Was the Artist Henri de Toulouse Lautrec Implicated in the Killings?

[Sally]

Hi Galexander

As I've said to you before, the Marie Jeanette link it's interesting - but:

If Kelly's name was Mary Jane and she had spent time in France, mightn't it merely be an affectation? If she had bee in France she might have been called Marie Jeanette as a near French equivalent?

I just wonder if there might be a simpler explanation.

[galexander]

Of course not. And no one is asking that. But as far as we here can tell, your theory lacks more than the smoking gun. And perhaps it's because you choose not to share the whole thing with us, and that's fine. But you have as of yet to offer a compelling motive. We don't know why you think a moderately respectable doctor would do such a thing, and why you think it was him, vs one of TL less reputable friends. Why didn't TL come forward if he knew?

We know why you think he could have done it. He was a doctor, had at least tertiary acquaintance with the prostitute lifestyle, etc. but we don't know why you think he DID do it. Millions of people suffered from syphilis. Some far more famous and more blue blooded than TL. Why this guy as opposed to the others? Was he abusive towards women? Was he known to be in London on all of the murder dates? Was he incredibly hostile towards prostitutes in his correspondence? Why this doctor? Why not another doctor, or another Frenchman, or another acquaintance of TL? A fully fleshed out theory is like a news article. Who, what, where, when, why, how. From you we have a who. But what about the rest of it? Did Bourges stay in England for the duration, or channel hop for the specific purpose of killing? Why was his knife work so shaky? Where did he stay in London, did he have friends? Did he speak English? Did he have extensive knowledge of Whitechapel? If so, why? If not, how did he avoid capture? As a doctor he had access to innumerable ways of killing someone. Why did he choose something so horrifying, and quite frankly messy?

And you may have the answers to those questions, but you haven't given them to us. So your choice of suspect seems as random as opening up a phone book and picking a name. And if you don't choose to share, that is certainly your right. But then don't be surprised when form the opinion that it might not be as well thought out as it possibly should.

All the clues link up.

Lautrec's friend, François Gauzi, described Carmen Gaudin, HTL's favourite model, as having 'an air of disease about her' when they first met. But why would he say such a thing looking back at it in retrospect?

Thadée Natanson, another of Lautrec's close friends, was in no doubt that Lautrec had contracted syphilis.

You only have to add two and two together and it must have been Carmen Gaudin who had infected Lautrec with syphilis.

In a letter to his mother dated December 1884 he gives the English sounding name 'Jeanette Hathaway'. Since Lautrec was in the habit of placing the name 'Marie' in front of the first name, she would have been called 'Marie-Jeanette' by Lautrec. This was the name Mary Kelly had entered on her death certificate.

Added to this the account in Kelly's life of her travelling to Paris around this time where she would most likely have worked in a licensed brothel and the fact that Lautrec knew all the women who worked in these establishments, that Kelly was reported to have been good looking and may have had red hair, and you have what I would claim is a compelling theory.

[Errata]

Ah-ha! Gilbert was well-known in real life as something of a mysogonist, and there are rumours that he never consummated his own marriage. Many of his operas feature an elderly and ugly woman who is the butt of fun - Katisha in Mikado for instance.

What if someone found the manuscript of Princess Ida and found that the original title of the aria Oh Goddess Wise! was actually Oh God, What Thighs! as a concealed but direct reference to Mary Kelly's attractions? I'm starting my book today, manuscript or no manuscript!

Graham

I know I want to serially kill people every time I listen to the Mikado...

[Graham]

Now, about Gilbert - are we absolutely sure he didn't leave clues in his work? A bit of light opera would be a perfect hiding place, surely?

Ah-ha! Gilbert was well-known in real life as something of a mysogonist, and there are rumours that he never consummated his own marriage. Many of his operas feature an elderly and ugly woman who is the butt of fun - Katisha in Mikado for instance.

What if someone found the manuscript of Princess Ida and found that the original title of the aria Oh Goddess Wise! was actually Oh God, What Thighs! as a concealed but direct reference to Mary Kelly's attractions? I'm starting my book today, manuscript or no manuscript!

Graham

[Sally]

Funny you should say that. Lately I've been examining the lyrics of The Pirates of Penzance for anagrams and, almost immediately, I discovered the hidden phrase "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Serial Killer". Pretty compelling evidence, eh?

I suspected as much Grave - when can we expect the book?

[The Grave Maurice]

Now, about Gilbert - are we absolutely sure he didn't leave clues in his work? A bit of light opera would be a perfect hiding place, surely?

Funny you should say that. Lately I've been examining the lyrics of The Pirates of Penzance for anagrams and, almost immediately, I discovered the hidden phrase "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Serial Killer". Pretty compelling evidence, eh?

[Sally]

On the pre-crash boards, ages ago, I mischievously and for a giggle put forward the name of Sir W S Gilbert (he of Gilbert & Sullivan fame to anyone with less than a halfway decent education) as a possible contender for JtR. I received loads of PM's asking for more information, and for where I got my information, etc., etc. I just could not believe how credulous some people are. Same goes for Sickert, Toulouse-Lautrec, Monet, Manet and the rest of 'em - all bollocks.

Graham

Yeah, but the trouble is, that sort of thing has a popular appeal. Joe Public would much rather JtR was some famous dude than some down and out nobody.

So far famous people essential candidacy criteria for Ripperhood seem to include the following:

Royalty, high public profile, famous in his own lunchtime, or failing that, at least posthumously.

Must associate with prostitutes. And maybe live in France. Or visit at least. And London as well.

Must leave clues. Or else what's the point.

Now, about Gilbert - are we absolutely sure he didn't leave clues in his work? A bit of light opera would be a perfect hiding place, surely?

[Cogidubnus]

Scholar!

[Graham]

Plasticine unknown until 1897. Think again.

Graham

[Cogidubnus]

Sickert, Toulouse-Lautrec, Monet, Manet and the rest of 'em - all bollocks

.

Presumably that part of Impressionism that derives from sitting on Plasticine...

Dave

[Graham]

On the pre-crash boards, ages ago, I mischievously and for a giggle put forward the name of Sir W S Gilbert (he of Gilbert & Sullivan fame to anyone with less than a halfway decent education) as a possible contender for JtR. I received loads of PM's asking for more information, and for where I got my information, etc., etc. I just could not believe how credulous some people are. Same goes for Sickert, Toulouse-Lautrec, Monet, Manet and the rest of 'em - all bollocks.

Graham

[Errata]

I don't agree.

Compare my theory with some of the others that have been put forward AND published.

I read Stephen Knight's theory, for example, and it failed to convince at all but as far as I can make out at the time it was pretty much a best seller.

The only thing my theory lacks is the final solid evidence, i.e. the bloodstained knife or an entry in a diary which says, "Yes, I was the Ripper!" (As if that would count as final proof anyway.)

Come on Errata I can't achieve the impossible!

Of course not. And no one is asking that. But as far as we here can tell, your theory lacks more than the smoking gun. And perhaps it's because you choose not to share the whole thing with us, and that's fine. But you have as of yet to offer a compelling motive. We don't know why you think a moderately respectable doctor would do such a thing, and why you think it was him, vs one of TL less reputable friends. Why didn't TL come forward if he knew?

We know why you think he could have done it. He was a doctor, had at least tertiary acquaintance with the prostitute lifestyle, etc. but we don't know why you think he DID do it. Millions of people suffered from syphilis. Some far more famous and more blue blooded than TL. Why this guy as opposed to the others? Was he abusive towards women? Was he known to be in London on all of the murder dates? Was he incredibly hostile towards prostitutes in his correspondence? Why this doctor? Why not another doctor, or another Frenchman, or another acquaintance of TL? A fully fleshed out theory is like a news article. Who, what, where, when, why, how. From you we have a who. But what about the rest of it? Did Bourges stay in England for the duration, or channel hop for the specific purpose of killing? Why was his knife work so shaky? Where did he stay in London, did he have friends? Did he speak English? Did he have extensive knowledge of Whitechapel? If so, why? If not, how did he avoid capture? As a doctor he had access to innumerable ways of killing someone. Why did he choose something so horrifying, and quite frankly messy?

And you may have the answers to those questions, but you haven't given them to us. So your choice of suspect seems as random as opening up a phone book and picking a name. And if you don't choose to share, that is certainly your right. But then don't be surprised when form the opinion that it might not be as well thought out as it possibly should.

[galexander]

Well, to be fair, you had expressed surprise that publishers did not seem interested in your theory. You assumed it had something to do with your writing style. And then people started to challenge your theory. Yes, sometimes with ridicule, but a majority of that was tasteless dwarf jokes. Clearly people disagree with you. That's nothing new. But part of the challenging process is to expose potential flaws in your theory, so that you can perhaps look at it from a less biased viewpoint and say "it's true. That doesn't make sense." or "I need to flesh this out so I can communicate this idea clearly."

The idea that this doctor was the Ripper is not impossible. It would be surprising, but not impossible. But the motive is the problem. Why would he do this? What would be worth the risk? Was it for money? If so was there evidence of money changing hands? Was it out of loyalty? Is there any evidence that he was particularly attached to this patient? Was it class warfare? Is there any evidence of him being such a snob? Are you sure he doesn't have an alibi for one of these murders? Have you done all your research?

It sounds like you see a tenuous connection between TL and these murders, and you have read a couple of books and have settled on the doctor as the criminal. And there's nothing wrong with that. But that's just the beginning of a theory, not a theory itself. So far you are shy on real data, and that may be the reason you have faced rejection with publishers. Look at this challenging process here as a sarcastic and occasionally hostile M&M, and take our criticism for what it's worth. We are challenging you to PROVE it to us. We may never agree with you, but we can get to the point where we acknowledge that you have done some damn fine work.

I don't agree.

Compare my theory with some of the others that have been put forward AND published.

I read Stephen Knight's theory, for example, and it failed to convince at all but as far as I can make out at the time it was pretty much a best seller.

The only thing my theory lacks is the final solid evidence, i.e. the bloodstained knife or an entry in a diary which says, "Yes, I was the Ripper!" (As if that would count as final proof anyway.)

Come on Errata I can't achieve the impossible!

[Errata]

Well this is a discussion group. I was simply discussing the matter.

Is it just me or is it the case that if anyone diverges from the bog-standard opinion of JtR in this forum they are immediately beaten down?

Presumably having your own opinion on the matter is against the rules and you have to go with the group every time?

Well, to be fair, you had expressed surprise that publishers did not seem interested in your theory. You assumed it had something to do with your writing style. And then people started to challenge your theory. Yes, sometimes with ridicule, but a majority of that was tasteless dwarf jokes. Clearly people disagree with you. That's nothing new. But part of the challenging process is to expose potential flaws in your theory, so that you can perhaps look at it from a less biased viewpoint and say "it's true. That doesn't make sense." or "I need to flesh this out so I can communicate this idea clearly."

The idea that this doctor was the Ripper is not impossible. It would be surprising, but not impossible. But the motive is the problem. Why would he do this? What would be worth the risk? Was it for money? If so was there evidence of money changing hands? Was it out of loyalty? Is there any evidence that he was particularly attached to this patient? Was it class warfare? Is there any evidence of him being such a snob? Are you sure he doesn't have an alibi for one of these murders? Have you done all your research?

It sounds like you see a tenuous connection between TL and these murders, and you have read a couple of books and have settled on the doctor as the criminal. And there's nothing wrong with that. But that's just the beginning of a theory, not a theory itself. So far you are shy on real data, and that may be the reason you have faced rejection with publishers. Look at this challenging process here as a sarcastic and occasionally hostile M&M, and take our criticism for what it's worth. We are challenging you to PROVE it to us. We may never agree with you, but we can get to the point where we acknowledge that you have done some damn fine work.

[Sally]

Okay, fine.

However in #82 you seemed to have developed a slight attitude which said, "I've heard it all before and that's just wrong!" However to be fair this doesn't seem to be an uncommon approach in the forum as I have experienced it so far.

I suppose the bottom line is that if you have reservations about any expressed opinion then you should clearly state your reasons with sources and references if possible etc. rather than just saying "Oh I don't agree with that!" or words to that effect.

But thanks for well wishes anyway.

You think that was attitude?

I agree, Galexander, it would be lovely if people always stated their reasons for disagreeing with sources and references, and you know, a lot of the time, people do just that on the forum. However, I think at the end of the day we should remember that this is a message board, and people debate in different ways and styles - that's the nature of message boards.

Anyway, let's leave it there, shall we? I didn't mean to upset you, and I'm sorry if I did.