Deeming - A closer look

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

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

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I would alter the term generalised term of "location" to
"proximity to murder site"

And then have an added separate score for "timing" that works in conjunction with the former proximity to murder site.


In other words, the likes of...

Goldstein, Schwartz, Hutchinson, Lechmere, Cadosche, Lawrende, Paul etc...etc... should ALL score a point for being within CLOSE PROXIMITY of the murder site AND at a TIME that was relatively close to a murder having been committed.


So for example someone like Bachert who lived close to the epicentre of the murders for many years, but has no direct physical link to any of the murder sites in terms of the timing, would score 1 for proximity but 0 for timing.

Someone like Lechmere would score 2 (one for Proximity and 1 for Timing)

Dr Barnardo is an interesting one because we know for certain that he was at a conference giving a speech in Dundee within 36 hours of one of the Canonical 5 murders.
However, to get to Dundee, we also know he took a train from London.
This then confirms that Dr Barnardo left London on the morning train to Dundee on the morning of one of the murders; ergo, just a few hours after a Ripper victim was found.
Barnardo would then score 1 for proximity because he was in London for sure, but 0 for timing because he has no known link to a murder site relative to the timing.

Regarding Long; while she should technically score 2, 1 for proximity and 1 for timing; anyone with common sense would know that she has no chance of being the Ripper; not just because she was female, but because of every other factor that rules her out.

While it's tempting to introduce minus points; I would resist the temptation because having a base value of 0 works perfectly.

100% of nothing...is still nothing, despite the percentage value.

Therefore, with Deeming, there is no proof he was in London, but we know that he did visit London sometime between 1887-1889 because he accumulated debts in London...and the only way he could have done that...is if he was there in London in person.


Deeming would score 0 for proximity and 0 for timing because he has no physical link to any of the murder sites whatsoever.

However, to give minus points then by proxy assumes he wasn't in London, but considering there's no proof of that either, then he should score 0 and not be given a minus point
By allocating minus points, it subtly implies the passive ruling out a suspect that may not be deserved of that.


RD

Hi RD,

One could refine the scoring system with regards to location along your proximity" and timing suggestions. Indeed, with any such thing one can make things more or less specific in nature. Both directions have their pro's and con's.

In the end, it is not a specific category of a code that matters overall, only the final total score. What I mean is, a suspect could get a negative location score, but fit so well in other ways end up with a higher overall assessment. Being negative on location isn't eliminating anyone simply because that score is negative (except in the case where location rules them out entirely, in which case it's an alibi, and so no matter how many points they get in other areas, they are still ruled out, which is what I was getting at with the -100 idea - the final total would be massively negative).

And the points are a relative ranking of individuals. The actual value in many ways doesn't matter, it's the relative difference. So changing location from -2 to 0 rather than 0-2 makes no difference in terms of those relative ranks.

However, I don't think one can say "Long gets 0 anyway because nobody thinks she's the Ripper" isn't how an objective coding scheme should work. Her location fits the coding scheme, and as currently implemented, that means her "score" is +2. In fact, every witness, PC, and people living in the are would all get +2 simply because they live in London. As such, that +2 is to me, pretty meaningless, so it might as well be 0. I'm not sure even coding things like "proximity in time and place" is great, as that would get applied to all witnesses, PC's, and those who live in the buildings nearby, etc. However, when evaluating a suspect, what does often get mentioned as something that makes them a weaker suspect is when their location is outside of London (or if their location is unknown). In other words, location tends to come up as something that detracts from a suspect, which to me would be reflected in applying a negative score, reducing the strength of the overall "fit".

I do get that "close in time and space" is tempting, and it is often argued as a point against, but as I see coding schemes like this as something that only has utility if you apply it everyone, then it starts to positively code witnesses and so forth, which I'm not sure is helpful.

See, one thing that I think would be useful information to consider is to apply the coding scheme to people we're pretty sure are not JtR (like Long) as then we would get some sort of idea as to what the range of scores is for innocent people. If a suspect has a final total that is pretty commonly obtained by people who are innocent, then that would tell us that suspect's fit is easily achieved by chance. But those who score much higher than is typical, could then be viewed as stronger. And with that in mind, I see it as pretty uninformative that someone is in the Whitechapel area, even at the right time, because that applies to a very large number of people.

In the end, it really doesn't make a difference because whether the score for the general population hovers around 0, or it hovers around +2, due to the value of the location score doesn't really matter. Someone with a score of +6 or +8, is still 6 points higher than the general population would get, and that is the important information.

And it's important to remember, a negative score on location is another way of indicating that location is a weakness in the case against this person, something that I think gets lost in the 0-2 coding. But that's just me, and as I say, all it does is shift everybody's total down by 2 points, it doesn't change anything about the relative rankings, or the difference in rankings between two suspects. It's similar to converting inches to centimetres, nothing about the actual length has changed, only the numerical value; but I'm just suggesting subtracting a constant here and there's no multiplying by fractions to rescale as well, so it's a bit less of a transformation than imperial to metric measures).

Seriously, all one would do is take the current totals, subtract 2 from everyone, and after that, interpret things exactly the same way. I'm just being a bit pedantic about measurement (partly because I like the idea overall, and to me location information is really non-informative because of how many people would score the current +2, and what is impactful on a particular suspect's score is when they get less than the +2, which to me implies the information is contained in the reduction, hence it operates like a negative value, so why not make it one?)

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

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

I would alter the term generalised term of "location" to
"proximity to murder site"

And then have an added separate score for "timing" that works in conjunction with the former proximity to murder site.


In other words, the likes of...

Goldstein, Schwartz, Hutchinson, Lechmere, Cadosche, Lawrende, Paul etc...etc... should ALL score a point for being within CLOSE PROXIMITY of the murder site AND at a TIME that was relatively close to a murder having been committed.


So for example someone like Bachert who lived close to the epicentre of the murders for many years, but has no direct physical link to any of the murder sites in terms of the timing, would score 1 for proximity but 0 for timing.

Someone like Lechmere would score 2 (one for Proximity and 1 for Timing)

Dr Barnardo is an interesting one because we know for certain that he was at a conference giving a speech in Dundee within 36 hours of one of the Canonical 5 murders.
However, to get to Dundee, we also know he took a train from London.
This then confirms that Dr Barnardo left London on the morning train to Dundee on the morning of one of the murders; ergo, just a few hours after a Ripper victim was found.
Barnardo would then score 1 for proximity because he was in London for sure, but 0 for timing because he has no known link to a murder site relative to the timing.

Regarding Long; while she should technically score 2, 1 for proximity and 1 for timing; anyone with common sense would know that she has no chance of being the Ripper; not just because she was female, but because of every other factor that rules her out.

While it's tempting to introduce minus points; I would resist the temptation because having a base value of 0 works perfectly.

100% of nothing...is still nothing, despite the percentage value.

Therefore, with Deeming, there is no proof he was in London, but we know that he did visit London sometime between 1887-1889 because he accumulated debts in London...and the only way he could have done that...is if he was there in London in person.


Deeming would score 0 for proximity and 0 for timing because he has no physical link to any of the murder sites whatsoever.

However, to give minus points then by proxy assumes he wasn't in London, but considering there's no proof of that either, then he should score 0 and not be given a minus point
By allocating minus points, it subtly implies the passive ruling out a suspect that may not be deserved of that.


RD

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?