Was Johnny Gill a Ripper Victim

[Errata]

Be interesting to know your thoughts on Martha Tabram based on the above quoted

I used to think Martha Tabram was a Ripper victim. But the past couple of years and my own experience has led me to change my mind. If Martha’s murder happened today, and she was found on her stoop, or in the trunk of her own car, would there be any doubt in anyone’s mind that she was murdered by an angry ex-boyfriend, or a client too drunk to get it up? Every murder is exceptional and it’s own way. It’s the extinguishing of a person. But had the ripper murders not occurred, I don’t think there would be any attention paid to Martha Tabrams killing. Except perhaps as a lesson to prostitutes. Not a ton of attention is paid to it today.

[Blotchy's Beer Bucket]

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.

Be interesting to know your thoughts on Martha Tabram based on the above quoted

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Errata;n722194]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.[/QUOTE

Hi Errata

An excellent post and one that I agree with until the last sentence. I think it highly likely Jack got some sort of sexual thrill from the mutilations.

Cheers John

[Errata]

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.

[etenguy]

So I wrote a whole thing and then realized that I’m operating on knowledge I acquired several years ago, so in order to try and prevent looking like an ass, I figure I should brush up on the Torso Murders real quick before I reply

I’ll get it done tomorrow. My bad!

I look forward to reading that.

[Errata]

So I wrote a whole thing and then realized that I’m operating on knowledge I acquired several years ago, so in order to try and prevent looking like an ass, I figure I should brush up on the Torso Murders real quick before I reply

I’ll get it done tomorrow. My bad!

[Abby Normal]

I’m all for the idea that serial killers can change. Of course they can. But I don’t 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 that’s just not how the brain works. You can’t catch sadism like it’s a cold. And you don’t 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.

[John Wheat]

I’m 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 don’t recommend doing that, I say with 20/20 hindsight. But I did find that mutilation is not rare. It’s 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

[Errata]

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’m 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 don’t recommend doing that, I say with 20/20 hindsight. But I did find that mutilation is not rare. It’s 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.

[Harry D]

I’m all for the idea that serial killers can change. Of course they can. But I don’t 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 that’s just not how the brain works. You can’t catch sadism like it’s a cold. And you don’t 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.

[Errata]

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.

I’m all for the idea that serial killers can change. Of course they can. But I don’t 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 that’s just not how the brain works. You can’t catch sadism like it’s a cold. And you don’t 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.

[etenguy]

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.

[etenguy]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Losmandris]

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