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

[galexander]

Hi Galer,

My comments were made in response to the following from you:



Regards, Bridewell.

I'm still none the wiser.

I think it is best to leave this one to people who are actually qualified in the law.

In the mean time I will be following common sense.

[Bridewell]

Originally Posted by Bridewell:
Oh no he wasn't. The example you give is what's known as a "Dying Declaration", which, though hearsay, is admissible if the person is dying, knows they are dying, and has no hope of recovery. It's the one exception to the general hearsay rule.

Regards, Bridewell.

Mary Kelly was not in court because she was already dead and it was Mary Kelly who we were discussing in the first place.

Hi Galer,

My comments were made in response to the following from you:

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

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

[QUOTE=Limehouse;221604]

Aristocrats have higher standards of etiquette than the average person.

QUOTE]

According to your argument, they have such high standards that they have casual sex with prostitutes and pay other people to slice open innocent women, leaving their innards spread all over the London pavements.

Delicately put!

Regards Bridewell.

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=galexander;221570]

Aristocrats have higher standards of etiquette than the average person.

QUOTE]

According to your argument, they have such high standards that they have casual sex with prostitutes and pay other people to slice open innocent women, leaving their innards spread all over the London pavements.

[galexander]

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!

Sorry, but I can't resist asking this one.......

Since you claim there is absolutely nothing wrong with it presumably you have already done a series of brothel paintings yourself?

[galexander]

Oh no he wasn't. The example you give is what's known as a "Dying Declaration", which, though hearsay, is admissible if the person is dying, knows they are dying, and has no hope of recovery. It's the one exception to the general hearsay rule.

As for the topic of this thread, the subject we're actualy supposed to be considering:

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

No, he wasn't.

Regards, Bridewell.

And thank you.

Mary Kelly was not in court because she was already dead and it was Mary Kelly who we were discussing in the first place.

[Captain 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,

You may doubt it as strongly as you wish. I'm afraid it won't do you any good for the simple reason that this is the way it is. That's how evidence works and that's what hearsay is. No two ways about it.

Mary told Barnett stories about her past which he later recounted - though not in court, since the Ripper was never brought to trial. Barnett's statement would have been admissible in court as evidence that Mary had said, for instance, that she had been in France where she was known as Marie Jeannette. The statement, however, was not evidence that Mary had been in France or had ever been known as anything else than Mary Jane. Any attempt to prove it on the basis of Barnett's recounting of Mary's stories would fail because it would constitute hearsay. It was not Mary speaking about her sejour in France but Barnett recalling what he had heard Mary say. Furthermore, as you yourself have pointed out, Mary was dead and could not confirm or deny Barnett's statement. I hope it's clear now.

I have a suspicion that you may be confusing hearsay with circumstantial evidence, which is a different proposition altogether. Although circumstantial evidence is somewhat discredited, particularly among the general public, it is admissible in court. Indeed, the accumulation of circumstantial evidence may suffice to convince a jury or a judge (depending on the legal system) that an event has actually taken place and may even lead to conviction.

Incidentally, Catch 22 doesn't seem to apply to hearsay or evidence. If memory serves, Yossarian was a fighter pilot who wanted to be grounded by reason of insanity during the war. Catch 22 was that anyone who wanted to be grounded was considered to be sane. In other words, damn if you do and damn if you don't.

Cheers
Hook

[galexander]

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

I think Abby Normal has got it right here.

You are a Troll Henry Flower.

[galexander]

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?

Cases of poisoning usually only involve close relatives or people who know each other well.

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.

Aristocrats have higher standards of etiquette than the average person.

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.

But you have just contradicted yourself. Sutcliffe wasn't the same kind of man as JtR at all.

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.

For what your opinion is worth. And please spell Lautrec correctly.

[Bridewell]

I've never heard of the following before:

Quote:
......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!

Oh no he wasn't. The example you give is what's known as a "Dying Declaration", which, though hearsay, is admissible if the person is dying, knows they are dying, and has no hope of recovery. It's the one exception to the general hearsay rule.

As for the topic of this thread, the subject we're actualy supposed to be considering:

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

No, he wasn't.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Abby Normal]

Stop feeding the trolls

[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

[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.

[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

[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!