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

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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?

[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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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.

You think that was attitude?

I agree, Galexander, it would be lovely if people always stated their reasons for disagreeing with sources and references, and you know, a lot of the time, people do just that on the forum. However, I think at the end of the day we should remember that this is a message board, and people debate in different ways and styles - that's the nature of message boards.

Anyway, let's leave it there, shall we? I didn't mean to upset you, and I'm sorry if I did.

[Errata]

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?

Well, to be fair, you had expressed surprise that publishers did not seem interested in your theory. You assumed it had something to do with your writing style. And then people started to challenge your theory. Yes, sometimes with ridicule, but a majority of that was tasteless dwarf jokes. Clearly people disagree with you. That's nothing new. But part of the challenging process is to expose potential flaws in your theory, so that you can perhaps look at it from a less biased viewpoint and say "it's true. That doesn't make sense." or "I need to flesh this out so I can communicate this idea clearly."

The idea that this doctor was the Ripper is not impossible. It would be surprising, but not impossible. But the motive is the problem. Why would he do this? What would be worth the risk? Was it for money? If so was there evidence of money changing hands? Was it out of loyalty? Is there any evidence that he was particularly attached to this patient? Was it class warfare? Is there any evidence of him being such a snob? Are you sure he doesn't have an alibi for one of these murders? Have you done all your research?

It sounds like you see a tenuous connection between TL and these murders, and you have read a couple of books and have settled on the doctor as the criminal. And there's nothing wrong with that. But that's just the beginning of a theory, not a theory itself. So far you are shy on real data, and that may be the reason you have faced rejection with publishers. Look at this challenging process here as a sarcastic and occasionally hostile M&M, and take our criticism for what it's worth. We are challenging you to PROVE it to us. We may never agree with you, but we can get to the point where we acknowledge that you have done some damn fine work.

[galexander]

Well, to be fair, you had expressed surprise that publishers did not seem interested in your theory. You assumed it had something to do with your writing style. And then people started to challenge your theory. Yes, sometimes with ridicule, but a majority of that was tasteless dwarf jokes. Clearly people disagree with you. That's nothing new. But part of the challenging process is to expose potential flaws in your theory, so that you can perhaps look at it from a less biased viewpoint and say "it's true. That doesn't make sense." or "I need to flesh this out so I can communicate this idea clearly."

The idea that this doctor was the Ripper is not impossible. It would be surprising, but not impossible. But the motive is the problem. Why would he do this? What would be worth the risk? Was it for money? If so was there evidence of money changing hands? Was it out of loyalty? Is there any evidence that he was particularly attached to this patient? Was it class warfare? Is there any evidence of him being such a snob? Are you sure he doesn't have an alibi for one of these murders? Have you done all your research?

It sounds like you see a tenuous connection between TL and these murders, and you have read a couple of books and have settled on the doctor as the criminal. And there's nothing wrong with that. But that's just the beginning of a theory, not a theory itself. So far you are shy on real data, and that may be the reason you have faced rejection with publishers. Look at this challenging process here as a sarcastic and occasionally hostile M&M, and take our criticism for what it's worth. We are challenging you to PROVE it to us. We may never agree with you, but we can get to the point where we acknowledge that you have done some damn fine work.

I don't agree.

Compare my theory with some of the others that have been put forward AND published.

I read Stephen Knight's theory, for example, and it failed to convince at all but as far as I can make out at the time it was pretty much a best seller.

The only thing my theory lacks is the final solid evidence, i.e. the bloodstained knife or an entry in a diary which says, "Yes, I was the Ripper!" (As if that would count as final proof anyway.)

Come on Errata I can't achieve the impossible!

[Errata]

I don't agree.

Compare my theory with some of the others that have been put forward AND published.

I read Stephen Knight's theory, for example, and it failed to convince at all but as far as I can make out at the time it was pretty much a best seller.

The only thing my theory lacks is the final solid evidence, i.e. the bloodstained knife or an entry in a diary which says, "Yes, I was the Ripper!" (As if that would count as final proof anyway.)

Come on Errata I can't achieve the impossible!

Of course not. And no one is asking that. But as far as we here can tell, your theory lacks more than the smoking gun. And perhaps it's because you choose not to share the whole thing with us, and that's fine. But you have as of yet to offer a compelling motive. We don't know why you think a moderately respectable doctor would do such a thing, and why you think it was him, vs one of TL less reputable friends. Why didn't TL come forward if he knew?

We know why you think he could have done it. He was a doctor, had at least tertiary acquaintance with the prostitute lifestyle, etc. but we don't know why you think he DID do it. Millions of people suffered from syphilis. Some far more famous and more blue blooded than TL. Why this guy as opposed to the others? Was he abusive towards women? Was he known to be in London on all of the murder dates? Was he incredibly hostile towards prostitutes in his correspondence? Why this doctor? Why not another doctor, or another Frenchman, or another acquaintance of TL? A fully fleshed out theory is like a news article. Who, what, where, when, why, how. From you we have a who. But what about the rest of it? Did Bourges stay in England for the duration, or channel hop for the specific purpose of killing? Why was his knife work so shaky? Where did he stay in London, did he have friends? Did he speak English? Did he have extensive knowledge of Whitechapel? If so, why? If not, how did he avoid capture? As a doctor he had access to innumerable ways of killing someone. Why did he choose something so horrifying, and quite frankly messy?

And you may have the answers to those questions, but you haven't given them to us. So your choice of suspect seems as random as opening up a phone book and picking a name. And if you don't choose to share, that is certainly your right. But then don't be surprised when form the opinion that it might not be as well thought out as it possibly should.