Deeming - A closer look

[Herlock Sholmes]

My memory was a little rusty when I made my last comment, so I went back and checked the source that I've used before, Paul Begg's review of Roger Millington's book about Deeming, The Other Jack the Ripper. This review is on pages 91-92 of Ripperologist 142 (Feb 2015). Begg said that Millington "discovered that Deeming was in England when the Ripper murders were committed" and also that "Robin Napper showed that Deeming was in Britain at the time of the Ripper murders" in a Discovery Channel documentary, Jack the Ripper: The Australian Suspect. So Begg is making it sound like Millington and Napper proved that Deeming was in England at the time. Since the book that you're reading was written about 7 years after Millington's book, which was published after Napper's documentary, I would think that the book you're reading would make some reference to these sources, either to endorse their views or to refute them. I think that it would be odd if your book just ignored both Millington and Napper entirely.

Ok, just had a re-read. According to the author of The Devil’s Work - Garry Linney, he has Deeming’s wife and kids returning to the UK in July/August 1889 but Deeming decided to return via a different route on the steamer Jumna. He boarded the steamer about as conspicuously as possible, in Aden, as Mr. S.M.Leavey, bringing a lion cub and a gazelle with him. He was remembered by the crew and he even proposed to a woman whilst on board. He left the Jumna when it arrived in Plymouth (taking his lion cub with him but leaving the gazelle) on September 27th 1889.

Its only fair to add of course…..according to Linney.

[John Wheat]

Hi Lewis C,

I agree. Deeming's murder of wives and children share the throat cut and strangulation with the ripper victims. It is hardly likely that he would have performed the mutilations and left their bodies on display as he would have been immediately detained by the police as a prime suspect. He would have reserved the mutilation/display for the victims that could not be traced back to him. The identity of the torso victims was unknown except for one, but there was an element of concealment which could suggest that they knew, and were known by, their killer.

The witness testimony that Deeming was in Whitechapel on the night of the double murder is being labelled as questionable, but how many other persons of interest have such testimony against them?

Cheers, George

But don't you dismiss Bury because his wifes murder wasn't Ripper enough even though he did mutilate her?

[Michael W Richards]

"Elizabeth Long, for example, gets +2 as she is known to be in the area."

I think her case is interesting in that to make her statement useful, one must conclude that she had to have been wrong about her stated time. If we can use Richardson and Cadosche's statements and times, of course. Your rating above seems rather optimistic though anyway. IF she correctly identified someone she saw briefly at 5:00am or so on that morning 4 days later in the mortuary, (and Annie wasnt already in that yard), then a witness who lived adjacent to the yard where she dies and was actually in that adjacent yard before Mrs Long says she heard a bell...is immaterial. Which is something I would challenge any day. Id take Cadosche over Long any day of the week under the known circumstances. His proximity is everything in this case. As is Richardson's. And when you use both their statements, you can determine.. roughly... when Annie and her killer entered the yard. They co-exist just fine.

Which is something that some witness statements in these cases do not do.

I think you did scratch at the real issue with Deeming, and its the lack of absolute proof that he could even access Whitechapel that Fall during those 2 1/2 months.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My memory was a little rusty when I made my last comment, so I went back and checked the source that I've used before, Paul Begg's review of Roger Millington's book about Deeming, The Other Jack the Ripper. This review is on pages 91-92 of Ripperologist 142 (Feb 2015). Begg said that Millington "discovered that Deeming was in England when the Ripper murders were committed" and also that "Robin Napper showed that Deeming was in Britain at the time of the Ripper murders" in a Discovery Channel documentary, Jack the Ripper: The Australian Suspect. So Begg is making it sound like Millington and Napper proved that Deeming was in England at the time. Since the book that you're reading was written about 7 years after Millington's book, which was published after Napper's documentary, I would think that the book you're reading would make some reference to these sources, either to endorse their views or to refute them. I think that it would be odd if your book just ignored both Millington and Napper entirely.

Good points Lewis. I think that the Millington book is one that I was convinced that I had but when I looked I discovered that I didn’t have. I can’t think why I didn’t get it unless PB gave it a really poor review?

I just checked the bibliography and the Millington book doesn’t get a mention and there was no reaction when I typed ‘Millington’ into the search function. I’ve noticed this occasionally in books on various subjects where other substantial books on the subject don’t merit a mention (either in the acknowledgments or the bibliography) A deliberate snub maybe?

I would still hope that he might expand. I’ll have a look at PB’s Rip review too Lewis, thanks.

- I just read PB’s review. He said: “According to Millington, Deeming was in Plymouth in early September 1888 and left there on 27 September 1888. He was using the name Lawson.”

I’m just about to head out for a couple of hours but I’ll double check when I get back but it looks to me like Linnell is suggesting that Plymouth was in 1889? Maybe I’m misreading?

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

Yes, the similarity with Kelly struck me too the difference being of course that we at least know that Kelly was in England.

The first week of 1888 we have Deeming and Marie left for South Africa. Whilst there he popped up in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban, Klerksdorp and Johannesburg. For most of his time in SA his wife and children remained in Cape Town as he moved around trying to make money (never honestly of course) He arrived back in England late September 1889.

At the moment I’d favour that he was in South Africa but with no proof that he couldn’t have returned. Is it likely that he arrived when he did and travelled to all of those places, settling in, taking jobs, undertaking various scams and frauds then returns to England in August, then goes back to South Africa at some point only to return to England in September 1889? Not impossible but I’d need to see some evidence that he might have been in England or else he can be compared to Feigenbaum too.

My memory was a little rusty when I made my last comment, so I went back and checked the source that I've used before, Paul Begg's review of Roger Millington's book about Deeming, The Other Jack the Ripper. This review is on pages 91-92 of Ripperologist 142 (Feb 2015). Begg said that Millington "discovered that Deeming was in England when the Ripper murders were committed" and also that "Robin Napper showed that Deeming was in Britain at the time of the Ripper murders" in a Discovery Channel documentary, Jack the Ripper: The Australian Suspect. So Begg is making it sound like Millington and Napper proved that Deeming was in England at the time. Since the book that you're reading was written about 7 years after Millington's book, which was published after Napper's documentary, I would think that the book you're reading would make some reference to these sources, either to endorse their views or to refute them. I think that it would be odd if your book just ignored both Millington and Napper entirely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is where I think the rating system, which I quite like, would benefit by having negative values for location when someone can be placed elsewhere (i.e. eliminated). Price Eddy, for example, can be placed in Scotland during the murders, therefore his location would be something like -100. All other "points" can be seen, but the total being negative means he is eliminated.

I tend to think that location, in this scoring system, should be viewed more as something that can work against someone rather than work in their favour. So, being in the Whitechapel area is worth 0 (there were thousands of people in the Whitechapel area after all). While it is tempting to +1 for "at the crime scene", that too applies to too many people (all the witnesses, for example). However, those who are thought to be outside London, or perhaps better phrased as not known to be in London, like Druitt, Sickertt, Gull, Maybrick, Deeming, Feigenbaum, etc, would get some "penalty", which I think would be small for those who "could make the trip" (Druitt and Gull, perhaps Maybrick), and larger for those where the trip to London is a real stretch (Sickert, perhaps Maybrick). And for those where the trip would be impossible get larger (Deeming and perhaps Feigenbaum because his "location unknown" puts him potentially anywhere on the globe). If Deeming is shown to be in South Africa, his negative score should be large enough to counter all other "codes" because it eliminates him.

Basically, I don't see location information as "evidence against" someone, rather, location either "keeps them in the running" if in Whitechapel/London, but it can work against them if they are not.

So with Deeming, if the current information suggests he was in South Africa, but there is some doubt, maybe that's a -3 for location (i.e. impossible if true, but might not be true). that increases to -100 (or whatever) if it is shown that yes, that's where he was, and goes up to 0 if it turns out the report of him being in London is true (he's back in the running). None of the other scores change, so we can view his "score" with and without location information.

But that's just me, and I'm not suggesting anything actually be changed, but ideas like that are worth considering. If someone has a "good score", I think if it is in part due to having +2 on location, I'm less impressed. Elizabeth Long, for example, gets +2 as she is known to be in the area.

- Jeff

Good points as ever Jeff. I’ll have a think over the weekend about changing the ‘location’ rating.

[JeffHamm]

In my suspect rating list Deeming stands at number 4..

Deeming > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 9

..but should he be there at all? As it stands (as far as the book that I’m reading goes) Deeming and his family are in South Africa although separated for the majority of the time with Marie and the children staying in Cape Town while he travels around to various places trying to make money. I’ve seen no evidence so far to suggest that he might have been in London, although I’m less than half way through the book. I’ve moved suspects around the list before due to a point being added or deducted here and there but Deeming could be a big change…from number 4 to ‘eliminated’. I have to be consistent in that I left Feigenbaum out because we can’t place him in England (though we can’t prove that he couldn’t have been there) so the same would have to apply to Deeming.

This is where I think the rating system, which I quite like, would benefit by having negative values for location when someone can be placed elsewhere (i.e. eliminated). Price Eddy, for example, can be placed in Scotland during the murders, therefore his location would be something like -100. All other "points" can be seen, but the total being negative means he is eliminated.

I tend to think that location, in this scoring system, should be viewed more as something that can work against someone rather than work in their favour. So, being in the Whitechapel area is worth 0 (there were thousands of people in the Whitechapel area after all). While it is tempting to +1 for "at the crime scene", that too applies to too many people (all the witnesses, for example). However, those who are thought to be outside London, or perhaps better phrased as not known to be in London, like Druitt, Sickertt, Gull, Maybrick, Deeming, Feigenbaum, etc, would get some "penalty", which I think would be small for those who "could make the trip" (Druitt and Gull, perhaps Maybrick), and larger for those where the trip to London is a real stretch (Sickert, perhaps Maybrick). And for those where the trip would be impossible get larger (Deeming and perhaps Feigenbaum because his "location unknown" puts him potentially anywhere on the globe). If Deeming is shown to be in South Africa, his negative score should be large enough to counter all other "codes" because it eliminates him.

Basically, I don't see location information as "evidence against" someone, rather, location either "keeps them in the running" if in Whitechapel/London, but it can work against them if they are not.

So with Deeming, if the current information suggests he was in South Africa, but there is some doubt, maybe that's a -3 for location (i.e. impossible if true, but might not be true). that increases to -100 (or whatever) if it is shown that yes, that's where he was, and goes up to 0 if it turns out the report of him being in London is true (he's back in the running). None of the other scores change, so we can view his "score" with and without location information.

But that's just me, and I'm not suggesting anything actually be changed, but ideas like that are worth considering. If someone has a "good score", I think if it is in part due to having +2 on location, I'm less impressed. Elizabeth Long, for example, gets +2 as she is known to be in the area.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

The question then is...why claim to be responsible for 2 of the London murders and not claim to be the Ripper.

Hi RD,

We don't know who, or how many people were responsible for the London murders. If Eddowes is adopted as a Deeming victim due the the witness statement, then the other of his two were either Stride or MJK. Since it was thought that MJK had hatchet wounds on her leg, and Deeming was found to have a hatchet in his weapon collection, that's where I would place my bet.

Cheers, George

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lewis C,

I agree. Deeming's murder of wives and children share the throat cut and strangulation with the ripper victims. It is hardly likely that he would have performed the mutilations and left their bodies on display as he would have been immediately detained by the police as a prime suspect. He would have reserved the mutilation/display for the victims that could not be traced back to him. The identity of the torso victims was unknown except for one, but there was an element of concealment which could suggest that they knew, and were known by, their killer.

The witness testimony that Deeming was in Whitechapel on the night of the double murder is being labelled as questionable, but how many other persons of interest have such testimony against them?

Cheers, George

The above section I highlighted is I think a very interesting proposition George. Might even make me reconsider who Ive set aside as unsuitable based on the known acts. Ive always felt that the public display aspect of some of these suggested that the killer wanted the attention. It might not have been his primary motivator, but I think he might have enjoyed walking about and hearing the buzz about the Monster of Whitechapel.

He certainly wasnt confined to doing this in private, lots of empty warehouses,.. nor does it seem he was intimidated by the added danger of performing his circus where anyone might just happen upon him. Like Cadosche for example. One peek over the fence and its over. Too bad he was apparently a timid type.

The idea that he might have killed others in other ways, but a personal connection to the victim caused him to exercise more caution than what we see in the street killings is interesting. Could a Deeming type kill and conceal because of that kind of link to him, and then be more obviously monstrous on the streets as a stranger shadow? For me, the definition of a Ripper Victim is one that is killed in the outdoor air, mutilated on the spot, and the murder is done for a purpose we dont understand. That purpose, whether it be to obtain uteri, or satisfy urges, or to strike back at symbols he hates...whatever....is why he kills.

So, would that same guy lose it on his family in similar fashion to his outdoor personna? Not sure. Seems to me the man we look for kills on the nights we find his trademarks, Im not sure without the same motivation for doing those kinds of acts he kills essentially in his own backyard.

In addition, I dont see Jack the Ripper as having a familiar relationship at the time he is killing. Being alone would free him up to do what he did.

[The Rookie Detective]

And of course; he is Deeming's photo taken by the Hull police in England...






RD

[The Rookie Detective]

In my suspect rating list Deeming stands at number 4..

Deeming > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 9

..but should he be there at all? As it stands (as far as the book that I’m reading goes) Deeming and his family are in South Africa although separated for the majority of the time with Marie and the children staying in Cape Town while he travels around to various places trying to make money. I’ve seen no evidence so far to suggest that he might have been in London, although I’m less than half way through the book. I’ve moved suspects around the list before due to a point being added or deducted here and there but Deeming could be a big change…from number 4 to ‘eliminated’. I have to be consistent in that I left Feigenbaum out because we can’t place him in England (though we can’t prove that he couldn’t have been there) so the same would have to apply to Deeming.

I think its personal choice; but IMO I believe it would be a mistake to remove him from the list.

To have Lechmere in the list and not include Deeming who was a convicted serial killer who may have been in London would IMO negate the need to have the list in the first place.

We know that Deeming couldn't have murdered Coles and so If someone believes Coles is a Ripper victim, then Deeming wasn't the Ripper.

However with respect; that's for all of us to decide collectively rather than you making the choice to remove him entirely on our behalf and without our input.

If the list is for you, then it doesn't matter who you include...

But if you're sharing the list for all of us to be part of; then I feel you shouldn't take Deeming out because you deny those who feel he should be included, the voice to have our say.

There are only 2 factors that go against Deeming...we can't prove he was in London at the time, and there's no evidence he used postmortem mutilation.

Outside of that; everything else fits.

Unlike Lechmere whose ONLY factor that keeps him in the list; is that he found Nichols.


He has nothing else whatsoever going for him.


In that respect it would seem bonkers to take out Deeming and leave Lechmere.


But as I say; if the list is just for your own pleasure and viewing that it makes no difference who's in it.



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Frederick Deeming...




I haven't seen this before, but was rather intruiged by his appearance; dark cutaway coat, 2 distinctive rings on his hand and just overall "average" look he has..despite being a serial killer.


RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

In my suspect rating list Deeming stands at number 4..

Deeming > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 = 9

..but should he be there at all? As it stands (as far as the book that I’m reading goes) Deeming and his family are in South Africa although separated for the majority of the time with Marie and the children staying in Cape Town while he travels around to various places trying to make money. I’ve seen no evidence so far to suggest that he might have been in London, although I’m less than half way through the book. I’ve moved suspects around the list before due to a point being added or deducted here and there but Deeming could be a big change…from number 4 to ‘eliminated’. I have to be consistent in that I left Feigenbaum out because we can’t place him in England (though we can’t prove that he couldn’t have been there) so the same would have to apply to Deeming.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Lewis C,

I agree. Deeming's murder of wives and children share the throat cut and strangulation with the ripper victims. It is hardly likely that he would have performed the mutilations and left their bodies on display as he would have been immediately detained by the police as a prime suspect. He would have reserved the mutilation/display for the victims that could not be traced back to him. The identity of the torso victims was unknown except for one, but there was an element of concealment which could suggest that they knew, and were known by, their killer.

The witness testimony that Deeming was in Whitechapel on the night of the double murder is being labelled as questionable, but how many other persons of interest have such testimony against them?

Cheers, George

Again, a very excellent point.


Of all the Ripper suspects; Deeming is also one whom we know was a serial killer by definition.

He murdered his wife and 4 children

Then murdered his 2nd wife

And was arrested on the Eve of his potential 3rd wife joining him. There is no doubt that he would have murderd his future 3rd wife also; had he been given the chance.

We know that Deeming had ties to London and Kent.

When he was a boy he was sent by his father to an asylum "near London" because his father once stated when referring to his son that Frederick had the devil in him.

He was sent to an asylum under the name "Teddy Williams"

As a boy it seems he spent several years of his childhood near, and in and around London, and it is perhaps at this time that he may have become familiar with the streets.

His father also had considerable mental health issues and died "an imbecile"

Both parents were religious; in particular his mother who was alleged to be overtly pious in her manner towards teaching her son about sin.

His mental health seemed to deteriorate significantly after his mother died in the mid 1870's.

Deeming was obsessed with sin and punishment and the relationship with his mother was arguably unhealthy.


Deeming fits the character profile of a serial killer...because he was one.

Had he of only murdered his wife and children and nobody else; then he would have been a mass murderer; but the moment he murdered his 2nd wife, at a different time and location; that made him a serial killer.

He was a deeply troubled and disturbed individual and on the basis that he appeared in Hull and Birkenhead relatively close to the murder of McKenzie; it would confirm that he did at least visit England and there would have been time to kill and then catch a train.

Deeming went by many names and aliases and played different roles including a Fishmonger, a "Gold' farmer, an Aristocrat, an Army officer with full military attire, and various other disguises to conceal his true self.

He also altered his facial hair on many occasions, from having a full beard (light) to just a long moustache, to having no facial hair at all.

Of course; having facial hair; it can be dyed and altered fairly easily; especially for a man who played multiple characters and wore different disguises to mask his true self.

He also had very distinctive piercing blue eyes and could no doubt charm his way into a woman's mind, heart and bed with relative ease.

That said; his elaborate and extraverted behaviour did not fool everyone and there were multiple claims from various people at different times that they got a bad sense about him and tried to steer clear.


It's important to note that Deeming was alleged to have only claimed to have been the culprit of the "last 2" murders.
He never says anything about the previous murders; ergo; the canonical 5, except that he essentially has nothing to do with them and knew nothing of "Jack the Ripper."

The claim that he was responsible for the last 2 murders in london; he was referring to Mckenzie and one other.
At the time, even the press were confused, but his story was debunked when they mentioned Coles.

Deeming was in prison when Coles was murdered.

That then discredited his claim of being the killer of the "last 2' murders, because the press mentioned Coles...but I don't believe that Deeming was referring to Coles at all.


That changes things slightly.


Near to the time of his execution Deeming later states that he had never said he was responsible for any of the London killings and that the press had essentially made it.

If we are to believe that he didn't say he killed McKenzie and that the story was fabricated; then Deeming makes no claims to the Ripper killings whatsoever.

I just find the idea of a convicted serial killer claiming he was responsible for the last 2 London murders but knew nothing of Jack the Ripper, quite an odd statement.

As an elaborate sociopathic narcissist surely Deeming would have bragged about being the Ripper.

But he denied being the Ripper.


The question then is...why claim to be responsible for 2 of the London murders and not claim to be the Ripper.

That to me would indicate he was telling the truth.


Or he didn't say anything about any London murders and the press fabricated his claim and he then has no link to the Ripper at all.


Fascinating


RD

[GBinOz]

Hi RD,

I would just point out that if JtK had killed a family member, it's very unlikely that he would have done that in an identical manner to how he killed the prostitutes. If we're going to exclude from consideration people known to have killed in a different way from JtK, that would mean only considering non-murderers as possible suspects. I would argue that not killing at all is a bigger variation from JtR than killing in a different manner.

Hi Lewis C,

I agree. Deeming's murder of wives and children share the throat cut and strangulation with the ripper victims. It is hardly likely that he would have performed the mutilations and left their bodies on display as he would have been immediately detained by the police as a prime suspect. He would have reserved the mutilation/display for the victims that could not be traced back to him. The identity of the torso victims was unknown except for one, but there was an element of concealment which could suggest that they knew, and were known by, their killer.

The witness testimony that Deeming was in Whitechapel on the night of the double murder is being labelled as questionable, but how many other persons of interest have such testimony against them?

Cheers, George