Deeming - A closer look

[Michael W Richards]

I've never bought Deeming as JTR. His secreting of his known victims is diametricly opposed to Jack's methods.

Nor does it make sense to associate Jack with Torso Makers for much the same reason, and it also likely excludes people who kill slowly by poison.

The fact that this killer murdered then immediately mutilated women outdoors in publicly accessible areas means 1 of 2 things.....he didnt care if someone happened to catch him...or wasnt of sound mind to factor that possibility into the situation, or he wanted the victims to be found just as he left them. In essence, he anticipated viewers reactions and that was part of the thrill for him.

My personal opinion is that in the case of whom I consider has the highest probability of being an actual "Ripper" victim...Annie....I think the first of those 2 scenarios makes more sense. Now, in the case of Mary Kelly, I believe the second scenario was more probable.

Does that make one more probably an accurately assigned Canonical Victim of JtR than the other....no....but does that plus an indoor venue, lack of any appreciable knife skills or anatomical acumen, a victim half the age of prior victims, a venue with only 1 exit, and a uterus left behind help that along? Ok..add a known love triangle. Still no? How about evidence suggesting that he did not pick her up outside as she was actively soliciting? No-one saw her go back out after 11:45pm Thursday night, not Elizabeth before she came in at 1:30, nor Mary Ann..who passed that room several time after 11:45 Thursday. As of 1:30 am, that room was dark and quiet. So, did she go out then? Maybe. But no witness said they saw her leave that court after she came home. Sure....1 comes in 4 days later, claims to know Mary and be her friend, and says he saw her out after 2am. With what has to be the most detailed witness description of someone with the soon to be victim...and in the middle of the night on a dark street no less. From a distance too.

Back to the point of my response, I think you are spot on including public venues as something we would expect from JTR. He didnt source out then hide his compulsions in a small room in a confined court locked to the outside,.... nor did he see the need to hide the bodies so he could slowly, over days or weeks, take the victims apart piece by piece. He swiftly subdued, adjusted the body for access, and began cutting.

[The Rookie Detective]

A rather amusing yet particularly serious piece of information I came across regarding Deeming's childhood...


As a child Deeming was nicknamed "Mad Fred' due to his particularly odd and peculiar behaviour; even as a boy.


A girl apparently mocked him...

...and he reacted aggressively, by throwing/pushing her into a canal.


Start as you mean to go on, and all that.



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m on page 110 at the moment but, as far as I can see there’s just no evidence placing Deeming in London at the time of the murders.



February 1881 he married Maria in Birkenhead.

Not long after the wedding he left for Sydney (planning to send for Maria when he could.)

Marie arrived in Sydney around June.

They moved to Melbourne for a while before moving to Queensland.

Early 1884 the Deeming’s were back in Sydney.

The first week in 1888, Deeming and family left for SA.

They first stayed three weeks in Adelaide.

They took a ship to London which stopped at St. Helena (1200 miles from the coast of Africa)

From St. Helena they sailed to Cape Town.

Deeming moved around in SA making appearances in Port Elizabeth, Durban, Klerksdorp and Johannesburg. For most of the period his wife and children remained in Cape Town.

Marie and the children arrived back in England (Birkenhead) in July/August 1889.

Deeming travelled back alone via Yemen, arriving in Aden on September 27th. Within a day or two he was back with his family in Birkenhead.

….

I don’t know what evidence, if any, the author will present later in the book to put Deeming in London but so far all he’s saying is pretty much ‘well he travelled around a lot so he could have travelled back to England.’

[Lewis C]

I’m on page 110 at the moment but, as far as I can see there’s just no evidence placing Deeming in London at the time of the murders.



February 1881 he married Maria in Birkenhead.

Not long after the wedding he left for Sydney (planning to send for Maria when he could.)

Marie arrived in Sydney around June.

They moved to Melbourne for a while before moving to Queensland.

Early 1884 the Deeming’s were back in Sydney.

The first week in 1888, Deeming and family left for SA.

They first stayed three weeks in Adelaide.

They took a ship to London which stopped at St. Helena (1200 miles from the coast of Africa)

From St. Helena they sailed to Cape Town.

Deeming moved around in SA making appearances in Port Elizabeth, Durban, Klerksdorp and Johannesburg. For most of the period his wife and children remained in Cape Town.

Marie and the children arrived back in England (Birkenhead) in July/August 1889.

Deeming travelled back alone via Yemen, arriving in Aden on September 27th. Within a day or two he was back with his family in Birkenhead.

….

I don’t know what evidence, if any, the author will present later in the book to put Deeming in London but so far all he’s saying is pretty much ‘well he travelled around a lot so he could have travelled back to England.’

Hi Herlock,

I think that it probably is true that he can't be definitively proven to have been in London at the time. There is an eyewitness statement or 2 that he was there, but eyewitnesses can be wrong. What has changed in recent years is that at one time it is thought that he couldn't have been in London at the time - some thought he was in South Africa, and some thought he was in prison. Recent evidence seems to show that we don't know if either was a case. So it's at least possible for him to have been in London.

The same is true of James Kelly, isn't it? He could have been in London, but we don't know for sure where he was at the time of the murders.

[Lewis C]

That is an incredibly valid point.

The same applies to Bury who also secreted his wife...at least for a while... until he confessed.


The Ripper was perhaps a more spontaneous hunter, who took his opportunities and whose primary focus was to mutilate and then pose his victims in such a manner as to cause shock value and torment the person who discovered the body.


Bury and Deeming killed women they knew who were close to them; whereas the Ripper seems to have been an unknown entity to the women he killed.

Unless of course he WAS known to at least some of the women he killed; in particular MJK whose identity remains illusive.

Was the Ripper the individual that Kelly spoke of as being a family member in the theatre?

Was he related to her; hence a seemingly more personal touch when dispatching Kelly?

Considering her brother Johnto (?) never came forward; it seems as though he never existed or he may have been the Ripper himself and she let him in because he was family.
The man that Hutchinson described and who allegedly laughed along with MJK when she approached him. A joke between family perhaps?


just a random thought


RD

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I think that it probably is true that he can't be definitively proven to have been in London at the time. There is an eyewitness statement or 2 that he was there, but eyewitnesses can be wrong. What has changed in recent years is that at one time it is thought that he couldn't have been in London at the time - some thought he was in South Africa, and some thought he was in prison. Recent evidence seems to show that we don't know if either was a case. So it's at least possible for him to have been in London.

The same is true of James Kelly, isn't it? He could have been in London, but we don't know for sure where he was at the time of the murders.

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.

[The Rookie Detective]

Some very excellent points so far on this thread.

Logical, sensible, balanced, respectful, well thought out.


This is the kind of thread I particularly enjoy the most; excellent views and comments from knowledgeable and brilliant minds.

We may not agree, but that's the bedrock of healthy discussion and debate.



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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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






RD

[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.

[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