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

[galexander]

So it is. So was I.



What 'bog-standard opinion'? Have a look around Galexander, opinions about JtR are many and various and often the subject of energetic (let's say) debate. If there was a single stock view, this forum wouldn't exist.



I don't think that's the case, no. I think any new ideas will be rigorously tested and questioned though - and I think that's fair enough. I don't think anybody has to 'go with the group' and as I've already said to you, I thought your initial post was quite interesting. I think there is always room for new ideas - and that's how it should be. A debate which fossilses is a dead debate. On the other hand, however, any theory must be able to stand up to criticism to survive - and that is also how it should be. If it doesn't, then it needs to be revised and amended.

That's not just the way it works on this forum; its the way it works full stop - In any field of study, in any discipline.

I do wish you luck with your book. I'd be interested to read it if/when you find a publisher.

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.

[Sally]

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

So it is. So was I.

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?

What 'bog-standard opinion'? Have a look around Galexander, opinions about JtR are many and various and often the subject of energetic (let's say) debate. If there was a single stock view, this forum wouldn't exist.

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

I don't think that's the case, no. I think any new ideas will be rigorously tested and questioned though - and I think that's fair enough. I don't think anybody has to 'go with the group' and as I've already said to you, I thought your initial post was quite interesting. I think there is always room for new ideas - and that's how it should be. A debate which fossilses is a dead debate. On the other hand, however, any theory must be able to stand up to criticism to survive - and that is also how it should be. If it doesn't, then it needs to be revised and amended.

That's not just the way it works on this forum; its the way it works full stop - In any field of study, in any discipline.

I do wish you luck with your book. I'd be interested to read it if/when you find a publisher.

[galexander]

I'm not sure what rattled your cage, Galexander, what part of 'good luck with your book' was it that you found offensive?

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?

[Bridewell]

Hi Galexander,

I am reassured somewhat by your statement that you are not relying on artwork to support your case. I probably won't buy the book, if published, but I'd consider looking through it if a copy was available at my local library.

I do wish you luck in your quest for a publisher, because I know how hard it can be.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Sally]

Really? And what about the opinion of Dr. Bagster Phillips who examined the remains of Chapman?

What about it? If he was correct, that doesn't necessarily indicate that the killer was a doctor, and even if it was, it doesn't necessarily indicate a clinical interest.

So it's your educated opinion versus that of Phillips. I know who I would go for every time.

See above.

Also I don't believe Stride was a Ripper victim. How can a murderer use two separate murder weapons on the same night? A short curved blade in the case of Stride and a long straight blade in the case of Eddowes.

Good for you. But as to your questioning how a murderer can use two separate murder weapons in the same night - explain please why not? Because why? You know for a fact that Stride and Eddowes weren't killed by the same hand and you know for a fact that person wasn't carrying more than one knife do you? It doesn't 'make four' by necessity at all.

Two of whom called themselves Mary Kelly and one who was called Mary Polly

In fact, Mary and Kelly were extremely common names so I wouldn't go reading much into that. If you're implying that this means that the murder of Eddowes and Kelly are related, go and join the conspiracy club, you'll find plenty of support there. And Mary Polly? No. Polly was a nickname for Mary Ann, as also in Pearly Poll for Mary Ann Connelly.

I'm not sure what rattled your cage, Galexander, what part of 'good luck with your book' was it that you found offensive?

[galexander]

I don't see any 'clinical' interest here - as in 'Oh, this looks like an interesting kidney, I'd better remove it and take it back to the lab for further analysis'.

Really? And what about the opinion of Dr. Bagster Phillips who examined the remains of Chapman?

Obviously the work was that of an expert - of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore have been at least five or six inches in length, probably more.

So it's your educated opinion versus that of Phillips. I know who I would go for every time.

Also I don't believe Stride was a Ripper victim. How can a murderer use two separate murder weapons on the same night? A short curved blade in the case of Stride and a long straight blade in the case of Eddowes.

That makes four victims in total. Two of whom called themselves Mary Kelly and one who was called Mary Polly.

[Sally]

In my book clues in HTL's paintings are just an entertaining side issue I discuss. They are not central evidence at all.

As for evidence of the doctor concerned being a cold blooded killer I think it was more a question of class loyalty and the money....... Any doctor has the potential capability of killing and he may just be cold-minded enough to view the killing as just another statistic.......

Further doctor's have been trained to cope with morbid life and death issues. Once the victim had been appropriately dispatched he may even have taken a scientific interest in dissecting the body as may have happened with Kelly.

Hi Galexander

Fair enough, your theory doesn't rest on dodgy painting 'clues'. Just as well really, as however popular all this Da Vinci style nonsense may be in the popular imagination, there exists very little evidence for its reality. That's all it is - imagination.

Now then, killing for class and money - sure, it's not like that would be unusual - but not this sort of murder. These murders are all about gratification, and the perpetrator was a person who got his kicks out of rummaging about in women's innards, taking bits away with him for later.

I don't see any 'clinical' interest here - as in 'Oh, this looks like an interesting kidney, I'd better remove it and take it back to the lab for further analysis'.

No, I doubt it.

Could 'Jack' have been a doctor? Sure, 'Jack' could have been anybody who was handy with a knife, but you would need to supply a more compelling reason than that to be taken seriously, I think.

For what it's worth, I thought some of your initial remarks on this thread were quite interesting as a starting point - but I think perhaps you would need more than that to give your theory legs.

Good luck with your book.

[galexander]

Gale, you are absolutely right to point out the absurdity of many of the suspects listed on the website. The majority of Ripperologists - or indeed well-read crime buffs - have little doubt about the unlikelihood attaching to almost all of the named suspects. Do most of those suspects receive far more attention than they truly deserve? Yes, probably. I agree.

My own rejection of the theory you propose is not motivated by jealousy at all, given that I don't have a 'preferred' suspect, and moreover believe that the killer was someone so inconsequential that their name may not now be recorded on any documents anywhere - leaving the crimes literally untraceable. So jealousy? - no.

I just think that your analysis of T-L's paintings has nothing to say about these murders, I would be far more interested if you had compelling evidence that the doctor had criminal, violent, perverted proclivities. That would be worth a look, for sure.

I get tired of being shown 'clues' in the works of world-famous artists, that's all. And I don't buy the revenge motive. These were crimes answering some overwhelming perverted sexual need, surely you wouldn't dispute that?

In my book clues in HTL's paintings are just an entertaining side issue I discuss. They are not central evidence at all.

As for evidence of the doctor concerned being a cold blooded killer I think it was more a question of class loyalty and the money....... Any doctor has the potential capability of killing and he may just be cold-minded enough to view the killing as just another statistic.......

Further doctor's have been trained to cope with morbid life and death issues. Once the victim had been appropriately dispatched he may even have taken a scientific interest in dissecting the body as may have happened with Kelly.

[Errata]

I find your cynicism genuinely appealing! And I agree with your reasoning too.

I prefer to think of it as practicality. If I want to disseminate a theory for serious scholastic review, I publish in a paper in a journal. If I want fame and money, I publish with a large publishing house with international offices and access to a worldwide readership.

In order to publish in a journal, I need a well thought out theory sewn up with facts and research. To be accepted in a publishing house, I need sensationalism.

[Henry Flower]

That would have the benefit of creating a new niche of crap suspect books, thus more publishable.

I find your cynicism genuinely appealing! And I agree with your reasoning too.

[Errata]

Well said, Errata.

But is it wise to give people advice on the best way to emulate Patricia Cornwell's success? Every book she sells kills a little more of the truth about these murders. Do we want more of that?

Well if you strip away the innuendo and the laughable tenuous connections, it's a fairly comprehensive look at the peculiarities of a Victorian artist. It's not that what she says isn't true, just that the connection with Jack the Ripper is laughable. So it at least has truthiness, if not actual truth.

Being insanely thorough benefits everyone. That way if there is a lapse in logic or judgement, it's obvious where that is. If there isn't, then you got a head start on a scholarly text.

And anyway. He said he wanted to get published. He didn't say he wanted to get published in a community respected manner. Suspect books tend to be for tourists anyway (not all, but a good deal of them). If he wants to throw his theory out there for people who want to feel a little smarter about a ghoulish part of history, that's fine. I would have no problem with doing it if I were the type to write books. I know a couple of Romance novelists who make their money that way, so they can support themselves with that money while they work on what really interests them. Same thing. I would imagine a good deal of people who choose to write on this topic end up vanity publishing their books anyway, because they don't have a mass market appeal. If you want someone like Harper Collins or Random House to pick up your stuff, you have to dumb it down for the Oprah's book club crowd.

Though I will say that an unknown author with a book about yet another artist being involved with these murders is unlikely to get picked up anyway. Patricia Cornwell has a corner on that market, and it's not a corner likely to be challenged unless the book is going to sell more that hers did, and we all know it won't. Hers wouldn't have sold as well as it did if she didn't have some bestsellers racked up already.

If I was going to write a book, I'd find something tenuous against Wild Bill Hickock, or someone in his show. If I recall they were in town at the time. Maybe a little before. That would have the benefit of creating a new niche of crap suspect books, thus more publishable.

[Henry Flower]

Well said, Errata.

But is it wise to give people advice on the best way to emulate Patricia Cornwell's success? Every book she sells kills a little more of the truth about these murders. Do we want more of that?

[Errata]

Gale, you are absolutely right to point out the absurdity of many of the suspects listed on the website. The majority of Ripperologists - or indeed well-read crime buffs - have little doubt about the unlikelihood attaching to almost all of the named suspects. Do most of those suspects receive far more attention than they truly deserve? Yes, probably. I agree.

My own rejection of the theory you propose is not motivated by jealousy at all, given that I don't have a 'preferred' suspect, and moreover believe that the killer was someone so inconsequential that their name may not now be recorded on any documents anywhere - leaving the crimes literally untraceable. So jealousy? - no.

I just think that your analysis of T-L's paintings has nothing to say about these murders, I would be far more interested if you had compelling evidence that the doctor had criminal, violent, perverted proclivities. That would be worth a look, for sure.

I get tired of being shown 'clues' in the works of world-famous artists, that's all. And I don't buy the revenge motive. These were crimes answering some overwhelming perverted sexual need, surely you wouldn't dispute that?

Well, I'm with you on this, at least so far as thinking that killer never popped up on anyone's radar. Personally, I think finding "clues" in art is kind of entertaining, especially with Van Gogh where if you unfocus your eyes just right a sailboat pops out.

But this doctor probably qualifies as a nobody. I mean, he's treating a famous guy for the clap, which is not the best way to make a name for oneself. It is not inconceivable that he attached himself to T-L because he was attracted to his patient's lifestyle and companions. When it works well, you get Entourage. When it goes really badly, you get Manson. So I could see a scenario where it could be this doctor. But I would need to know a whole lot about him and his movements on the dates of the murders to even consider him as a suspect.

The trick to getting such a theory published is to have it all sewn up. There can't be holes. Patricia Cornwall sold a lot of her books because she explained almost every aspect of the case using her suspect. It's daft, but it's complete. And most people who read it don't even know why it's daft. But if you don't have nigh every single piece of correspondence to and from this guy, know his movements, his disposition, his mastery of the English language, you aren't there yet.

[Henry Flower]

Chris, I've always thought that the killer, when definitively identified, will be half the man we expected him to be - his actual human persona will be literally dwarfed by the aura that surrounds the Ripper.

Was trying to think of another gag about his short legs but I admit I'm stumped.

Why the injuries to Kelly's torso - why was her trunk-hated?

(Sorry - bit of a stretch, that last one.)

Has anyone linked Lautrec to the Elizabeth Short murder? It makes sense - he had to cut her body in two before he could mutilate her face.

Increasingly tasteless - I'll stop before Admin pounces.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello all

I have it on good authority that artist Henri de Toulouse Lautrec wanted to become involved in the Whitechapel murders but he came up short.

Chris