Was Johnny Gill a Ripper Victim

[etenguy]

Hello etenguy,

Do you have a source for that? I know Dr Phillips was called to examine Jane Beatmore, but I don't remember reading that about Johnny Gill.

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.

Doctor Lodge had one more visitor that day, a Doctor Phillips, who had travelled all the way up from London. He was the divisional surgeon from Whitechapel where equally hideous murders had taken place of late, involving several prostitutes. He had come to Bradford, at the request of Chief Constable James Withers, to find out if the murder of John Gill could be linked in any way to the murders in London done by the hand of Jack the Ripper.’

That's correct, Nilson's victimology didn't deviate as wildly as this. From targeting middle-aged female prostitutes in London to a seven year-old boy up north? Hmmm, not saying it couldn't happen but I don't think it's our man.

Quite right, Harry. But there are other examples, most I have come across are serial killers of women who also include one or more child victims. A couple of other examples are Michael McGray, John Christie and Robert Napper.

[Harry D]

Hey Harry

The mutilations were sufficiently similar to ripper victims that the locals called Dr Philips to check whether he thought it was a murder by the same hand. He did not think it was the same murderer but that is one opinion.

Hello etenguy,

Do you have a source for that? I know Dr Phillips was called to examine Jane Beatmore, but I don't remember reading that about Johnny Gill.

The change in victimology (age and gender) is odd, but other serial killers have also included children in their murder spree, eg Dennis Nilsen, though it was not such a change in his victimology as this one.

That's correct, Nilson's victimology didn't deviate as wildly as this. From targeting middle-aged female prostitutes in London to a seven year-old boy up north? Hmmm, not saying it couldn't happen but I don't think it's our man.

[Fisherman]

So it's not a completely tidy "Jack is this, Torso Killer is that". But this is my thinking. There is so much damage to the Torso Killings that the medicos of the era had no way of knowing what injuries were perimortem and which were postmortem. In the case of Liz Jackson there are several arguments that her abdominal wounds were tied to an illegal abortion, which I think is incorrect, but does mean the wounds were perimortem. Such damage means we cannot say that the killer is or is not a sadist with and surety. But if we look at the method of disposal of the bodies, we know he is a sadist. in this case he is feeding off the fear, disgust, and trauma of encountering a body part out in the open. Sending a fetus down the Thames in a jar is either the act of a slavering madman (which makes it ludicrously tough to carry out murders) or he's a sadist.

Now the Ripper left his victims out as well. He left them where he killed them. He did not transport to a spot with the highest chance of impact. So in the opposite of the Torso Killer, We can't tell whether or not Jack is a sadist based on where he left the bodies. So we look at the murders themselves to see if there are signs of sadism. No one heard a woman screaming in pain. None of these women fought. None of the them disturbed the ground on which they lay. He had the opportunity to torture these women even before he touched them. He did not take that time. Did not attempt to take that time. Even Mary Kelly did not show signs of extended extreme fear. Nor did he engage in the frenzied stabbing typically seen as an alternate to the sexual act. Whatever Jack's deal, it wasn't sadism.

So we can't tell by the Torso Killers corpses whether or not he got off on pain, we can tell by the behavior after the murder. We can't tell by the behavior after the murder if Jack is a sadist, but we can tell by the corpses that he was not. I also tend to think Jack's deal wasn't sexual, but thats another fight for another day.

Only just saw this. You apparently claim that the method of disposal used by the Torso killer tells us that he was a sadist? And you exemplify with the glass jar with a foetus inside it found in the Thames - but that jar was apparently written off by the police as not belonging to the torso murders.

It would seem that the kind of sadism you propose was one that did not express itself in physical damage done to the victims in the torso series. There were no burn marks, crush damages and such things implicating that the torso victims suffered physical torture. In the case of the 1873 torso, it was suggested that the body could have been cut up while the victim was still alive, on account of the muscle contraction in the body parts. But that suggestion is to my mind effectively demolished by how it was found that there was not a drop of blood in the veins of the victim. It was apparent that she had been drained of her blood before being cut up, therefore, and consequentially, she was dead at this stage. The blows to her right temple may well have been what finished her off, and if so, the pattern that emerges is a straightforward one: Whacked over the head and killed, strung up and bled from the neck, cut down and dismembered, all in a matter of less than half an hour. Somewhere along these lines, the face and scalp were also removed in a ghoulish mask.

The kind of sadism you propose is one where there was an intention on behalf of the killer to terrify the ones who found the body. If this was so, then how is there no such intention present in the Kelly case? She was posed in her bed, with a pillow made up by her own uterus, her kidneys and a breast, and her buttocks and parts of her abdomen were left on the bedside table. It was witnessed about by those who saw the body that they counted on being haunted by the sight for the rest of their days.

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?

[Fisherman]

Hips and shoulders are sort of strapped on, the strongest (toughest) ligaments are on the outside. Once you get through those you can sort of crack the joint open and cut the rest. Elbows are sort of slotted, and knees have some of the strongest internal and external ligaments on the body. Once you cut the external “sleeve” there’s still a lot of tough stuff to go through. And It’s all small and you can’t see it and the ligaments might have tightened up.

Not it that I have personal experience with this, but I’ve seen animals rendered, and it’s much the same.

All great stuff but for the passage where you hasten to add that you have no personal experience in the field. Being to my mind uncalled for, it unnerved me ever so slightly.

Nah, just kiddinŽ, Errata - many thanks for this. It fills a gap for me (he said, trying to unnerve her).

[Errata]

I'd hate to know what your search history looks like

Lord, and it was strange before I got here. I worked renaissance festivals for 15 years. So googling “ how to blow fire out of your nose” was a three week search.

[etenguy]

Hips and shoulders are sort of strapped on, the strongest (toughest) ligaments are on the outside. Once you get through those you can sort of crack the joint open and cut the rest. Elbows are sort of slotted, and knees have some of the strongest internal and external ligaments on the body. Once you cut the external “sleeve” there’s still a lot of tough stuff to go through. And It’s all small and you can’t see it and the ligaments might have tightened up.

Not it that I have personal experience with this, but I’ve seen animals rendered, and it’s much the same.

I'd hate to know what your search history looks like

[Errata]

Ah, that is what is said in the Lancet too: the elbow and knee joints are more fiddly to disarticulate than the joints at the hips and shoulders. So you can confirm this, it would seem? Can you explain why, perhaps?

Hips and shoulders are sort of strapped on, the strongest (toughest) ligaments are on the outside. Once you get through those you can sort of crack the joint open and cut the rest. Elbows are sort of slotted, and knees have some of the strongest internal and external ligaments on the body. Once you cut the external “sleeve” there’s still a lot of tough stuff to go through. And It’s all small and you can’t see it and the ligaments might have tightened up.

Not it that I have personal experience with this, but I’ve seen animals rendered, and it’s much the same.

[Fisherman]

Yeah assuming all the disarticulation was done at the ball and socket joints, a knife can deal with that relatively (very relatively) quickly. Knees and elbows are a little more finicky, definitely quicker to saw through. And Johnny Gill was found soon enough after going missing that speed was a factor in his dismemberment.

Ah, that is what is said in the Lancet too: the elbow and knee joints are more fiddly to disarticulate than the joints at the hips and shoulders. So you can confirm this, it would seem? Can you explain why, perhaps?

[Errata]

Or even whether a saw was used at all?

Yeah assuming all the disarticulation was done at the ball and socket joints, a knife can deal with that relatively (very relatively) quickly. Knees and elbows are a little more finicky, definitely quicker to saw through. And Johnny Gill was found soon enough after going missing that speed was a factor in his dismemberment.

[etenguy]

Or even whether a saw was used at all?

I have not seen a report prepared by Philips, don't know if he wrote one even, but he did reach a conclusion that was shared.

[Joshua Rogan]

I don’t suppose Philips gave an opinion on the kind of saw used?

Or even whether a saw was used at all?

[Errata]

Hey Harry

The mutilations were sufficiently similar to ripper victims that the locals called Dr Philips to check whether he thought it was a murder by the same hand. He did not think it was the same murderer but that is one opinion. Of course, a young boy may lead the murderer to a different but linked approach than with adult women (if it was the same killer).

Why Bradford would have a ripper murder is open to speculation, but it could be the murderer's family home perhaps and he moved back.

The change in victimology (age and gender) is odd, but other serial killers have also included children in their murder spree, eg Dennis Nilsen, though it was not such a change in his victimology as this one.

The timing of the murder fits exactly with the pattern found in the timings of the C5 murders (see above post), but may be just coincidence.

Chances are the murders are not linked - but it would be good to establish one way or the other. It is not so implausible that they might be.

I don’t suppose Philips gave an opinion on the kind of saw used?

[etenguy]

Not sure what reason there is to consider Johnny Gill. It was a murder in the opposite end of the country with a different victimology. If the Whitechapel murderer had a thing for kids, I'm sure there were dozens of street-urchins he could've preyed on in the East End.

Hey Harry

The mutilations were sufficiently similar to ripper victims that the locals called Dr Philips to check whether he thought it was a murder by the same hand. He did not think it was the same murderer but that is one opinion. Of course, a young boy may lead the murderer to a different but linked approach than with adult women (if it was the same killer).

Why Bradford would have a ripper murder is open to speculation, but it could be the murderer's family home perhaps and he moved back.

The change in victimology (age and gender) is odd, but other serial killers have also included children in their murder spree, eg Dennis Nilsen, though it was not such a change in his victimology as this one.

The timing of the murder fits exactly with the pattern found in the timings of the C5 murders (see above post), but may be just coincidence.

Chances are the murders are not linked - but it would be good to establish one way or the other. It is not so implausible that they might be.

[etenguy]

A week is a pretty blunt instrument, with a lot of margin for error. If we choose days as a unit of measurement then, apart from a general increase in the gap between murders, there's no discernible pattern.

Nichols to Chapman: 7 days
Chapman to Double: 23 days
Double to Mary Kelly: 40 days
Kelly to Johnny Gill: 48 days (taking 27th Dec as the date of his disappearance)

Edit: Dividing the days by 7, the pattern is less clear-cut than 1, 3, 5, 7 weeks. It's 1, 3, 6, 7 "weeks", when rounded to the nearest integer (1.0, 3.3, 5.7, 6.9 to one decimal place).

Hi Sam

And yet, nevertheless, when we use weeks the pattern is there. Odd number of weeks in increasing sequence followed by the next day in the fri, sat, sun, fri weekend pattern. It may simply be coincidence, or finding an odd pattern amongst a host of data, but it strikes me as significant.

There is no accepted ripper victim at 7 weeks and the next sequence day - though that is the day Johnny Gill's body was found. From what I can gather the body was placed where it was found early on the 29th - 2 days after he went missing and fitting the sequence exactly. When he died, I do not know, I am struggling to find details, If it was earlier, say 27th, did the murderer deliberately hold back disposing of the body until that day, or was he killed that morning - I cannot say. I was hoping others here might have more information about the murder, but other than the article posted by dr strange, no-one seems to have details. If I can find those details and it confirms or eliminates the killing as a potential ripper victim, it would either extend the pattern or we are left with limited data which appears to show a pattern but based on too little data to be certain it isn't just coincidence.

[Harry D]

Not sure what reason there is to consider Johnny Gill. It was a murder in the opposite end of the country with a different victimology. If the Whitechapel murderer had a thing for kids, I'm sure there were dozens of street-urchins he could've preyed on in the East End.