Was Johnny Gill a Ripper Victim

[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]

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.

[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 kiddin´, Errata - many thanks for this. It fills a gap for me (he said, trying to unnerve her).

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.