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

[Henry Flower]

Putting sarcasm to one side, what is a fun-loving Impressionist artist doing painting half-naked women in brothels one minute then a pioneering operation the next?

You have failed to explain the connection and the apparent absurdity of the situation.

You have failed to explain why you think HT-L was the first artist in history legally obliged to paint only one subject. You have failed to explain the connection between the Whitehcapel murders and a dental procedure. You have failed to explain why some people become determined to reduce a great artist's output to little more than a set of arcane clues to the Whitechapel murders.

I can explain the absurdity, however: the murders remained unsolved and infamous. Some people cannot accept the probably mundane truth behind the killings. Hence the absurdity of this situation.

[galexander]

Conservative reactionaries the lot of you.

You have nothing constructive to say and this discussion is getting rather boring.

[mariab]

You still want us to help find a publisher for your book?

[Sally]

My memory may be playing me false on this, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that John Kelly's wife's name was Mary Ann? If so, it's probably simply mischief-making on the part of Kate Eddowes.

Best Wishes, Bridewell

I don't read so much into this. She also called herself Kate Conelly - I don't know if John Kelly's name was Mary Ann (maybe somebody does) but it was such a common name at the time it was virtually ubiquitous anyway.

[Henry Flower]

Conservative reactionaries the lot of you.

You have nothing constructive to say and this discussion is getting rather boring.

No, the conversation was boring to start with - famous Victorian name implicated in Ripper murders, clues found in paintings, Freemasonry etc etc. It's old and stale. We've been through this charade too many times.

If by 'conservative reactionaries' you mean people who require some serious evidence (the sort you'd use to solve real murder cases in the real world) rather than vague, speculative conspiracy theories - then yes, perhaps two-thirds of us (no offence Lynn) are, on a good day, conservative reactionaries.

[Beowulf]

I agree with Robert: as a viable suspect, Lautrec comes up short.

But then again, who would notice him? It's not like he was very memorable.

[Errata]

I think you guys dismissed this theory too soon. I mean, if you look at the painting of the doctor he clearly has a thick carroty mustache. As well as carroty decor.

[Admin]

Posters at this time are requested to refresh themselves on the Rules. Specifically Major Rule #8. The vast majority of off-topic posts will be deleted, and posters are requested not to post any more. Thank you.

[galexander]

I admit my theory is not absolutely 100% fullproof; in fact I never claimed such a thing.

Instead my suggested theory is compelling and offers strong circumstantial evidence.

Look at some of the other suggested suspects on this forum....... Not only can many of these suspects be ruled out entirely (they had alibi's, such as the early suspects did) some of the suggestions are just plainly absurd.

Read down the list of threads on this subject area of the forum and some author has suggested Van Gogh may have been the Ripper! And look at some of the generous comments he gets from the forum members.........

I wonder if you're own ungenerous comments on this thread have not been motivated by jealousy.........

[Beowulf]

I refer to my unpublished book “Jack the Ripper: The Case Solved”. The suspect I claim was implicated in the killings was the Impressionist artist, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. I make the case that the last victim, Mary Kelly, was the intended target all along and that her relations with an aristocratic gentleman from Paris was the ultimate cause of her demise. In my book I make the case that Lautrec had relations with Kelly, for example:

1. It is known that in the months before her death Kelly spent some time in Paris probably working in a brothel and Lautrec knew and painted all the girls who worked in these establishments.
2. Lautrec was obsessed by redheads and it is probable that Kelly at some time in her life also had red hair judging by her nickname ‘ginger’.
3. A letter from Lautrec to his mother reveals that one of his girlfriends in Paris was English and that her first name had been Jeanette. Since Lautrec was in the habit of placing the extra name ‘Marie’ in front of the first name, this English lady would therefore have been called ‘Marie-Jeanette’. This is the very name Kelly had picked up while staying in Paris and which had appeared on her death certificate.
4. Unfortunate rumours were circulating Montmartre that Lautrec had contracted syphilis from a notorious prostitute and also that one of Lautrec’s girlfriends had come to a rather unfortunate end. Lautrec’s life ended prematurely and this could have been the result of syphilis and his chaperone/doctor was also an authority on the treatment of syphilis patients.

Had one of Lautrec’s close relatives taken offence at this apparent insult to their son’s health who was handicapped and of a poor constitution anyway, and decided to punish the individual responsible? Had this avenger been none other than Lautrec’s own chaperone/doctor Henri Bourges who knew all about good hygiene in the case of people infected with syphilis? During the critical months in question Bourges had been absent from Lautrec’s side though it appears this had only been a temporary arrangement...

In looking over this theory I see it was not Laurtec who you suggest was the murderer but his doctor Bourges.

But Lautrec did not die until 1901. Why would you think the avenged murder took place years before in 1888?

The other question I would have would be when were these 'critical months' that Bourges had been absent from Lautrec's side? Critical due to his failing health that went on for years due to his alcoholism?

Would you really think that the physician would jeopardize his career as a doctor to avenge the impending death of Lautrec because Lautrec chose to mingle with prostitutes himself? Wouldn't a doctor feel that is his own responsiblity? Why would then he take so long on Mary doing such horrendous things no normal man could. Then what of the other murders? There would still be a Whitechapel murderer out there at large.

I find it raises a lot of questions that others would also ask. Does your book address these?

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a very interesting theory you have. After all it took me into the research of Lautrec simply because of your ideas.

[Henry Flower]

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?

[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

[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.

[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]

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?