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

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gale,

It's a shame the 1880s Channel Tunnel never made it to the other side.

Barnett repeated stories he had presumably heard from the woman with whom he had been living.

That he might have believed them is neither here nor there. MJK's reported back-story remains hearsay, the basic rule of which is that testimony quoting persons not in court is inadmissible as evidence.

Regards,

Simon

[galexander]

Hi Gale,

It's a shame the 1880s Channel Tunnel never made it to the other side.

Barnett repeated stories he had presumably heard from the woman with whom he had been living.

That he might have believed them is neither here nor there. MJK's reported back-story remains hearsay, the basic rule of which is that testimony quoting persons not in court is inadmissible as evidence.

Regards,

Simon

I've never heard of the following before:

......the basic rule of which is that testimony quoting persons not in court is inadmissible as evidence.

That would mean you would not be allowed to quote what a murder victim had said before their murder which is quite clearly nonsense.

You were caught Simon Wood, fair and square!

[Cogidubnus]

Please galexander, try to post using a modicum of common sense - if you've truly never heard of "hearsay" evidence and it's general inadmissibility in criminal law, then the very least you could've done is googled it...or checked out wikipedia...please do...

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gale,

I suggest you take it up with those who drafted the legislation.

Regards,

Simon

[Captain Hook]

hearsay

Galexander,

Hearsay is evidence, normally testimony, which refers to statements made by persons other than witnesses giving evidence in court. As a rule hearsay is inadmissible as establishing the fact concerned, but may be admissible if it seeks to establish that the statement was indeed made. Consequently, what Barnett said Mary told him is not admissible as establishing the truth of what Mary said but is admissible as evidence that Mary did say it. Just that she said something, mind you; not that what she said had happened had actually happened.

Hook

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hook,

Very well put.

Regards,

Simon

[Henry Flower]

Galex,

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?

It seems you have trouble reading with an honest or accurate eye. For the record - and slowly, so that even you cannot deliberately and willfully misunderstand - what I am saying is not that 'no-one is really sure', that's your spin; what I am saying is this:

Bourges WAS IN FRANCE as far as anyone knows. That's different, see?

The only evidence of Bourges's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 places him at very specific locations in France. There is no evidence that that account is false. There is no evidence that either he or Lautrec lied about it. There is no evidence placing Bourges on any boat to London, and there is no evidence of Bourges being present in Whitechapel that autumn.

I really hope that's clear. If you need any further help understanding the very basic distinction between what I said and what you wish I'd said, please let me know and I'll try to think of an even simpler explanation for you.

On second thoughts, don't bother. I think I'm done trying to reason with someone who came to the case having seen a movie and on that basis decided there was something Rippery about Toulouse-Lautrec; who had a weird ghostly experience in a room where a Lautrec was hanging, who has a 'chief suspect' he can't place anywhere but France at the time, who finds the presence of red hair in Parisian paintings to be a profound clue, who demands to know why Lautrec would paint a dental procedure unless he had some inside knowledge of the Ripper crimes, and who has produced no evidence of Bourges ever exhibiting criminal or violent tendencies, but who nevertheless insists that anyone who dismisses his theory is an agent of the Stalinist Orwellian conformist thought-police.

Galex, you'll be pleased to hear I've had enough. I'll be very interested to resume our debate if and when you produce any evidence that Bourges was in any way a violent or murderous individual, or evidence that he was in Whitechapel during 1888, or even just evidence that the account of his whereabouts in Mont Dore or Bicetre is suspect in some way. Failing that, of course, another named suspect you can link with Lautrec, or with a.n.other figure famous enough to hopefully shift some paperbacks.

Absent any serious evidence I think I'm wasting my own time. Cheers.

[galexander]

Galexander,

Hearsay is evidence, normally testimony, which refers to statements made by persons other than witnesses giving evidence in court. As a rule hearsay is inadmissible as establishing the fact concerned, but may be admissible if it seeks to establish that the statement was indeed made. Consequently, what Barnett said Mary told him is not admissible as establishing the truth of what Mary said but is admissible as evidence that Mary did say it. Just that she said something, mind you; not that what she said had happened had actually happened.

Hook

Yes, and Mary couldn't say it because she was dead!

So the report of everything Kelly said is hearsay and not admissible as evidence in court? I strongly doubt it.

That's a Catch 22 too far......

[galexander]

Galex,



It seems you have trouble reading with an honest or accurate eye. For the record - and slowly, so that even you cannot deliberately and willfully misunderstand - what I am saying is not that 'no-one is really sure', that's your spin; what I am saying is this:

Bourges WAS IN FRANCE as far as anyone knows. That's different, see?

The only evidence of Bourges's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 places him at very specific locations in France. There is no evidence that that account is false. There is no evidence that either he or Lautrec lied about it. There is no evidence placing Bourges on any boat to London, and there is no evidence of Bourges being present in Whitechapel that autumn.

I really hope that's clear. If you need any further help understanding the very basic distinction between what I said and what you wish I'd said, please let me know and I'll try to think of an even simpler explanation for you.

On second thoughts, don't bother. I think I'm done trying to reason with someone who came to the case having seen a movie and on that basis decided there was something Rippery about Toulouse-Lautrec; who had a weird ghostly experience in a room where a Lautrec was hanging, who has a 'chief suspect' he can't place anywhere but France at the time, who finds the presence of red hair in Parisian paintings to be a profound clue, who demands to know why Lautrec would paint a dental procedure unless he had some inside knowledge of the Ripper crimes, and who has produced no evidence of Bourges ever exhibiting criminal or violent tendencies, but who nevertheless insists that anyone who dismisses his theory is an agent of the Stalinist Orwellian conformist thought-police.

Galex, you'll be pleased to hear I've had enough. I'll be very interested to resume our debate if and when you produce any evidence that Bourges was in any way a violent or murderous individual, or evidence that he was in Whitechapel during 1888, or even just evidence that the account of his whereabouts in Mont Dore or Bicetre is suspect in some way. Failing that, of course, another named suspect you can link with Lautrec, or with a.n.other figure famous enough to hopefully shift some paperbacks.

Absent any serious evidence I think I'm wasting my own time. Cheers.

You're the one who is attempting to twist things around their little finger.

For example you were attempting to explain the following:

It seems you have trouble reading with an honest or accurate eye. For the record - and slowly, so that even you cannot deliberately and willfully misunderstand - what I am saying is not that 'no-one is really sure', that's your spin; what I am saying is this:

Bourges WAS IN FRANCE as far as anyone knows. That's different, see?

To use your own lingo - FAT difference!

The only evidence of Bourges's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 places him at very specific locations in France. There is no evidence that that account is false. There is no evidence that either he or Lautrec lied about it. There is no evidence placing Bourges on any boat to London, and there is no evidence of Bourges being present in Whitechapel that autumn.

Why should Lautrec be lying about what Bourges himself had told him? I never actually claimed Lautrec had been in on any secret plan of vengeance.

Galex, you'll be pleased to hear I've had enough. I'll be very interested to resume our debate if and when you produce any evidence that Bourges was in any way a violent or murderous individual, or evidence that he was in Whitechapel during 1888, or even just evidence that the account of his whereabouts in Mont Dore or Bicetre is suspect in some way.

Why should Bourges have had violent tendencies anyway? I never claimed he was one of your psychosexual sadists. The theory I proposed was that Bourges would have been a likely candidate for any secret (and illegal) plan of vengeance. He already knew the Lautrecs and was therefore trustworthy in their eyes.

[Limehouse]

Galexander wrote:

Why should Bourges have had violent tendencies anyway? I never claimed he was one of your psychosexual sadists. The theory I proposed was that Bourges would have been a likely candidate for any secret (and illegal) plan of vengeance. He already knew the Lautrecs and was therefore trustworthy in their eyes.

What did the doctor have to lose by turning down an invitation to execute women thought responsible for the contamination of their beloved relative? I mean, the family are hardly going to tell their friends not to engage him as a physician in the future because he refused to murder a bunch of women in Whitechapel, are they? Why would a doctor agree to go ahead with such a plan? Why would he put his head through the hangman's noose?

And as for the family, is it really a logical action on their behalf? Wouldn't most educated and well-bred families conclude that their relative played his own part in being infected for putting himself about? Isn't he himself likely to have infected other women? Did their relatives and physicians feel driven to seek out Lutrec and slice his body open?

Additionally, Lutrec was destroying himself with alcohol. Following your logic, why didn't the family seek revenge on the bars, cafes and public houses that sold him the drink he poured down his throat?

Finally, if you want to find JtR, don't go searching around France, don't go chasing creative spirits or their physicians. Look in the east end of London or close by. Look for someone like Peter Sutcliffe.

[galexander]

What did the doctor have to lose by turning down an invitation to execute women thought responsible for the contamination of their beloved relative? I mean, the family are hardly going to tell their friends not to engage him as a physician in the future because he refused to murder a bunch of women in Whitechapel, are they? Why would a doctor agree to go ahead with such a plan? Why would he put his head through the hangman's noose?

For the money.........

And as for the family, is it really a logical action on their behalf? Wouldn't most educated and well-bred families conclude that their relative played his own part in being infected for putting himself about? Isn't he himself likely to have infected other women? Did their relatives and physicians feel driven to seek out Lutrec and slice his body open?

Because syphilis has very definite symptoms, you know when you've got it. Look it up on Wiki.

Additionally, Lutrec was destroying himself with alcohol. Following your logic, why didn't the family seek revenge on the bars, cafes and public houses that sold him the drink he poured down his throat?

Perhaps his infection was one of the causes for him drinking too much.

Finally, if you want to find JtR, don't go searching around France, don't go chasing creative spirits or their physicians. Look in the east end of London or close by. Look for someone like Peter Sutcliffe.

I seem to recall that Sutcliffe's reign of terror lasted somewhat more than two and a half months.

[galexander]

I've just looked up Henry Flower's profile.

Now I know why he is so against my theory concerning Lautrec.......

He's a professional artist himself!

[Cogidubnus]

I've just looked up Henry Flower's profile.

Now I know why he is so against my theory concerning Lautrec.......

He's a professional artist himself!
Quick reply to this message

So what does this tell us? (Apart from the obvious fact that Henry Flower might just know what he's on about, whilst I'm afraid there's little evidence that you do?)...well it might indicate you do little research before rushing into print.



Dave

[Limehouse]

For the money.........





Because syphilis has very definite symptoms, you know when you've got it. Look it up on Wiki.





Perhaps his infection was one of the causes for him drinking too much.





I seem to recall that Sutcliffe's reign of terror lasted somewhat more than two and a half months.

Is there any evidence that Lutrec's docotor became suddenly wealthy after the Whitechapel crimes? Would a man really carry out murders of this type for money? Wouldn't he have chosen a method that was less risky - poisoning for example - as he was a doctor?

I know what the symptoms of syphilis are, but your response doesn't answer my question. You are concluding that the family, on learning that Lutrec had been infected with syphilis, would immediately want to take revenge on the woman/women who infected him. However, they might just as easily have felt that he was as much to blame as the woman/women.

It took a long time to catch Peter Sutcliffe because he was able to blend into the background, act normally, engage his victims, hide his double life from his family. And yet, he was a vicious and ruthless killer. I believe the JtR was a similar type of man.

In my opinion, there is no possibility what-so-ever that Lutrec, or his family or his physician had anything at all to do with these brutal killings.

[Henry Flower]

Galexander, I won't be posting here absent any actual evidence from yourself, as stated - but I think I'm entitled to make an exception to reply to a comment about myself personally.

I actually stated quite openly earlier on this very thread (#192) that I was an artist by profession - no research into my profile was necessary, but I guess that tells everyone a lot about how attentive a reader you are, Sherlock. Your book promises to be a real humdinger!

Also, another example of your very tenuous grasp of logic: even setting aside the absurd notion that a London artist in 2012 would have any reason to defend any other artist against accusations of murder, there is no logic to your imbecilic assumption: you haven't accused an artist of being the Ripper, you've accused a doctor, paid by aristocrats, all without the knowledge of Lautrec.

By your 'logic', doctors should be outraged at the accusation, not artists. D'uh!

Believe me, if it were proved that Sickert were the Ripper I'd be fascinated, if it were Lautrec himself I couldn't be happier, believe me. My favourite painter bar-none was a killer also - Caravaggio. I have no particular problem with the idea that an artist could be a killer, it's just that in this case your evidence is garbage.

I hope that's plain enough for you. It's not the artist thing, galexander, it's the evidence. You have no evidence. Nobody needs an ulterior motive to reject your case - believe me, your case is weak enough to fall entirely on its own merits