Was Johnny Gill a Ripper Victim

[etenguy]

I don't know how to link to posts in other threads, I hope reproducing them is not bad form, but I will put a full reference. A post I found on the John Gill thread by Archaic (post#25 on that thread) included the below

I looked back over my notes on this case, and the police viewed the murder of John Gill as possibly linked to the Whitechapel Murders because the boy was not only eviscerated, but also sexually mutilated.

Details seem to have been so awful they were hushed up, but the child's entire scrotum was excised. (I don't know if it was left with the corpse or not. Some of the excised pieces, such as the child's right ear, were discovered shoved into his chest cavity.)

Because of the bizarre nature of this crime, the London Police sent their surgeon Dr. George Bagster Phillips up to Bradford to inspect the corpse. He concluded that the crimes were probably linked.

This is the first time I have seen it suggested that Phillips thought the crimes were linked.

Edit - Archaic later cites the source, A book about the Brontes, but this book did not make their source known, so we should probably treat it with scepticism.

[etenguy]

A useful description I found posted by Ausgirl in a thread entitled Was John Gill a Copy-Cat Murder

Yep. Here's a description I wrote recently for a Reddit article:

John’s body was left face-down. It was completely drained of blood, and horribly mutilated. One ear was cut off, and seemed to be missing. Both the boy’s legs had been hacked off at the thighs (later reports would say this seemed expertly done, but it probably wasn’t), and were placed beside the upper part of his torso. Two stab wounds to the chest from a large knife were deemed sufficient to have “killed an elephant” and thought to be the immediate cause of death. There was no injury at all to his face, and his throat had not been cut across, but a deep vertical slash began at the top of the throat, continuing down to the lower abdomen. John’s heart had been cut out and then tucked neatly under his chin. Sections of intestine were also removed, and these had been draped about his head and shoulders. The abdominal cavity was so clean that it appeared to have been washed out. Inside it, among other things (Including John’s boots), were the missing ear and a severed lung. There was also severe genital mutilation; the entire scrotum had been cut away and like several other organs was nowhere to be found.

There seems to be no clear estimated time of death, but it was thought he’d died less than 24 hours before the body was discovered.
This is from the police report:

There were two stabs in the chest, which included the area filled by the heart, but the stabs did not touch it. All the blood-vessels were cut through, but the vessel which had been stabbed in two was the aorta. There were certain parts of the body missing – a part of the iliac bone, part of the pubic bone on the left hand side, and the fleshy attachments. The knife shown to him by the police would glide into the wound on the chest, and any other knife of the same size would do the same. In his opinion the boy was not murdered where the remains were found. Death would practically be instantaneous, because of the division of the larger blood vessels of the chest. He was of the opinion that the mutilations took place after death. The body was bloodless; it had the appearance of having been washed externally and internally, and then allowed to dry or drain. The mutations could not have been effected with one instrument; there must have been used a sharp strong knife, well tempered, and perhaps with a point; force would be required to sever some of the parts, such as could be applied by a mallet or hammer being struck at the back of the knife blade. There was no blood on the boy’s clothing, except that his collar was saturated with blood. A peculiarity about the collar was the blood seemed to be much more moist than the body. On the lining of the cap was coagulated blood.

---

There's conflicting reports about whether one or both ears were severed, and where his boots were found. Best as I can tell from focussing on the earliest reports I could find, it was one ear and his boots were partly shoved into his abdominal cavity.

I don't think this was the Ripper, at all. The Ripper never washed a body... or wrapped it up or moved it.

I think this was pedophile, covering his tracks.

Last edited by Ausgirl; 04-22-2016, 04:45 PM

.

Ausgirl also pointed to a link to another thread entitled John Gill which she states is useful. Working my way through that thread (11 pages) for information too.

[etenguy]

Crikey, can you read that article? I'll have to dig out my magnifying glass and give it another try.

It took me a while, but I can make most of it out. I did not find a time of death, the nearest I could find was the boy had been killed some time before being found. The mutilations to the body were awful and included a cut from the chin to below the waist and the intestines had been placed over the boys shoulder. Organs had been removed but all were recovered, one lung being the last. It may have been a copy cat to make it seem like the ripper, or it may have been the ripper. The police believe it was not the ripper but their reason (quoted in the article) is far from convincing (that the murderer knew the area and therefore was not the ripper). However, Phillips also said it was not the ripper, but I have not found any quote about the reasons he thought that.

So far, it seems unlikely it was the ripper - the only itch at the back of my head is how the murder fits the timing pattern for C5 murders precisely - just a coincidence - maybe the whole timing pattern is coincidence. But having found a pattern and then used it to predict when the next murder would be due and then finding a potential ripper victim at that time, I am struggling to simply dismiss the possibility without at least exploring it in depth.

[Joshua Rogan]

you can find a quote in the article posted by Dr Strange (#26) earlier in this thread (useful article and has a lot of useful Information)

Crikey, can you read that article? I'll have to dig out my magnifying glass and give it another try.

[etenguy]

Hello etenguy,

No offence but do you have a more legit source? Factual fiction obviously takes creative liberties and the author may have inserted Dr Phillips into the story to jazz it up.

Hi Harry

Although the article is about the factional book, I believe the quote is not from the book. However, there are quite a few references, you can find a quote in the article posted by Dr Strange (#26) earlier in this thread (useful article and has a lot of useful information), but I see Joshua Rogan has also posted a quote at #112 from the Times.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hello etenguy,

No offence but do you have a more legit source? Factual fiction obviously takes creative liberties and the author may have inserted Dr Phillips into the story to jazz it up.

Se post #112

[Harry D]

I have seen a number of references to Dr Phillips visit. There is a reference at the following link https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co....rian-bradford/ from an article in the Telegraph and Argus. The article concerns a fictionalised factual book on the murder. The specific paragraph to save you wading through is reproduced below.

Hello etenguy,

No offence but do you have a more legit source? Factual fiction obviously takes creative liberties and the author may have inserted Dr Phillips into the story to jazz it up.

[Fisherman]

Well, here's where we get to body disposition theory. How a killer deal with a corpse. They are Body hoarders, body disposers, and body abandoners. Each helps determine a killers psychology and to a certain extent, behavior. The rarest of all is the body abandoner. So of course Jack is that. They have no relationship to the corpse, so they literally just walk away. Don't even make the slightest effort to move or conceal their victims. Killers who do this do not think of display, or shame, or even forensic security. It's done, end of story. Now, Jack may have had a relationship with what he took from the corpses, but those things never showed up (for certain) for public display. The Torso killer is a Body Dumper. They are cognizant of display, shame, forensic security, etc. They have a relationship with the body, either as a potential forensic trap or a tool to be used. They will dump a body to make a statement. They don't always dump a body to make a display, but those who do make a display are body disposers.

In essence, any violent crime is act of cruelty on any who witness it. On many levels. But the defining characteristic of a terrorist attack is that it intends to strike terror. It doesn't do accidentally. Body Abandoners don't intend anything towards those who see their crimes. Given the amount of psychotics in this category, its unclear they even think past the commission of the crime at all. Body Dumpers by definition think a lot about an outsiders gaze on their work, and they seek either to obscure that gaze or enhance it. Hide the crime, or display it.

But there are very clear indications that the Ripper did not just leave his bodies behind - he seems to have posed them. And that is most clear in the Kelly case, with the pillow, the arm over the abdomen etcetera. Ergo, just as there may have been an intention to strike fear into people by dumping the body parts on behalf of the torso killer, there may have been the same intention on behalf of the Ripper. We should also weigh in that a killer who dismembers a body in a space linked to himself MUST get rid of the parts and dump them elsewhere, or he will get caught.

Sorry, but I do not buy your reasoning other than on a purely theoretical level. Practically, there is no proven reason to tell our two series apart. If anything, it may be very misleading.

[Errata]

Oh god the muscle relaxers are killing me

what I meant to essentially express is that you can sort serial killers by any number of ways. Motive, weapons, sex, organization, height if you really wanted to. This is just another category to sort into. If you take every serial killer you know, and divide them into one of those three categories of body disposition, the killers in each column will share certain traits. And the idea is that those traits or as useful in identifying a serial killer as any other trait. Not my idea, by any means. But a good one I think in general. Though problematic for this usage.

[Errata]

is the body disposer of your third sentance the same as your body dumper in the rest of your post?
and where did you find these categories?

Yes they are the same.

I got this theory from a book. What book, I would give anything to remember. It was a book on serial killers, with a bit that illustrated a new way of sorting serial killers by what they do with the corpses of their victims. And then they laid out the case for there being three categories, body disposers, body abandoner’s, and body hoarders. And how a killer deals with the body is a good part of the behavior that we look at anyway. So it seemed like a logical theory to introduce into this forum awhile back, But as it is not my theory, it should be properly cited and I’m not in a position to do that. It was unfair of me to bring it up again, but I’m recovering from spine surgery and just plain forgot I meant to not bring it up again. Mea Culpa.

If my Google fu is strong, someday I’ll find it and correctly attribute it. In the mean time it’s probably best to forget it.

[Abby Normal]

Well, here's where we get to body disposition theory. How a killer deal with a corpse. They are Body hoarders, body disposers, and body abandoners. Each helps determine a killers psychology and to a certain extent, behavior. The rarest of all is the body abandoner. So of course Jack is that. They have no relationship to the corpse, so they literally just walk away. Don't even make the slightest effort to move or conceal their victims. Killers who do this do not think of display, or shame, or even forensic security. It's done, end of story. Now, Jack may have had a relationship with what he took from the corpses, but those things never showed up (for certain) for public display. The Torso killer is a Body Dumper. They are cognizant of display, shame, forensic security, etc. They have a relationship with the body, either as a potential forensic trap or a tool to be used. They will dump a body to make a statement. They don't always dump a body to make a display, but those who do make a display are body disposers.

In essence, any violent crime is act of cruelty on any who witness it. On many levels. But the defining characteristic of a terrorist attack is that it intends to strike terror. It doesn't do accidentally. Body Abandoners don't intend anything towards those who see their crimes. Given the amount of psychotics in this category, its unclear they even think past the commission of the crime at all. Body Dumpers by definition think a lot about an outsiders gaze on their work, and they seek either to obscure that gaze or enhance it. Hide the crime, or display it.

is the body disposer of your third sentance the same as your body dumper in the rest of your post?
and where did you find these categories?

[Errata]

Regardless if the audience is limited of being in a room, surely the implications must be the exact same? ANY viewer subjected to the sight of a Ripper victim or a leg washed ashore from the Thames water must be victims of sadism, if we are to go on your definition. There were some torso victim parts that were seen by the fewest as well.

Well, here's where we get to body disposition theory. How a killer deal with a corpse. They are Body hoarders, body disposers, and body abandoners. Each helps determine a killers psychology and to a certain extent, behavior. The rarest of all is the body abandoner. So of course Jack is that. They have no relationship to the corpse, so they literally just walk away. Don't even make the slightest effort to move or conceal their victims. Killers who do this do not think of display, or shame, or even forensic security. It's done, end of story. Now, Jack may have had a relationship with what he took from the corpses, but those things never showed up (for certain) for public display. The Torso killer is a Body Dumper. They are cognizant of display, shame, forensic security, etc. They have a relationship with the body, either as a potential forensic trap or a tool to be used. They will dump a body to make a statement. They don't always dump a body to make a display, but those who do make a display are body disposers.

In essence, any violent crime is act of cruelty on any who witness it. On many levels. But the defining characteristic of a terrorist attack is that it intends to strike terror. It doesn't do accidentally. Body Abandoners don't intend anything towards those who see their crimes. Given the amount of psychotics in this category, its unclear they even think past the commission of the crime at all. Body Dumpers by definition think a lot about an outsiders gaze on their work, and they seek either to obscure that gaze or enhance it. Hide the crime, or display it.

[Fisherman]

i tell myself that the audience is limited by it being in a room. But honestly, I question Mary Kelly’s inclusion in the C5. Not for any good reason. Just my gut sticking it’s nose where it doesn’t belong.

Regardless if the audience is limited of being in a room, surely the implications must be the exact same? ANY viewer subjected to the sight of a Ripper victim or a leg washed ashore from the Thames water must be victims of sadism, if we are to go on your definition. There were some torso victim parts that were seen by the fewest as well.

[Errata]

In case I missed an important point: why is it sadistic to terrify by way of floating parts down a river for people to find, but not by way of presenting Kellys remains to the world the way it was done?

i tell myself that the audience is limited by it being in a room. But honestly, I question Mary Kelly’s inclusion in the C5. Not for any good reason. Just my gut sticking it’s nose where it doesn’t belong.

[Joshua Rogan]

Times 4 Jan 1889;

"On Wednesday, while the charge on suspicion against the prisoner Barrett was proceeding before the magistrates, a visit was paid to Bradford by Mr. Phillips, the police surgeon for the Whitechapel division of London, for the purpose of obtaining information and comparing notes between the Whitechapel and Bradford tragedies. In company with Dr. Lodge, jun., Dr. Major, and Mr. Miall he visited the corporation mortuary and was afterwards engaged for several hours in an examination of the remains of the murdered boy Gill. Mr. Phillips afterwards visited the stable at Belle Vue, where the murder is supposed to have been committed. Mr. Phillips, it is stated, expressed his conviction that the Bradford murder had no connexion whatever with the series of fiendish crimes which have recently occurred on the East end of London, and that there was apparently reasonable ground for the theory the Bradford police authorities entertain in reference to the motive for the crime."