Rating The Suspects.

[Scott Nelson]

Amendment 4


Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 6

Cohen was found in a brothel if it makes any difference.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amendment 4



Kelly > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 12

Bury > 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 10

Cutbush > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 9

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

Hyams > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 8

Kosminski 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 8

Grainger > 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 7

Chapman > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7

Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 = 7

GSC Lechmere > 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 7

Barnado > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 = 7

G. Wentworth Bell Smith > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 = 7

Thompson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 = 6

Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 6

Levy > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 6

Druitt > 2 - 2 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 = 6

Barnett > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 5

Stephen > 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Stephenson > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 4

Bachert > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Cross > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hardiman > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Hutchinson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Mann > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4

Gull > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 3

Maybrick > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 3

Sickert > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 3



If it could be shown that it was reasonably possible that they were in England…


Feigenbaum > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 7

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Using this method of awarding points for mental illness, I would still give David Cohen a 2 for mental illness. Here are 2 links mentioning his violence:

https://casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/37.html

https://casebook.org/suspects/davidcohen.html

I think it is at least reasonably possible that Deeming was in England at the time, and the only question is whether it is merely reasonably possible, or that it's more like a strong likelihood. In the rest of this post, I'm quoting Paul Begg from page 91 of Ripperologist 142:

The entry for Frederick Bailey Deeming in the current Jack the Ripper A to Z is depressingly short and dismissive, possibly because Martin Fido thought Deeming was in jail when the Ripper crimes were committed and Keith Skinner thought he was in South Africa. Begg was probably staring blankly into space, dribbling slightly, and entertaining no opinion about anything at all. Other writers such as Melvin Harris, Colin Wilson, Robin Odell, Donald Rumbelow and Stewart Evans also accepted that Deeming was abroad or in prison at the time.

But he wasn’t.

In 2011 there was a pretty dire Discovery Channel documentary, Jack the Ripper: The Australian Suspect, in which a trenchcoat-wearing former Scotland Yard detective named Robin Napper showed that Deeming was in Britain at the time of the Ripper murders. You may recall that this was the documentary that featured the famous Eddowes shawl being tested for DNA and showed that the DNA retrieved from the gummed back of the stamp on the Openshaw letter belonged to a woman. Somehow this swirling documentary concluded that Deeming ticked all the boxes to be Jack the Ripper and that all Napper needed was the DNA of Deeming’s murdered wife to clinch and close the case, which was a stretch even by the standards of TV documentary makers.

Anyway, the point is that the author this book, Roger Millington, had already discovered that Deeming was in England when the Ripper murders were committed, but it was in 2011 that he learned he had prostate cancer. He died in 2013 and the finished manuscript of this book was found among his papers.

I didn’t come to this book with any great enthusiasm, but it is an excellent and very readable account of the life of Frederick Bailey Deeming, who killed his wife and his four children at Rainhill, Liverpool, and his second wife, Emily Mather, at Windsor, Melbourne, Australia, and otherwise lived the life as a conman and fraudster. According to Millington, it was a detective named Brant who expressed his belief that Deeming was responsible for a triple murder in Johannesburg in September 1888 and thus scotched the idea that Deeming was Jack the Ripper. But the triple murder was committed in February 1888, so Deeming could have been in England to commit the two Ripper murders he confessed to.

According to Millington, Deeming was in Plymouth in early September 1888 and left there on 27 September 1888. He was using the name Lawson. The Double Event was two days later.

Thanks Lewis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I am wondering if you are aware of some new research on Deeming, outlined here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxYiUUDZqk&t=10s&ab_channel=DarkHistory

You are probably already aware of the dressmaker's identification of Deeming's trial photo as a man with whom she had spent some time on the night of the double event, and who talked excitedly about it the next day. Easy to write off as attention seeking, but she didn't name him as Deeming, but as Mr Lawson, a frequently used known alias of Deeming. How many other persons of interest can be identified as having been in Whitechapel on the night of a murder? Curious that Deeming's last impersonation in Australia was as Baron Swanson?

The other find is the transcript of a court case from 1892 where Deeming stated that he had contracted syphilis from a prostitute who had made a useless man of him for two years, it was right to kill such, he would have killed her, and intended to kill her, and he would not have thought it murder as she deserved it.

The other discovery came from the Crime Museum at Scotland Yard, where Deeming's death mask was on display as the face of Jack the Ripper.

Perhaps Deeming needs a boost in categories 2, 4, 5 and 6?

The other thing I noticed is that your list doesn't include G Wentworth Bell Smith.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/persons-of-interest-or-actual-suspects/the-lodger-s/2731-g-wentworth-bell-smith

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I’ll certainly have another look at Deeming later today. The fairly recent book on him is another that I have on my ‘to read again’ list (which I never seem to get to) I’m grateful that you mentioned GWBS but annoyed with myself for missing him in the Morley book. An error compounded by the fact that during my earlier ‘ripper years’ I felt him a good suspect. He’s also been mentioned recently by someone on here but I’m unsure who. All look at his entry when I give Deeming another look.

[GBinOz]

Correction for my previous post: Deeming's alias in Western Australia was Baron Swanston rather than Baron Swanson.

[GBinOz]

Credit to Chris Scott who came up with this:

From a Canadian paper, The Manitoba Daily Free Press of 8 April 1892



And this:

Newark Daily Advocate of 13 April 1892.

[Lewis C]

I wasn’t going by ‘certified insane’, I was using a vague ‘mental health’ issues angle and dividing them between violent and non-violent. So for Druitt it was his suicide with note thinking that he might end up like his mother, who was in an asylum. Stephen should have been a 1 as you rightly pointed out so I’ve changed it.

It’s interesting that you should mention James Kelly in another post Robert. I’ve been intending for about 3 years to re-read Tully’s book but I haven’t got there yet. I only read it once, when it first came out. I was looking through my stuff a few months ago and came across John Morrison’s pamphlet Jimmy Kelly’s Year of the Ripper Murders.

Hi Herlock,

Using this method of awarding points for mental illness, I would still give David Cohen a 2 for mental illness. Here are 2 links mentioning his violence:

https://casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/37.html

https://casebook.org/suspects/davidcohen.html

I think it is at least reasonably possible that Deeming was in England at the time, and the only question is whether it is merely reasonably possible, or that it's more like a strong likelihood. In the rest of this post, I'm quoting Paul Begg from page 91 of Ripperologist 142:

The entry for Frederick Bailey Deeming in the current Jack the Ripper A to Z is depressingly short and dismissive, possibly because Martin Fido thought Deeming was in jail when the Ripper crimes were committed and Keith Skinner thought he was in South Africa. Begg was probably staring blankly into space, dribbling slightly, and entertaining no opinion about anything at all. Other writers such as Melvin Harris, Colin Wilson, Robin Odell, Donald Rumbelow and Stewart Evans also accepted that Deeming was abroad or in prison at the time.

But he wasn’t.

In 2011 there was a pretty dire Discovery Channel documentary, Jack the Ripper: The Australian Suspect, in which a trenchcoat-wearing former Scotland Yard detective named Robin Napper showed that Deeming was in Britain at the time of the Ripper murders. You may recall that this was the documentary that featured the famous Eddowes shawl being tested for DNA and showed that the DNA retrieved from the gummed back of the stamp on the Openshaw letter belonged to a woman. Somehow this swirling documentary concluded that Deeming ticked all the boxes to be Jack the Ripper and that all Napper needed was the DNA of Deeming’s murdered wife to clinch and close the case, which was a stretch even by the standards of TV documentary makers.

Anyway, the point is that the author this book, Roger Millington, had already discovered that Deeming was in England when the Ripper murders were committed, but it was in 2011 that he learned he had prostate cancer. He died in 2013 and the finished manuscript of this book was found among his papers.

I didn’t come to this book with any great enthusiasm, but it is an excellent and very readable account of the life of Frederick Bailey Deeming, who killed his wife and his four children at Rainhill, Liverpool, and his second wife, Emily Mather, at Windsor, Melbourne, Australia, and otherwise lived the life as a conman and fraudster. According to Millington, it was a detective named Brant who expressed his belief that Deeming was responsible for a triple murder in Johannesburg in September 1888 and thus scotched the idea that Deeming was Jack the Ripper. But the triple murder was committed in February 1888, so Deeming could have been in England to commit the two Ripper murders he confessed to.

According to Millington, Deeming was in Plymouth in early September 1888 and left there on 27 September 1888. He was using the name Lawson. The Double Event was two days later.

[GBinOz]

Hi Herlock,

I am wondering if you are aware of some new research on Deeming, outlined here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxYiUUDZqk&t=10s&ab_channel=DarkHistory

You are probably already aware of the dressmaker's identification of Deeming's trial photo as a man with whom she had spent some time on the night of the double event, and who talked excitedly about it the next day. Easy to write off as attention seeking, but she didn't name him as Deeming, but as Mr Lawson, a frequently used known alias of Deeming. How many other persons of interest can be identified as having been in Whitechapel on the night of a murder? Curious that Deeming's last impersonation in Australia was as Baron Swanson?

The other find is the transcript of a court case from 1892 where Deeming stated that he had contracted syphilis from a prostitute who had made a useless man of him for two years, it was right to kill such, he would have killed her, and intended to kill her, and he would not have thought it murder as she deserved it.

The other discovery came from the Crime Museum at Scotland Yard, where Deeming's death mask was on display as the face of Jack the Ripper.

Perhaps Deeming needs a boost in categories 2, 4, 5 and 6?

The other thing I noticed is that your list doesn't include G Wentworth Bell Smith.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/persons-of-interest-or-actual-suspects/the-lodger-s/2731-g-wentworth-bell-smith

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

I assume you mean 1867

This is interesting tho.

Just checking that you were paying attention Tani.

[Tani]

I’m afraid not Tani.

Im thinking that I should award him a point for medical knowledge though. He never qualified as a Doctor but he registered as a medical student at the London Hospital in 1967 so it looks like he would have had at least some training and surely anatomy would have been an early part of any training? Morley says that it was said that he took a keen interest in anatomy (again with no source though)

I assume you mean 1867

This is interesting tho.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has he a source for this?

I’m afraid not Tani.

Im thinking that I should award him a point for medical knowledge though. He never qualified as a Doctor but he registered as a medical student at the London Hospital in 1967 so it looks like he would have had at least some training and surely anatomy would have been an early part of any training? Morley says that it was said that he took a keen interest in anatomy (again with no source though)

[Tani]

Hi Robert,

I just checked the Morley book. I based it on this: He returned to religion and after attempts to start a mission in the East End failed, suffered the first of several nervous breakdowns, which occurred during stressful periods of his life.

Has he a source for this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Robert,

I just checked the Morley book. I based it on this: He returned to religion and after attempts to start a mission in the East End failed, suffered the first of several nervous breakdowns, which occurred during stressful periods of his life.

Sorry Paddy, I called you Robert. I was just answering a post from a Robert on the other thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amended.


1. Age/physical - 2 = no problem, 1 = some doubt, 0 = eliminated imo

2. Location - 2 = no problem, 1 = reasonable travel/some doubt, 0 = eliminated imo

3. Violence - 4 - killed woman (non-family member) with knife, 3 - killed woman (family member) with knife, 2 - violence with a knife, 1 - violence without a knife, 0 - no violence.

4. Mental health issues - 2 = serious/violent, 1 = other, 0 = none known

5. Police interest - 2 = at the time, 1 = later, 0 = none known.

6. Hatred/dislike of prostitutes/women - 2 = yes, 1 = links to prostitution, 0 = none known

7. Medical/anatomical knowledge/(including slaughterman and butcher

- yes = 1, no = 0




……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,, ,,,…… ,,,,,,……,,,,,,……,,,,,,……



Kelly > 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 12
Bury > 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 = 10
Cutbush > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 9
Hyams > 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 8
Kosminski 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 = 8
Grainger > 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 = 7
Chapman > 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 = 7
Tumblety > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 = 7
GSC Lechmere > 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 7
Thompson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 = 6
Barnado > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 6
Cohen > 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 6
Levy > 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 6
Druitt > 2 - 2 - 0 -1 - 1 - 0 = 6
Barnett > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 = 5
Stephen > 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4
Stephenson > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 4
Bachert > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4
Cross > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4
Hardiman > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4
Hutchinson > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4
Mann > 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 4
Gull > 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 = 3
Maybrick > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 3
Sickert > 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 3


If it could be shown that it was reasonably possible that they were in England…

Deeming > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 7
Feigenbaum > 2 - 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 7

[Herlock Sholmes]

And by the way Hurley, I like your poll, but I have questions for you about something I noticed in you ratings, concerning category 4:

4. Mental health issues - 2 = serious/violent, 1 = other, 0 = none known

You awarded Kelly, Cutbush, Hyams and Kosminski a "2" and in fact those persons were certified insane. But Cohen and Levy received only a "1" yet they were certified also. Why not a 2?

Also, why were Barnardo and Druitt each awarded a "1" and Stephen a "2" in this category? As far as I know none of those persons were certified insane.

Please answer at your convenience,

Paddy

I wasn’t going by ‘certified insane’, I was using a vague ‘mental health’ issues angle and dividing them between violent and non-violent. So for Druitt it was his suicide with note thinking that he might end up like his mother, who was in an asylum. Stephen should have been a 1 as you rightly pointed out so I’ve changed it.

It’s interesting that you should mention James Kelly in another post Robert. I’ve been intending for about 3 years to re-read Tully’s book but I haven’t got there yet. I only read it once, when it first came out. I was looking through my stuff a few months ago and came across John Morrison’s pamphlet Jimmy Kelly’s Year of the Ripper Murders.