Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Johnny Gill a Ripper Victim

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

    There we probably five or six active at the same time. Only the other made the effort to conceal/dispose of the bodies of their victims. I would imagine there were some that were far more prolific in terms of numbers, who for whatever reason were never investigated by the police or targeted people who were not missed.

    Tristan
    Hi Tristan

    Much has been made in other threads of the rare occurence of mutilators. Surely violent people and severe violence was not rare in victorian England, but people who mutilate to this extent must (hopefully) be quite rare.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by etenguy View Post

      Thanks Michael - Does the pattern of timings for JtR attacks influence you in any way?
      I saw your earlier posts on the time lapses between killings, for me, whether this boy was killed on a weekend or day connected to the weekend might be more revealing about the habits of this Jack fellow. I believe its too coincidental that the Canonical Victims all followed that same pattern.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        I saw your earlier posts on the time lapses between killings, for me, whether this boy was killed on a weekend or day connected to the weekend might be more revealing about the habits of this Jack fellow. I believe its too coincidental that the Canonical Victims all followed that same pattern.
        His body was found at just after 7.30 on a Saturday morning, but the boy went missing on Thursday. I'm struggling to find an estimate of the date/time of death. It would appear the poor lad was murdered elsewhere and his body transferred to where it was found, so the murderer either killed him earlier but did not want him found until Saturday, or the body was transferred not long after being killed. I don't know yet - hopefully more information is within the article dr strange posted.

        I'm not sure what you mean by 'it's too coincidental' - does that imply you think it was a deliberate pattern? Whatever is concluded about John Gill, I wonder if the pattern helps to point to a suspect - were there jobs that followed a similar pattern of time off for example?

        Comment


        • #34
          I think that something prevented him, or them, from committing murders on Mon, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and that the fact they are all done at night is also likely related to that "something". I should add that for me the actual Rippers' tally is 2, perhaps 3, so I don't lump all of these murders under the same blanket, nor can they all be explained with "one sweep of the knife".
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            I think that something prevented him, or them, from committing murders on Mon, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and that the fact they are all done at night is also likely related to that "something". I should add that for me the actual Rippers' tally is 2, perhaps 3, so I don't lump all of these murders under the same blanket, nor can they all be explained with "one sweep of the knife".
            Cheers Michael - I guess if you don't go with the C5 the pattern is meaningless.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              Ive always felt this murder was one of 2 things....the killer of Whitechapel working out of town, or proof positive that at least 2 men capable of soulless violent acts were around at the same period in time. I lean towards the second.
              The packaging of the corpse and the boots are somewhat reminiscent of the Torso Killer I think.
              The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                Hi Tristan

                Much has been made in other threads of the rare occurence of mutilators. Surely violent people and severe violence was not rare in victorian England, but people who mutilate to this extent must (hopefully) be quite rare.
                I think you are probably right. However it is possible that more of this kind of thing went on, but went on undetected. I wonder how many street kids or prostitutes just disappeared back then? We will never know.

                If the ripper had been able to dispose of the bodies of his victims, he could have been carrying on for years, without anyone knowing a thing.

                Tristan

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                  Cheers Michael - I guess if you don't go with the C5 the pattern is meaningless.
                  The Canonical Group is an assumed list of victims by Jack the Ripper, they have never all been linked by killer with any evidence, nor do we have any established links of one to another within the known evidence. Its a guess. Some contemporaries also guessed Martha was on the list. Some modern students think more victims should be linked under that same umbrella, presumably because they feel that we have evidence a mad killer was at large killing randomly. I don't see that myself. I see a sick individual having some issue/fantasies about women and cutting into the female anatomy and finally freeing those demons twice within 2 weeks. I have my ideas about who that may be, but he is institutionalized before the Double Event. That's why I stay on the fence about Kate. She has many of the signs, but lacks the focus I feel is present in the first and second killings.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Errata View Post

                    The packaging of the corpse and the boots are somewhat reminiscent of the Torso Killer I think.
                    Some believe the torso killer and the ripper are one in the same. I am not one of those, but I believe the theory is gaining ground.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
                      I think you are probably right. However it is possible that more of this kind of thing went on, but went on undetected. I wonder how many street kids or prostitutes just disappeared back then? We will never know.

                      If the ripper had been able to dispose of the bodies of his victims, he could have been carrying on for years, without anyone knowing a thing.

                      Tristan
                      That's an unedifying thought, though probably correct.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                        Some believe the torso killer and the ripper are one in the same. I am not one of those, but I believe the theory is gaining ground.
                        Iím all for the idea that serial killers can change. Of course they can. But I donít buy that a: a killer suddenly becomes a sadist where he previously had not been one b: a killer so devoted to displaying his work suddenly starts hiding it. It certainly makes logical sense to do either, especially the second. But thatís just not how the brain works. You canít catch sadism like itís a cold. And you donít suddenly become shy after being an exhibitionist just because its the logical thing to do. Plus there is a very twisted sense of humor to both the torso killings and Johnny Gill that is lacking in the Ripper killings.
                        The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Errata View Post

                          Iím all for the idea that serial killers can change. Of course they can. But I donít buy that a: a killer suddenly becomes a sadist where he previously had not been one b: a killer so devoted to displaying his work suddenly starts hiding it. It certainly makes logical sense to do either, especially the second. But thatís just not how the brain works. You canít catch sadism like itís a cold. And you donít suddenly become shy after being an exhibitionist just because its the logical thing to do. Plus there is a very twisted sense of humor to both the torso killings and Johnny Gill that is lacking in the Ripper killings.
                          Hello Errata,

                          Where do you detect sadism in the Torso Murders?

                          Also, the Torso killer didn't hide all of the body parts. Dumping some in the new police HQ, Shelley estate, the Pinchin railway arch would suggest he wanted them to be found.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                            Hi Tristan

                            Much has been made in other threads of the rare occurence of mutilators. Surely violent people and severe violence was not rare in victorian England, but people who mutilate to this extent must (hopefully) be quite rare.
                            Iím one of those people who made a similar argument a few years ago. Due to an astonishing amount of free time I read Murderpedia looking for a Ripper analog. I donít recommend doing that, I say with 20/20 hindsight. But I did find that mutilation is not rare. Itís not common, but it typically runs to type. Sexual sadists tend to be the mutilators. And biters. And frenzy stabbers. The other type that mutilates is hit men, as a forensic countermeasure. I think I can make a pretty good case that Jack the Ripper was not a sexual sadist. I think I can also make a pretty good case that the torso killer was a sexual sadist. I think if we are going to link Johnny Gill to either killer, or even to a type of killer, we need to know if he was raped. Or molested prior to his murder. And wether or not any of his injuries were antemortem.
                            The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Errata View Post

                              Iím one of those people who made a similar argument a few years ago. Due to an astonishing amount of free time I read Murderpedia looking for a Ripper analog. I donít recommend doing that, I say with 20/20 hindsight. But I did find that mutilation is not rare. Itís not common, but it typically runs to type. Sexual sadists tend to be the mutilators. And biters. And frenzy stabbers. The other type that mutilates is hit men, as a forensic countermeasure. I think I can make a pretty good case that Jack the Ripper was not a sexual sadist. I think I can also make a pretty good case that the torso killer was a sexual sadist. I think if we are going to link Johnny Gill to either killer, or even to a type of killer, we need to know if he was raped. Or molested prior to his murder. And wether or not any of his injuries were antemortem.
                              I think your right Errata but could you please make the case for Jack not being a sexual sadist and that the torso killer was a sexual sadist. I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say. Cheers John

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Errata View Post

                                Iím all for the idea that serial killers can change. Of course they can. But I donít buy that a: a killer suddenly becomes a sadist where he previously had not been one b: a killer so devoted to displaying his work suddenly starts hiding it. It certainly makes logical sense to do either, especially the second. But thatís just not how the brain works. You canít catch sadism like itís a cold. And you donít suddenly become shy after being an exhibitionist just because its the logical thing to do. Plus there is a very twisted sense of humor to both the torso killings and Johnny Gill that is lacking in the Ripper killings.
                                hi errata
                                there is no evidence of sadism with the torsos. they were cut up soon after death. no evidence of torture of any kind. amd imho torsoman made no real attempts to hide ..the dumpings becoming more bizarre and public as the series progressed.
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X