What are the chances of a witness who was never mentioned by the press, is absent from police records, and who did not appear as a witness at any inquest, somehow appearing belatedly and becoming the police's star witness?]

No-one suggested this possibility.

Why would the police inform the witness that the suspect was Jewish when Anderson took the view that Jews would not testify against fellow Jews?
That is the very possibility he would have wished to avoid.

Anderson took the view in retrospect, but in any case, he may have mentioned it in passing - he may not. But given the speculation at the time that JtR might be Jewish, it might have been considered a pertinent fact. But I only mentioned it as an example of a possibility - one amongst many - not suggesting it as a theory.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below:

Who knows - could be hundreds of reasons - but who is to say he did not wear it when first seen by the witness. It was at night and the witness may not have seen it then. In any case, this was just a possible speculation - not a theory or possibly even likely.


Why would a fair-haired man with the appearance of a sailor have been wearing a Jewish symbol?



No-one suggested this possibility.


That possibility is implied by anyone who says that the witness could have been someone other than Lawende or Schwartz.



Anderson took the view in retrospect, but in any case, he may have mentioned it in passing - he may not. But given the speculation at the time that JtR might be Jewish, it might have been considered a pertinent fact.


I think you are mistaken.

Anderson made it clear that his view that Jews would not testify against one another was held by him in 1888:

And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

[Lewis C]

Hi GBinOZ

Thanks, some interesting paragraphs. Deeming makes a good candidate for JtR, except he was in another country at the time of the murders. I saw an interesting documentary about him some time ago - with images of his death mask - quite disconcerting. I had not been aware that he knew Catherine Eddowes, though I see that is newspaper speculation and not corroborated. It is not entirely convincing about the dressmaker either - no name, a bit of newspaper license perhaps.

The conversation with Andrew Shields sounds more likely but not necessarily a prostitute in Whitechapel.

Hi etenguy,

There has been research (I think from about 10 years ago) that claims to have proven that Deeming was in England and not in prison at the time of the murders. I think that I remember Paul Begg saying in a book review in Ripperologist that this new research succeeded in proving that Deeming was in England and free.

[GBinOz]

Hi etenguy,

There has been research (I think from about 10 years ago) that claims to have proven that Deeming was in England and not in prison at the time of the murders. I think that I remember Paul Begg saying in a book review in Ripperologist that this new research succeeded in proving that Deeming was in England and free.

Hi Lewis C,

There has been more recent research that points to Deeming:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxYiUUDZqk&t=10s&ab_channel=DarkHistory

I am personally unimpressed by the shawl's chain of custody. However, I look at Deeming's sister-in-law's statement that Deeming was living in Birkenhead at the time of the murder, with access to London by rail, the testimony by the dressmaker that he was in London at the time of the Eddowes murder, the match with the FBI profile, the "seafarer with a fair moustache" description by Lawende and the match with the height described by Levy, the "strange eyes", the resemblance of the photograph of Deeming to the sketch associated with the Kelly murder, and Deeming's statement that he had achieved revenge for his syphilise infection . How many of the more popular suspects tick this many boxes? If the DNA on the stamp could be matched to Deeming's wife the argument would become compelling, but that eventuality would seem unlikely at best

Cheers, George

[etenguy]

Hi etenguy,

There has been research (I think from about 10 years ago) that claims to have proven that Deeming was in England and not in prison at the time of the murders. I think that I remember Paul Begg saying in a book review in Ripperologist that this new research succeeded in proving that Deeming was in England and free.

Hi Lewis C

That's interesting - I missed that. I had thought it was established he was in South Africa. Maybe a Deeming thread would be interesting soon, I'll see if I can find the book / review you mention.

[etenguy]

Hi Lewis C,

There has been more recent research that points to Deeming:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxYiUUDZqk&t=10s&ab_channel=DarkHistory

I am personally unimpressed by the shawl's chain of custody. However, I look at Deeming's sister-in-law's statement that Deeming was living in Birkenhead at the time of the murder, with access to London by rail, the testimony by the dressmaker that he was in London at the time of the Eddowes murder, the match with the FBI profile, the "seafarer with a fair moustache" description by Lawende and the match with the height described by Levy, the "strange eyes", the resemblance of the photograph of Deeming to the sketch associated with the Kelly murder, and Deeming's statement that he had achieved revenge for his syphilise infection . How many of the more popular suspects tick this many boxes? If the DNA on the stamp could be matched to Deeming's wife the argument would become compelling, but that eventuality would seem unlikely at best

Cheers, George

Hi George

Will watch the linked video - thanks.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C,

There has been more recent research that points to Deeming:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxYiUUDZqk&t=10s&ab_channel=DarkHistory

I am personally unimpressed by the shawl's chain of custody. However, I look at Deeming's sister-in-law's statement that Deeming was living in Birkenhead at the time of the murder, with access to London by rail, the testimony by the dressmaker that he was in London at the time of the Eddowes murder, the match with the FBI profile, the "seafarer with a fair moustache" description by Lawende and the match with the height described by Levy, the "strange eyes", the resemblance of the photograph of Deeming to the sketch associated with the Kelly murder, and Deeming's statement that he had achieved revenge for his syphilise infection . How many of the more popular suspects tick this many boxes? If the DNA on the stamp could be matched to Deeming's wife the argument would become compelling, but that eventuality would seem unlikely at best

Cheers, George

Hi George,

In addition to that, Deeming is a known murderer who slit the throats of his victims. I think that he's in the top 10 of most likely of the named suspects to be JtR.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C

That's interesting - I missed that. I had thought it was established he was in South Africa. Maybe a Deeming thread would be interesting soon, I'll see if I can find the book / review you mention.

I found it. It's in Ripperologist 142 (Feb 2015), page 91. It's a review by Paul Begg of a book about Deeming by Roger Billington called The Other Jack the Ripper. I'm guessing that you either have this issue of Ripperologist in your computer or know where to find it online, or both, but if not, I can help you find it.

[etenguy]

I found it. It's in Ripperologist 142 (Feb 2015), page 91. It's a review by Paul Begg of a book about Deeming by Roger Billington called The Other Jack the Ripper. I'm guessing that you either have this issue of Ripperologist in your computer or know where to find it online, or both, but if not, I can help you find it.

Thanks Lewis c - I will look that up.

Hi Lewis C,

There has been more recent research that points to Deeming:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxY...el=DarkHistory

Thanks for posting the link, George, but I found the video unsatisfying overall - it was too light on important matters for me (for example the presenter simply said he had a report that might prove Deeming came to the UK in 1888 (about 19 minutes in) - he didn't provide any detail or even state what the report was - though he went on to say - if it is true, Deeming was in England at the time of the murders - it was he who said if. Then he went onto another subject). There were a number of instances of that kind of approach. I wouldn't personally put much store in that program. However the book looks a more promising source and I should remember that the video was made for a different audience, within time constraints and I am sure many found it interesting.

[etenguy]

I found it. It's in Ripperologist 142 (Feb 2015), page 91. It's a review by Paul Begg of a book about Deeming by Roger Billington called The Other Jack the Ripper. I'm guessing that you either have this issue of Ripperologist in your computer or know where to find it online, or both, but if not, I can help you find it.

Hi Lewis C

I think I need to go to the book. In the review the reference to Deeming is restricted to:
According to Millington, Deeming was in Plymouth in early September 1888 and left there on 27 September 1888. He was using the name Lawson. The Double Event was two days later.

I could not find any reference to dates around the earlier murders. I think we should probably stop on this thread and start a new one about Deeming if there is more to discuss. Though as yet, not seen anything that moves me to look deeper. Perhaps if I find and read the book I might start one.

The book is available for about £50 on Amazon, so will wait until i can find a more affordable copy.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C

I think I need to go to the book. In the review the reference to Deeming is restricted to:
According to Millington, Deeming was in Plymouth in early September 1888 and left there on 27 September 1888. He was using the name Lawson. The Double Event was two days later.

I could not find any reference to dates around the earlier murders. I think we should probably stop on this thread and start a new one about Deeming if there is more to discuss. Though as yet, not seen anything that moves me to look deeper. Perhaps if I find and read the book I might start one.

The book is available for about £50 on Amazon, so will wait until i can find a more affordable copy.

That sounds like a plan. It seems like that book is a significant enough addition to Ripper research that it should have made more of a splash than it did.