Deeming - A closer look

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[GBinOz]

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

Hi John,

From what I can see, the ripper used the throat cut to kill his victim, with the mutilation and the display being his objective. In the case of a domestic murder, the mutilation/display would have lead to his detection. Bury didn't employ the throat cut, did employ the mutilation but not the display. Rather than avoiding detection by disposing of the body in the box that he seemed to have prepared for that purpose, he went to the police with a ridiculous story of her suiciding and him mutilating her to avoid being suspected of being JtR.

I don't see Deeming and Bury as being comparative. JMO.

Cheers, George

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

From what I can see, the ripper used the throat cut to kill his victim, with the mutilation and the display being his objective. In the case of a domestic murder, the mutilation/display would have lead to his detection. Bury didn't employ the throat cut, did employ the mutilation but not the display. Rather than avoiding detection by disposing of the body in the box that he seemed to have prepared for that purpose, he went to the police with a ridiculous story of her suiciding and him mutilating her to avoid being suspected of being JtR.

I don't see Deeming and Bury as being comparative. JMO.

Cheers, George

Fair enough. Neither do I. I think Deeming can't even be placed in London whereas I think Bury was Jack and is the best suspect by a Country mile just my opinion of course.

[Lewis C]

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.

So as I understand it, Millington and Linnell are talking about the same event happening on September 27th, but Millington said it was in 1888 and Linnell said it was in 1889.

[Lewis C]

"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.

Hi Michael,

I think that Jeff was talking about Long as a suspect, not as a witness. As I think we would all agree that Long would be a ridiculous suspect, I think that Jeff's point was that under Herlock's suspect scoring system, Long would get 2 points as a suspect merely for being there, so maybe merely being there shouldn't count for anything. Instead, a suspect would get negative points if we don't know that he was there.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Michael,

I think that Jeff was talking about Long as a suspect, not as a witness. As I think we would all agree that Long would be a ridiculous suspect, I think that Jeff's point was that under Herlock's suspect scoring system, Long would get 2 points as a suspect merely for being there, so maybe merely being there shouldn't count for anything. Instead, a suspect would get negative points if we don't know that he was there.

That's a very good point


On that basis, every single individual who came forward as a witness and all the policemen who passed through or close to each of the crime scenes, should score higher than anyone who can't be placed in London.


That stands to reason, but at the same time common sense would determine that witnesses like Long, Pc Neil, Diemshitz and Lawrende are statistically less likely to have been the Ripper than individuals like Bury or Deeming.


Until it can be proven that Deeming wasn't in London, then he can't be dismissed out of some subconscious fear that he fits better than some who favour other suspects would like.



The entire narrative regarding him being in South Africa at the time of the Ripper murders stems from Detective Brant stating that Deeming was the man who committed 3 murders in South Africa; all of whom IIRC...were men.


Deeming staunchly denied the killings in South Africa and claimed to have an alibi.


I believe the alibi could be...that he was in England.


And if he was in England; it gives him the viable capacity to be in London


One thing we do know is that Deeming accumulated unpaid debts in pretty much every location he visited.

Those debts include London


So we know that at some point between late 1887/early 1888 through to 1889; he must have visited London at some point in order for those debts to have come into fruition.

He visited Hull and Birkenhead in 1889

But he also had family in the West Midlands, the midlands and the South, and ties to London and Kent

In 1888 try going from the North East in Hull and across to the North West in Birkenhead... without going south first.
Even today the journey across is a relatively tricky one.

My argument is that it may have been easier with the predominant North to South train network in England, to have travelled from Hull to London, and then from London to Birkenhead.

That would also potentially incorporate travelling through most of the counties he was accustomed to visiting and in which he had family and relatives.


One thing is certain about Deeming; he was a well travelled man.

If he was the Ripper, then the ease in which he could have cut and run and got onto a train and left the area, would perhaps explain why nobody could pin him down to London.



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

So as I understand it, Millington and Linnell are talking about the same event happening on September 27th, but Millington said it was in 1888 and Linnell said it was in 1889.

Whilst I haven’t read the Millington book and I’m only going on PB’s review, that’s what it looks like to me Lewis. I’ll post a few snippets from the book.

“Deeming would later tell one of his lawyers that after arriving in South Africa in early 1888….This corresponds with later newspaper reports in the Cape of a man named Deeming arriving at the Palmerston Hotel in Plein Street in early 1888 asking for lodgings for himself and his wife and three children.”

Then…

“Deeming was constantly on the move in the Cape colony, making appearances in Port Elizabeth, Durban, Klerksdorp and Johannesburg.”

Then…

“Marie and the children arrived home in Birkenhead without Frederick in July or August 1889. By then it seems clear Deeming, no doubt fleeing from his latest scam, had decided it was best to travel alone and take a circuitous route back to England via Yemen.”

Finally…

“McNab said Jumna arrived at Yemen’s port city of Aden in September and ‘a Mr S. M. Leavey came on board…..He left the Jumna when it arrived in Plymouth on 27 September….”

It doesn’t mean that Deeming couldn’t have been in Plymouth in both 1888 and 1889 though.

I’ve also checked using the search function and can’t find any connection with the name Lawson (which he undoubtedly used but it seems mainly in England and possibly Australia [he was in Hull prison under that name]) and Plymouth.

…

I’ve skipped over to the new Bible John book but I’ll return to Deeming when I’ve finished it. He was a horrible but fascinating man.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Michael,

I think that Jeff was talking about Long as a suspect, not as a witness. As I think we would all agree that Long would be a ridiculous suspect, I think that Jeff's point was that under Herlock's suspect scoring system, Long would get 2 points as a suspect merely for being there, so maybe merely being there shouldn't count for anything. Instead, a suspect would get negative points if we don't know that he was there.

Hi Lewis,

Yes, that is exactly my point, but you said it much clearer than I did! Thanks!

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

"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.

Hi Michael,

I wasn't very clear in my intentions, but Lewis C has put it more clearly than I did. I used Long as an example because if we were to apply the "suspect" scoring system, then in terms of location score, she gets +2 (all that is required to get +2 is "be in London", and we know she was). Basically, almost everyone gets +2, except those where there might be some question as to whether or not the were in London at the time, in which case we're currently giving them +1 or 0. Basically, we score those whose location is questionable with a lower value than the default +2.

In my view, that makes the +2 meaningless, and the "information" of the score system is really contained within the lower scores we give those who are outside of London, where we give +1 if they could get there without too much difficulty, and 0 if getting to London would be sufficiently difficult. In my opinion, Sickert gets a 0 because he appears to have been in France, and while it is physically possible for him to board a boat and sail over, then return, etc, that was not as easy as it is today. Others, like Gull and Druitt, are within a fairly easy journey (Gull was renting a summer cottage or something outside of London, and Druitt was within a train journey from his cricket match), so they would get +1.

Because the information is in the "lower" score really, I think location scores might as well be 0 if your in London (Long isn't a suspect, so she shouldn't have a +2 suspect score), with negative values being used to indicate there is various degrees of "concern" with regards to their locations (-1 and -2, rather than +1 and 0). And if someone can definitely be placed in a location that makes it impossible for them to be JtR, then a very large negative score can be applied.

My suggestion wouldn't change any of the rankings, just lower the total. But if a witness gets +2, then really to evaluate the suspect scores what matters is how far above +2 they are, so why not just make that 0 in the first place?

- Jeff