Originally posted by GBinOz
View Post
Rating The Suspects.
Collapse
X
-
-
The sad statistic is that when a murder is committed, the first suspect is the usually the spouse (Bury, Chapman), but as tragic as that may be, when the murder also includes innocent children it inflicts an injury on my soul. I am unable to comprehend the darkness of the motives of anyone that would resort to such an atrocity to further his own needs, and I feel that it would be such a man that could be capable of the injuries visited upon Eddowes and Kelly.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
Hi Abby,
As well as the death mask mentioned by RD, when Deeming was arrested in Western Australia in 1892 he was question by police regard the Whitechapel murders. It was reported in The Mercury in 1892 that Deeming had confessed to a Detective Cawsey that he was responsible for the last two Whitechapel murders (Eddowes and Kelly???).
I'm aware that you're sceptical with regard to him being in London in 1888, but an 1892 article from the NY Times quoted Deeming's sister in law as stating that "while he was living in Birkenhead in 1888, Deeming made regular trips to London". This would have been made easy by the new rail link from Birkenhead to London. When Deeming's (aka Williams) picture was published after his arrest, a dressmaker identified him as a man she was with in Whitechapel only hours before the Eddowes murder, but that the name he gave her was Harry Lawson, a known Deeming alias.
If you haven't done so already, there is a great deal of information on recent research here:
Cheers, George
i did t know he was ever a suspect by police, and he may have been in london or close enough during the murders. back on the list he goes!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
hi george
Deeming was a police suspect in 1892? can you please provide more detail? thanks!!
As well as the death mask mentioned by RD, when Deeming was arrested in Western Australia in 1892 he was question by police regard the Whitechapel murders. It was reported in The Mercury in 1892 that Deeming had confessed to a Detective Cawsey that he was responsible for the last two Whitechapel murders (Eddowes and Kelly???).
I'm aware that you're sceptical with regard to him being in London in 1888, but an 1892 article from the NY Times quoted Deeming's sister in law as stating that "while he was living in Birkenhead in 1888, Deeming made regular trips to London". This would have been made easy by the new rail link from Birkenhead to London. When Deeming's (aka Williams) picture was published after his arrest, a dressmaker identified him as a man she was with in Whitechapel only hours before the Eddowes murder, but that the name he gave her was Harry Lawson, a known Deeming alias.
If you haven't done so already, there is a great deal of information on recent research here:
Cheers, George
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View PostAmendment #15
I think the the duplications that have occurred have been down to careless cutting and pasting on my part. Feel free everyone to point out any future errors.
Cheers, George
Leave a comment:
-
Amendment #15
--- (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) ---
13 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kelly, James
11 = 2 - 2 - 3 - 0 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Bury, William Henry
11 = 2 - 1 - 4 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Deeming, Frederick Bailey ^
10 = 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 : Grainger, William Grant
09 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Cutbush, Thomas Hayne
09 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Hyams, Hyam
09 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Puckridge, Oswald
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Kosminski, Aaron (Aron Mordke Kozminski)
08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Lechmere, George Capel Scudamore
08 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Barnado, Thomas John
08 = 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Pizer, John (Leather Apron)
07 = 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 : Tumblety, Francis
07 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 : Smith, G. Wentworth Bell
07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cohen, David
07 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 : Kidney, Michael
06 = 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Chapman, George (Severin Antonowicz Kłosowski) *
06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 : Thompson, Francis
06 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Levy, Jacob
05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Druitt, Montague John
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Barnett, Joseph
05 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 : Stephenson, Robert Donston (or Roslyn D'Onston)
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Sutton, Henry Gawen
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Buchan, Edward
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Williams, Dr. John
05 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Craig, Francis Spurzheim
04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Stephen, James Kenneth
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Bachert, Albert
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Cross, Charles (Charles Allen Lechmere)
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hardiman, James
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Hutchinson, George
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Mann, Robert
04 = 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 : Maybrick, James
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Le Grand, Charles
04 = 2 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 : Maybrick, Michael
04 = 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 : Gull, Sir William Withey
03 = 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 : Sickert, Walter Richard
Legend:
(A) Age/physical health
. . . 2 = no issue
. . . 1 = issues creating doubt
(B) Location/access to murder sites
. . . 2 = no issues
. . . 1 = reasonable travel
. . . 0 = serious doubt
(C) Violence
. . . 4 = killed woman (non-relative) with knife
. . . 3 = killed female relative with knife
. . . 2 = violence with a knife
. . . 1 = violence without a knife
. . . 0 = no known violence
(D) Mental health issues
. . . 2 = serious/violent
. . . 1 = other
. . . 0 = none known
(E) Police interest
. . . 2 = at the time (without exoneration)
. . . 1 = later (within 10 yrs and without exoneration)
. . . 0 = none known or not serious
(F) Hatred/dislike of women/prostitutes
. . . 2 = yes
. . . 1 = link to prostitutes
. . . 0 = none known
(G) Medical/anatomical knowledge (inc. animals)
. . . 1 = yes
. . . 0 = none known
(H) Alcohol/drug issue
. . . 1 = yes
. . . 0 = none known
^ means that a suspect has moved up the table after the latest amendment
* means that a suspect has moved down the table after the latest amendment
Changes
Changed Chapman’s (E) to 0 and I’ve added 1 for Deeming in (D) and 1 for (E) after George’s suggestion. We also now have only one Thompson (spotted by George)
I think the the duplications that have occurred have been down to careless cutting and pasting on my part. Feel free everyone to point out any future errors.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
hi george
Deeming was a police suspect in 1892? can you please provide more detail? thanks!!
It was displayed for years along with the title "Jack the Ripper"
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
Hi Herlock,
On the subject of Deeming, the following is an extract from John Godl's Casebook dissertation:
Born in Birkenhead, Cheshire on 30 July 1853? Deeming seems to have always lived his life on the fringes of sanity, the youngest of seven children he was known in youth as "Mad Fred" due to his abnormal behaviour. Stemming, perhaps, from the savage beatings meted out by his tinsmith father. Who died insane in a workhouse, having attempted suicide on four occasions by slashing his throat. By all accounts Deeming had a stifling relationship with his Sunday school teacher mother, who instilled her puritanical interpretation of the scriptures in him. Deeming carried a bible with him on all his travels, and was obsessed with concepts of sin and punishment. Her death in 1875 came as a crashing blow and he suffered a mental breakdown, and later claimed her spirit compelled him to kill.
I'm wondering if this, and the fact that he is known to have murdered at least two wives and all of his children, should qualify him for a rating in category (D), Mental Health Issues, above "none known"?
Cheers, George
My apologies for the slow response. I’d say that with an actual mention of a breakdown you’re right to suggest at least some recognition of this in the (D) section. I’ll make the adjustment at the next amendment.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
Hi Herlock,
You appear to have a double listing for Francis Thompson.
With regard to category (E), Chapman did not come to Abberline's attention as a ripper suspect until 1902, whereas Deeming came to police attention as a possible ripper suspect in 1892 resulting in his death mask being displayed by Scotland Yard as the face of the ripper.
Cheers, George
Deeming was a police suspect in 1892? can you please provide more detail? thanks!!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
All things considered though you'd have to be an idiot to not regard Bury as one of the top suspects.
He would and should IMO be considered in the top 10 suspects without question.
Considering there are well over a hundred suspects; I'd say making the top 10 is exceptional.
Deeming
Kelly
Klosowski (Chapman)
Bury
These men; on paper at least, should fit within the top 10 most likely Ripper suspects.
I would suggest that the likes of Kosminski and Druitt fall short of that grade.
We then have Lechmere and Maybrick the populist choice, who again fall short of the mark.
Subjectively speaking of course
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
I agree George.
Deeming was a very disturbed individual indeed and his childhood experiences were a driving factor for this.
With Deeming, it has always been about Geographics.
If he was even shown to have been in London in the Autumn of 1888, then IMO he would arguably jump up to become the prime suspect.
Unlike Bury, he was proven to have murdered multiple people.
As things stand...
Bury was a wife killer.
Deeming was a serial killer.
A person would need to have murdered at least 3 different individuals on at least 2 separate occasions and locations, to be considered a "Serial Killer."
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
Hi Herlock,
On the subject of Deeming, the following is an extract from John Godl's Casebook dissertation:
Born in Birkenhead, Cheshire on 30 July 1853? Deeming seems to have always lived his life on the fringes of sanity, the youngest of seven children he was known in youth as "Mad Fred" due to his abnormal behaviour. Stemming, perhaps, from the savage beatings meted out by his tinsmith father. Who died insane in a workhouse, having attempted suicide on four occasions by slashing his throat. By all accounts Deeming had a stifling relationship with his Sunday school teacher mother, who instilled her puritanical interpretation of the scriptures in him. Deeming carried a bible with him on all his travels, and was obsessed with concepts of sin and punishment. Her death in 1875 came as a crashing blow and he suffered a mental breakdown, and later claimed her spirit compelled him to kill.
I'm wondering if this, and the fact that he is known to have murdered at least two wives and all of his children, should qualify him for a rating in category (D), Mental Health Issues, above "none known"?
Cheers, George
Deeming was a very disturbed individual indeed and his childhood experiences were a driving factor for this.
With Deeming, it has always been about Geographics.
If he was even shown to have been in London in the Autumn of 1888, then IMO he would arguably jump up to become the prime suspect.
Unlike Bury, he was proven to have murdered multiple people.
As things stand...
Bury was a wife killer.
Deeming was a serial killer.
A person would need to have murdered at least 3 different individuals on at least 2 separate occasions and locations, to be considered a "Serial Killer."
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View PostHello George,
Fair points on Chapman and Deeming. I’ll do an amendment tomorrow along with the Thompson thing.
On the subject of Deeming, the following is an extract from John Godl's Casebook dissertation:
Born in Birkenhead, Cheshire on 30 July 1853? Deeming seems to have always lived his life on the fringes of sanity, the youngest of seven children he was known in youth as "Mad Fred" due to his abnormal behaviour. Stemming, perhaps, from the savage beatings meted out by his tinsmith father. Who died insane in a workhouse, having attempted suicide on four occasions by slashing his throat. By all accounts Deeming had a stifling relationship with his Sunday school teacher mother, who instilled her puritanical interpretation of the scriptures in him. Deeming carried a bible with him on all his travels, and was obsessed with concepts of sin and punishment. Her death in 1875 came as a crashing blow and he suffered a mental breakdown, and later claimed her spirit compelled him to kill.
I'm wondering if this, and the fact that he is known to have murdered at least two wives and all of his children, should qualify him for a rating in category (D), Mental Health Issues, above "none known"?
Cheers, George
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View PostI’ve also been checking the ratings for Kosminski and Cohen after comments from Lewis.
D - Kosminski (2) Cohen (1) - It was a question of whether I put them both at 2 or 1? Kosminski apparently attacked his sister-in-law but was this just a one off and was it connected to his mental health (a man can attack a woman without it being as a result of a mental illness?) Cohen only became violent after his confinement. I’ll award 2 points each.
E - Kosminski (1) Cohen (0) which seems fair to me. We cannot be certain that Cohen/Kosminski were one and the same. We can’t assume that a theory is correct. I don’t think that it would be right to alter the rating in accordance with a theory.
F - I don’t know why I’ve given Cohen a 1 here? Reading back I see no link to prostitutes so I’m removing the point - obviously if someone can refresh my memory as to why the point should remain I’ll reinstate it.
This still leaves them as they were in terms of overall score as I can’t see any other criteria that needs changing.
We can't assume that a that a theory is correct, but David Cohen and Aaron Kosminsky are in the same boat in that regard. The idea that Aaron Kosminsky was Anderson's suspect is a theory, just as the idea that Cohen was his suspect is a theory. So if we can't assume that a theory is correct, then Aaron wouldn't get a point in column E, for the same reason that Cohen doesn't get a point.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: