Tweet
Deeming vs Thompson – clearing the smoke.
Frederick Bailey Deeming is the kind of suspect people reach for when they can’t bear the idea that the killer might have been respectable, educated, or even poetic. He was loud, brutal, and obvious—everything the Ripper was not.
Deeming’s record reads like a travelling sideshow of deceit. He left a trail of wives, false names, and cheap frauds across three continents. When he killed, it was domestic and self-preserving: one family annihilation in England, another impulsive murder in Australia. He was a conman who murdered to erase inconvenience, not a sadist driven by ritual or fantasy. His violence was personal, not patterned.
Jack the Ripper’s murders show deliberation, an escalating psychosexual obsession, and anatomical precision. The killer stalked strangers, killed silently in public streets, and escaped unseen. Deeming never managed subtlety in his life. He couldn’t keep a single alias straight or hold his temper. The idea that he operated in the fog of Whitechapel, leaving not a trace or a witness, strains belief.
The timeline also betrays the theory. Deeming was well accounted for in the years of the murders—married, trading, imprisoned, or travelling under documented names. Every attempt to place him in London during the critical autumn of 1888 relies on conjecture, not evidence. His known killings occur years later and show a completely different psychological signature: blunt trauma, domestic context, burial or concealment, none of which match the open-air mutilations of 1888.
By contrast, Francis Thompson’s profile fits what little we can truly say about the Ripper. He lived within walking distance of the crime scenes during the exact window of the murders. He possessed medical training and surgical experience. He was known to carry dissecting instruments and to suffer from intense psychotic delusions tied to female purity and punishment. He had a documented nervous collapse coinciding with the killings and wrote afterward in imagery that mirrors the acts themselves—down to descriptions of dissection and ritual cleansing.
Thompson’s life places him inside the psychology of the crimes, while Deeming’s sits miles outside it. Deeming is the suspect of a tabloid imagination: flamboyant, noisy, convenient. Thompson is the suspect of forensic probability: precise, present, and disturbingly aligned with both opportunity and motive.
Deeming’s legend survives because it reassures; Thompson’s evidence unsettles. One is theatre, the other pathology. And that is why, once you strip away the newspaper haze, Deeming’s name slips quietly off the board.
Frederick Bailey Deeming is the kind of suspect people reach for when they can’t bear the idea that the killer might have been respectable, educated, or even poetic. He was loud, brutal, and obvious—everything the Ripper was not.
Deeming’s record reads like a travelling sideshow of deceit. He left a trail of wives, false names, and cheap frauds across three continents. When he killed, it was domestic and self-preserving: one family annihilation in England, another impulsive murder in Australia. He was a conman who murdered to erase inconvenience, not a sadist driven by ritual or fantasy. His violence was personal, not patterned.
Jack the Ripper’s murders show deliberation, an escalating psychosexual obsession, and anatomical precision. The killer stalked strangers, killed silently in public streets, and escaped unseen. Deeming never managed subtlety in his life. He couldn’t keep a single alias straight or hold his temper. The idea that he operated in the fog of Whitechapel, leaving not a trace or a witness, strains belief.
The timeline also betrays the theory. Deeming was well accounted for in the years of the murders—married, trading, imprisoned, or travelling under documented names. Every attempt to place him in London during the critical autumn of 1888 relies on conjecture, not evidence. His known killings occur years later and show a completely different psychological signature: blunt trauma, domestic context, burial or concealment, none of which match the open-air mutilations of 1888.
By contrast, Francis Thompson’s profile fits what little we can truly say about the Ripper. He lived within walking distance of the crime scenes during the exact window of the murders. He possessed medical training and surgical experience. He was known to carry dissecting instruments and to suffer from intense psychotic delusions tied to female purity and punishment. He had a documented nervous collapse coinciding with the killings and wrote afterward in imagery that mirrors the acts themselves—down to descriptions of dissection and ritual cleansing.
Thompson’s life places him inside the psychology of the crimes, while Deeming’s sits miles outside it. Deeming is the suspect of a tabloid imagination: flamboyant, noisy, convenient. Thompson is the suspect of forensic probability: precise, present, and disturbingly aligned with both opportunity and motive.
Deeming’s legend survives because it reassures; Thompson’s evidence unsettles. One is theatre, the other pathology. And that is why, once you strip away the newspaper haze, Deeming’s name slips quietly off the board.
Comment