Was Johnny Gill a Ripper Victim

[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!

[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 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.

[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

[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

[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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

hi errata
i dont think we can determine that torsoman was a sadist by how he dumped his victims. i think he left them to shock the public yes but he also left them in some pretty odd and public places, which i have a hunch had some other special significance to HIM. amd to me i dont really see any significant difference between the two in hiw the victims were displayed/ left/ dumped. the ripper also left them displayed out in the open, with no attempts to hide. even other killers who basically left there victims where they killed them, will most times make some kind of attempt to conceal the body, however simple or rudimentary. like covering them with something, or dragging them a few feet to make them less visable. nothing like this with the ripper. he left them in shocking sexually degrading positions, leg spread etc. so while i dont think there was an overt sexual element to his crimes (no rape, sexual torture)there was some sexual element. more than likely post mortem and with the parts he kept.

so both the ripper and torsoman had no overt sexual element to there crimes (although probably some post mortem sexual element with the parts he kept, probanly involving masterbation)both left in shocking public places with no attempt to really hide, and there was no evidence of sadism-no evidence of torture-at all (torsoman victims all dimemebered quickly after death, and all mutilations post mortem).

[Blotchy's Beer Bucket]

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.

I agree. Possibly a pissed off punter or ex, although with 39 stab wounds that's a seriously disturbed person!
It was your mentioning of frenzied stabbing as an alternative to a sexual act that peaked my interest and made me mention Martha as this could be the case here?
I think we forget how many sick individuals there were and still are in the world.
With both the Torso's and the Ripper Killings happening around the same period,is it really too much of a stretch to imagine many more of a disturbed mind in London and indeed with the Gill case,in other parts of the Country, without thinking it could be the Ripper?

[Errata]

I think we forget how many sick individuals there were and still are in the world.

I live in a city of roughly 2 million people, and for as long as I’ve been here we have maintained a population of three active serial killers. Not the same three for the past 20 years, and not necessarily all at the same time, but three different killers. We catch one, another fills the place. Now this isn’t all in the city center, this is spread across three counties, it’s about a two hour drive at its widest point.

London had 8 million people in the 1880s. And a much smaller geographical space. I don’t know if that means more serial killers per person or less, but given the incredible flux that London was in at that time, I lean towards more psychopathic violence, but less serial. Just a guess.

[Abby Normal]

I live in a city of roughly 2 million people, and for as long as I’ve been here we have maintained a population of three active serial killers. Not the same three for the past 20 years, and not necessarily all at the same time, but three different killers. We catch one, another fills the place. Now this isn’t all in the city center, this is spread across three counties, it’s about a two hour drive at its widest point.

London had 8 million people in the 1880s. And a much smaller geographical space. I don’t know if that means more serial killers per person or less, but given the incredible flux that London was in at that time, I lean towards more psychopathic violence, but less serial. Just a guess.

hi erratta
what city?who are the serial killers? so youve had three different serial killers, not actually in the city but spread out in the counties, and not active at the same time. and the point is?
i thought we were talking about serial killers, or at least killers, being active at the same time in the same place.

[Errata]

Nashville. Really all three of the urban centers in Tennessee. East Tennessee is mountains. Appalachia. Lots of mines tons of woods. Middle Tennessee is more level for the Greenbelt is, but also lots of woods and lots of rivers. West Tennessee a swamp. Mississippi river. Nashville and Memphis are also pretty industrial, Knoxville has one of the larger student populations in the south. Because of that people go missing and never found. Even people we know were murdered, we know were disposed of in the woods. So we’re also a pretty decent place to dump a body. Memphis mostly exists at or below the poverty line. Knoxville has the largest student population. Both places are pretty good places to find a victim. Nashville has exploded far beyond its policing powers. I think large amounts of space favor serial crime, small space spree crime but that’s mostly based on projection so I can’t cite anything.

ever have a word on the tip of the tongue and can’t get it? For as long as I’ve been keeping track of serial killers for whatever reason, a local number has run at about three. Not the same three for 20 years straight. And I haven’t always paid attention. 20 years ago it was three. About 10 years ago it was three. Last time I asked was about four years ago it was three. I don’t know what it is today. I know that three of them have been caught, since I’ve been paying attention. The fast food killer? A dude named Mendenhal? Mendenthal? I can’t remember the third. So I guess in a ten year span we average three? Is that right? I still can’t come up with the word for that. Maddening.

.

[Abby Normal]

Nashville. Really all three of the urban centers in Tennessee. East Tennessee is mountains. Appalachia. Lots of mines tons of woods. Middle Tennessee is more level for the Greenbelt is, but also lots of woods and lots of rivers. West Tennessee a swamp. Mississippi river. Nashville and Memphis are also pretty industrial, Knoxville has one of the larger student populations in the south. Because of that people go missing and never found. Even people we know were murdered, we know were disposed of in the woods. So we’re also a pretty decent place to dump a body. Memphis mostly exists at or below the poverty line. Knoxville has the largest student population. Both places are pretty good places to find a victim. Nashville has exploded far beyond its policing powers. I think large amounts of space favor serial crime, small space spree crime but that’s mostly based on projection so I can’t cite anything.

ever have a word on the tip of the tongue and can’t get it? For as long as I’ve been keeping track of serial killers for whatever reason, a local number has run at about three. Not the same three for 20 years straight. And I haven’t always paid attention. 20 years ago it was three. About 10 years ago it was three. Last time I asked was about four years ago it was three. I don’t know what it is today. I know that three of them have been caught, since I’ve been paying attention. The fast food killer? A dude named Mendenhal? Mendenthal? I can’t remember the third. So I guess in a ten year span we average three? Is that right? I still can’t come up with the word for that. Maddening.

.

hey erratta
im from Maryland. i had never been to tennesse before. we went last year on vacation because my daughter was with our church group helping the needy in the east part of the state appalacia. we visited, chatanooga, pidgeon forge, gatlinburg, smoky mountains. dude, tennesees got it all goin on! i had no idea there was so much. of course i know about memphis and nashville in the west but was clueless about everything else. dollywood, that crazy tourist strip in gatlinsburg the beauty of the smokey mountains. and bears! black bears walking around everywhere. i love Tenesse now. cool state.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

100% with you on that post errata.

[etenguy]

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.

I see a couple of posters agree with you. I am more inclined to think Martha Tabram may have been a ripper victim. It is true that had there been no ripper crimes but Martha had been murdered, we would have likely considered it an angry ex boyfriend or an unsatisfied customer. That might be true of a number of murders committed by serial killers. However, the ripper crimes did occur and the similarities (and differences) need to be considered when determining if she was a likely victim of the ripper. It is by no means overwhelmingly compelling that she was, but there are enough similarities that I find it difficult to dismiss the possibility.

[Michael W Richards]

I wonder, since many prostitutes were harassed and assaulted by individuals and gangs on the street during those same years, do people think that they all must be linked to one person as well? Clearly not, of course. The point being is that Marthas murder isn't remarkable in context. In the same context, Annies is.