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

[caz]

"That smell? That's your case, rotting.

It died about 150 posts ago. Didn't you notice?"

I'd say leave it rotting, dear Henry, dear Henry.

Unless of course you actually enjoy provoking more responses of the kind you profess to dislike so much.

I'm not sure who's the silliest billy around here.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

Caz - I don't dislike galex's responses; on the contrary I find them compellingly amusing. I keep wondering what circumstantial irrelevance s/he'll offer up next in order to plug the gap created by the attested presence of her suspect in France and only France during the autumn of 1888.

This theory is a motorway collision, and I'm a confirmed rubbernecker, I admit it

[galexander]

All fascinating, galex, fascinating.

However, Bourges was nowhere near Whitechapel in 1888.

Your case is dead. You're so far the only person I know who has mentioned in passing the fact that their named suspect happened to be in the wrong country at the time of the murders, but keeps banging away trying to convince people with speculative and vague circumstantial evidence - and moreover accusing anyone who isn't convinced of being Stalinist Orwellian conformist thought police.

Honestly, get a grip. Your case is dead.

Bourges. Remember? Your suspect? Wrong country, galex; not the killer - all your speculative stuff about paintings and Lautrec and Gaudin - all irrelevant.

That smell? That's your case, rotting.

It died about 150 posts ago. Didn't you notice?

You do insist on doing a hatchet job on any theory which questions the established line on JtR. That it was a psychosexual sadist, etc.

I don't know why you bother quoting Nietzsche because you seem to belong to the same conformist rabble he despised so much.

And by the way it's your own arguments that are insipid...........

[galexander]

Caz - I don't dislike galex's responses; on the contrary I find them compellingly amusing. I keep wondering what circumstantial irrelevance s/he'll offer up next in order to plug the gap created by the attested presence of her suspect in France and only France during the autumn of 1888.

This theory is a motorway collision, and I'm a confirmed rubbernecker, I admit it

Thank you, I am a 'he' actually. It tends to indicate your general level of discernment if you can't even tell someone's gender from their written words.

Even though Bourges claimed he was in France at the time of the murders, he may just have been making excuses.

You may have heard the ploy before?

On 24th November 1888 Lautrec says in a letter to his mother that his doctor, Bourges, had not seen him for the passed 'two times'. Had he meant two months by the expression 'two times'. If so that would cover the period of the murders very well.

Also Bourges seems to have booked himself into a TB clinic but hadn't stayed there for too long. And then he worked nights at an insane asylum. But why wasn't he treating Lautrec? It comes across as excuses to me.

But I don't know why I bother being so patient with you.

[Henry Flower]

Thank you, I am a 'he' actually. It tends to indicate your general level of discernment if you can't even tell someone's gender from their written words.

Er, no it doesn't, you pompous oaf. And it's not my fault you sound like a patronising prissy old schoolmarm.

Even though Bourges claimed he was in France at the time of the murders, he may just have been making excuses.

Yes, he might have been - just as Mary Jane Kelly might have made up the story of living the high-life in Paris... Oh no - sorry - you 'know' she was in Paris in the 'months' before her death, whereas Bourges and Lautrec 'might have been' making 'excuses' about his whereabouts - whatever you mean by your woefully inaccurate use of that word. Another example of the staggering integrity and consistency of your approach.

But I don't know why I bother being so patient with you.

Er... because that's what prissy schoolmarms do? Or because I irritatingly keep returning your attention to the major flaw in your 'theory', and you feel compelled to reply because not to do so would reveal that your work was half-baked nonsense? I'm guessing here, cut me some slack.

You do insist on doing a hatchet job on any theory which questions the established line on JtR. That it was a psychosexual sadist, etc.

No - I save it solely for those theories which are underpinned by a farcical lack of real evidence, apparitions or aural hallucinations in art galleries, illogical assumptions, and hidden images or clues found in major works of art - buttressed by increasingly petulant and huffy displays of entirely unearned moral and intellectual superiority. Just those theories.

I don't know why you bother quoting Nietzsche because you seem to belong to the same conformist rabble he despised so much.

And by the way it's your own arguments that are insipid..........

Well that's just a super-impressive put-down, galex! That's put me firmly in my place and no mistake! As for 'my arguments' - let's not forget that my argument with you is the following:

You are accusing an otherwise innocent man, a real man who really existed, of having been a truly disgusting and bestially vicious murderer - for reasons of loyalty/honour or mere money - despite the fact that the only existing evidence of his whereabouts indicates that he was in France throughout the murders, and you have nothing but an arrogant, unsupported 'might have been lying' to counter that evidence.

I don't merely think your theory is pathetic...

[Bridewell]

On 24th November 1888 Lautrec says in a letter to his mother that his doctor, Bourges, had not seen him for the passed 'two times'.

"Two times" is twice, is it not?

The likely meaning is that, on the last two occasions when Lautrec needed a doctor, he didn't see Bourges, because he (Bourges) was in a TB clinic.

Regards, Bridewell.

[galexander]

Yes, he might have been - just as Mary Jane Kelly might have made up the story of living the high-life in Paris... Oh no - sorry - you 'know' she was in Paris in the 'months' before her death, whereas Bourges and Lautrec 'might have been' making 'excuses' about his whereabouts - whatever you mean by your woefully inaccurate use of that word. Another example of the staggering integrity and consistency of your approach.

So the best you can say is Kelly might have made up the story of her stay in France.

But working in a Parisian brothel wasn't really that much of a high life I'm sure. So why would she have fabricated such a story as you suggest?

And why did she use the French sounding name "Marie-Jeanette", which had also appeared on her death certificate? Presumably she had done this just so as to confuse and make fun of researchers like myself...........!

Are you sure you're not just clutching at straws in an effort to prove my theory wrong?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gale,

Like it or not, the story of MJK's sojourn in France must remain hearsay.

Regards,

Simon

[Henry Flower]

So the best you can say is Kelly might have made up the story of her stay in France.

No; the best I can say is that the best you can say is Lautrec and/or Bourges might have made up the story of Bourges's whereabouts in France during autumn 1888. That's the crux on which your entire case stands or falls. And on that basis you're happy to accuse a real man (of otherwise good standing) of having been a disgusting murdering animal.

You are sounding increasingly pathetic. As you know full well (or at least you would if you read honestly) I have already stated I believe Kelly did go to France at some point. However, my point was that you can't claim to 'know' she was in France, because you don't.

You also used the word 'months' in order to make your case sound more convincing, just as you alluded merely to the fact that Bourges was 'absent' from Lautrec's side at the time of the murders, neglecting deliberately to mention (until pressed) that he was in fact elsewhere in France, as far as you knew. This is all highly disingenuous, and not the mark of honest scholarship.

Which is why you've convinced nobody

[galexander]

No; the best I can say is that the best you can say is Lautrec and/or Bourges might have made up the story of Bourges's whereabouts in France during autumn 1888. That's the crux on which your entire case stands or falls. And on that basis you're happy to accuse a real man (of otherwise good standing) of having been a disgusting murdering animal.

You are sounding increasingly pathetic. As you know full well (or at least you would if you read honestly) I have already stated I believe Kelly did go to France at some point. However, my point was that you can't claim to 'know' she was in France, because you don't.

You also used the word 'months' in order to make your case sound more convincing, just as you alluded merely to the fact that Bourges was 'absent' from Lautrec's side at the time of the murders, neglecting deliberately to mention (until pressed) that he was in fact elsewhere in France, as far as you knew. This is all highly disingenuous, and not the mark of honest scholarship.

Which is why you've convinced nobody

Again you are misquoting me.

I never said Bourges WAS the Ripper, I only suggested that he was the leading suspect in my theory.

There is quite some difference.

And don't forget that this is in fact the "Suspects" section of the forum and that there is plenty of speculation going here on as to who Jack the Ripper could have been.

[TomTomKent]

As a general rule of thumb, if you ever heard of a "suspect" before you heard of Jack the Ripper then no, they weren't implicated. If you have to rely on "other people speculate" as an excuse for not having a jot of anything to substantiate your theory, it isn't a theory.

Theories are built on an evidence. You look at the evidence, you theorise what might explain the evidence, you seek more evidence and see if validates or contradicts your evidence. What you have is only speculation. Not a theory, not a hypothosis. Sorry. Entertaining, but based on a story, that itself can not be validated.

[galexander]

Hi Gale,

Like it or not, the story of MJK's sojourn in France must remain hearsay.

Regards,

Simon

And how many other cases are there where evidence has been presented in court that is based purely on hearsay?

And I'm sure this same 'hearsay' was probably presented in court at the inquests into the Whitechapel murders.

So all that is missing are the tickets for the boat Kelly sailed on because don't forget this was some time before the Channel Tunnel.........

[galexander]

As a general rule of thumb, if you ever heard of a "suspect" before you heard of Jack the Ripper then no, they weren't implicated. If you have to rely on "other people speculate" as an excuse for not having a jot of anything to substantiate your theory, it isn't a theory.

Theories are built on an evidence. You look at the evidence, you theorise what might explain the evidence, you seek more evidence and see if validates or contradicts your evidence. What you have is only speculation. Not a theory, not a hypothosis. Sorry. Entertaining, but based on a story, that itself can not be validated.

The following sentiment doesn't seem to make any sense at all to me:

As a general rule of thumb, if you ever heard of a "suspect" before you heard of Jack the Ripper then no, they weren't implicated.

Let's face it, in all honesty particle physicists have based the existence of subatomic particles on less evidence than I have presented here on this forum and yet everyone takes there word for it as if it were the gospel truth.

[Henry Flower]

Let's face it, in all honesty quantum physicists have based the existence of subatomic particles on less evidence than I have presented here on this forum and yet everyone takes there word for it as if it were the gospel truth.

Yes, the existence of subatomic particles is deduced because they represent the most convincing explanation for certain observed phenomena and are not contradicted by the known facts of the physical universe. The same cannot be said of your theory. Another of your entirely false analogies.

Galex, you're splitting hairs in a truly dismal way: fine, you never said he WAS the Ripper, but, rather, he's your chief suspect. Big fat difference.

Your chief suspect was in France as far as anyone knows. Any other suspects?

Because without a suspect your case seems to consist of arguing that Toulouse-Lautrec contracted syphilis, painted a groundbreaking oral surgical procedure, painted prostitutes with red hair, and therefore he must have some (perhaps unconscious) insider knowledge of the Whitechapel Murders.

It gets less and less coherent the more you tell us...

[galexander]

Yes, the existence of subatomic particles is deduced because they represent the most convincing explanation for certain observed phenomena and are not contradicted by the known facts of the physical universe. The same cannot be said of your theory. Another of your entirely false analogies.

Galex, you're splitting hairs in a truly dismal way: fine, you never said he WAS the Ripper, but, rather, he's your chief suspect. Big fat difference.

Your chief suspect was in France as far as anyone knows. Any other suspects?

Because without a suspect your case seems to consist of arguing that Toulouse-Lautrec contracted syphilis, painted a groundbreaking oral surgical procedure, painted prostitutes with red hair, and therefore he must have some (perhaps unconscious) insider knowledge of the Whitechapel Murders.

It gets less and less coherent the more you tell us...

Please note that you said the following:

Your chief suspect was in France as far as anyone knows. Any other suspects?

Yes, you said, "Your chief suspect was in France as far as anyone knows." (my italics)

So you admit that no-one is really sure anyway.

So what are you saying?

In addition you also said the following:

Yes, the existence of subatomic particles is deduced because they represent the most convincing explanation for certain observed phenomena and are not contradicted by the known facts of the physical universe.

Well my theory also represents the most convincing explanation for the phenomena and again it does not contradict the known laws of the universe.

It's not a false analogy at all.