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

[Henry Flower]

Well it seems you have failed to answer a simple question and have even deliberately avoided it.

You have used classic Trolling tactics and in addition you have filled the discussion with off-topic chatter.

And what are we to conclude by this?

That you're a classic self-righteous bore, transparently lacking in reasoning skills, and exhibiting a clear tendency towards psychological projection and priggish condescension; that the thread died because you never had any evidence, and that you know nothing about the Ripper, and even less about Art?

That's my guess. Anyone else care to have a go?

[Bridewell]

The Topic

You have used classic Trolling tactics and in addition you have filled the discussion with off-topic chatter.

Okay, let's get back to the topic of this thread.

Was the artist, Henri de Toulouse Lautrec implicated in the killings?

There is, unusually, unanimous agreement on this point. No, he wasn't. You yourself concede as much in Post 10:

I am not of the opinion that HTL committed the murders in person or even that he knew they had happened.

I honestly can't think what else there is to say which isn't off-topic. Henri de Toulouse Lautrec was not implicated in the Whitechapel Murders. End of Story.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bridewell,

"Was the artist, Henri de Toulouse Lautrec, implicated in the killings?"

No.

Can we please move on?

Regards,

Simon

[galexander]

I would like you to make note of the following points:

1) I suggest you lot check your dictionaries for the precise meaning of the word Implicated as you don't seem to understand what it means.

2) You are quick to revert to nursery school logic in a desperate attempt to prove a new theory wrong.

3) Your arguments so far have been tedious, pedantic, ill informed or just plain wrong.

4) You have failed to prove or disprove anything.

And you claim that I am the one who is self-righteous? But then again what else could I have expected from a forum uninformed chatter boxes?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gale,

Now is the time to bow out gracefully.

Regards,

Simon

[Henry Flower]

I would like you to make note of the following points:

Oh, yes sir, we will! Fire away, headmaster.

1) I suggest you lot check your dictionaries for the precise meaning of the word Implicated as you don't seem to understand what it means.

I'll happily do so, and may I suggest you do the same for the words 'know', 'evidence', and 'theory'. There are also primers on the Whitechapel Murders and Art History you may wish to consult next time you want to write about either.

2) You are quick to revert to nursery school logic in a desperate attempt to prove a new theory wrong.

I'm sorry - did you have a theory?! I must've missed it. I thought you insinuated that a man might have been Jack the Ripper before admitting to having no evidence at all (beyond wishful thinking) that the historical record of his whereabouts (in France all autumn) was in any way incorrect. That, you dignify with the word 'theory'? Talk about 'desperate'!! Nursery school logic seems an appropriate and proportionate tool to use in analyzing a theory as childish as yours.

3) Your arguments so far have been tedious, pedantic, ill informed or just plain wrong.

Whereas yours have been all of the above AND hysterically funny, so you win! But let's look at those terms; tedious - yes, for one who thought we should all be more accepting of his theory, it must be tedious that we found so many holes in it; pedantic - you mean the pesky attention to detail and exactitude from which your theory is so gloriously free; ill-informed or just plain wrong - leaving aside your failure to cite a single specific example, let's just savor the rank hypocrisy of that statement coming from someone who thinks Lautrec was an Impressionist, that a man with a medical history such as his - with as many doctor friends as he had - must nevertheless have had some Rippery-Murdery ulterior-yet-unconscious motive to have painted medical scenes on several occasions. Etc. Etc. Us ill-informed?! Your hypocrisy is so stark it actually becomes enjoyable, galexander, a genuine source of fun.

4) You have failed to prove or disprove anything.

We didn't need to. You admitted to having no evidence that your suspect's reported whereabouts were wrong. We had nothing to prove or disprove. You really don't get how this works, do you? You have a theory, you have to provide evidence: either that Bourges was in London, or give us an alternative suspect. It's not up to us to prove that he was where he was claimed to be, we're not the ones accusing him of murder. Don't you get that? Are you really such an irredeemable blockhead that you think the onus is on us to disprove your theory?? Let me make this as clear as it can be for you:

Show us some evidence that Henri Bourges was not in France, where he was reported to be, in the autumn of 1888

- or -

Name a better suspect

It couldn't be much clearer. If you can't do either of those two things, what are you still doing here? What 'theory' are you actually defending? You're just making a fool of yourself.

And you claim that I am the one who is self-righteous? But then again what else could I have expected from a forum uninformed chatter boxes?

Oh yeah, we should all just have bowed down to your great theory and acclaimed your definitive solution - that a man with an unblemished reputation who was in France that autumn might hypothetically not have been in France, and therefore might have been Jack the Ripper because he was a friend of an artist who got syphilis in Paris... Get real. You are a tedious little whinger with a pathetic and unearned sense of entitlement.

But you do amuse me a little, nevertheless

[Limehouse]

I would like you to make note of the following points:

1) I suggest you lot check your dictionaries for the precise meaning of the word Implicated as you don't seem to understand what it means.

2) You are quick to revert to nursery school logic in a desperate attempt to prove a new theory wrong.

3) Your arguments so far have been tedious, pedantic, ill informed or just plain wrong.

4) You have failed to prove or disprove anything.

And you claim that I am the one who is self-righteous? But then again what else could I have expected from a forum uninformed chatter boxes?

Well, I'm just amazed. This is, probably, the most unjustified comment made by a 'theorist' in response to posters who disagree with their 'theory'.

Firstly, you seem to be making up your theory as you go along. Was Lautrec the murderer, or was it his doctor? If it was his doctor, and Lautrec was unaware of his doctor's actions, why are his paintings in any way relevant to your theory?

Secondly, as has been pointed out by Henry (excellent posts by the way), your knowledge of art is sadly lacking. This is revealed not only by your confusion over Impressionism/Post-Impressionism, but your interpretation of Lautrec's paintings, which fail to appreciate the features of Post-Impressionism.

Thirdly, your claim that your critics have neither proved or disproved anything is pointless, since your critics are not seeking to do so, but to discuss the merits of your theory against the known evidence, which is that Lautrec's doctor was not in London at the crucial time. You may not agree with this evidence, but it is nevertheless more credible than the vague idea that it was possible to travel from Paris to London in under four hours and therefore this is what he must have done.

Finally, above all else, your suspect is weak simply because these were the wrong types of murder for your theory. The killer of these women was driven by the need to kill, to rip open the women's bodies and he was driven by the challenge of doing so in the most risky of circumstances. IF Lautrec's doctor was commissioned to kill these women for revenge, it is highly unlikely that he would have chosen to do so in such a way.

So, to answer the question you posed when openinjg this thread: Was the Artist Henri de Toulouse Lautrec Implicated in the Killings? a big, fat NO!

[Bridewell]

Wouldn't a doctor just have administered a lethal injection as Harold Shipman did?

I suggest you lot check your dictionaries for the precise meaning of the word Implicated as you don't seem to understand what it means.

Oxford Compact Dictionary:

Implicate: "show (person) to be involved (in crime etc)"

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

Er, 'No'.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Limehouse]

Wouldn't a doctor just have administered a lethal injection as Harold Shipman did?
.

I agree, and suggested so a few posts back, but galexander didn't think much of that idea!

[Bridewell]

Injections

I agree, and suggested so a few posts back, but galexander didn't think much of that idea!

Quelle surprise!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Henry Flower]

Maybe Bourges did intend to administer a simple injection: my theory has always been that the so-called 'knife wounds' on the victims were the result of a continental doctor desperately and repeatedly trying in the dark to find a vein.