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

[Graham]

On the pre-crash boards, ages ago, I mischievously and for a giggle put forward the name of Sir W S Gilbert (he of Gilbert & Sullivan fame to anyone with less than a halfway decent education) as a possible contender for JtR. I received loads of PM's asking for more information, and for where I got my information, etc., etc. I just could not believe how credulous some people are. Same goes for Sickert, Toulouse-Lautrec, Monet, Manet and the rest of 'em - all bollocks.

Graham

[Cogidubnus]

Sickert, Toulouse-Lautrec, Monet, Manet and the rest of 'em - all bollocks

.

Presumably that part of Impressionism that derives from sitting on Plasticine...

Dave

[Graham]

Plasticine unknown until 1897. Think again.

Graham

[Cogidubnus]

Scholar!

[Sally]

On the pre-crash boards, ages ago, I mischievously and for a giggle put forward the name of Sir W S Gilbert (he of Gilbert & Sullivan fame to anyone with less than a halfway decent education) as a possible contender for JtR. I received loads of PM's asking for more information, and for where I got my information, etc., etc. I just could not believe how credulous some people are. Same goes for Sickert, Toulouse-Lautrec, Monet, Manet and the rest of 'em - all bollocks.

Graham

Yeah, but the trouble is, that sort of thing has a popular appeal. Joe Public would much rather JtR was some famous dude than some down and out nobody.

So far famous people essential candidacy criteria for Ripperhood seem to include the following:

Royalty, high public profile, famous in his own lunchtime, or failing that, at least posthumously.

Must associate with prostitutes. And maybe live in France. Or visit at least. And London as well.

Must leave clues. Or else what's the point.

Now, about Gilbert - are we absolutely sure he didn't leave clues in his work? A bit of light opera would be a perfect hiding place, surely?

[The Grave Maurice]

Now, about Gilbert - are we absolutely sure he didn't leave clues in his work? A bit of light opera would be a perfect hiding place, surely?

Funny you should say that. Lately I've been examining the lyrics of The Pirates of Penzance for anagrams and, almost immediately, I discovered the hidden phrase "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Serial Killer". Pretty compelling evidence, eh?

[Sally]

Funny you should say that. Lately I've been examining the lyrics of The Pirates of Penzance for anagrams and, almost immediately, I discovered the hidden phrase "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Serial Killer". Pretty compelling evidence, eh?

I suspected as much Grave - when can we expect the book?

[Graham]

Now, about Gilbert - are we absolutely sure he didn't leave clues in his work? A bit of light opera would be a perfect hiding place, surely?

Ah-ha! Gilbert was well-known in real life as something of a mysogonist, and there are rumours that he never consummated his own marriage. Many of his operas feature an elderly and ugly woman who is the butt of fun - Katisha in Mikado for instance.

What if someone found the manuscript of Princess Ida and found that the original title of the aria Oh Goddess Wise! was actually Oh God, What Thighs! as a concealed but direct reference to Mary Kelly's attractions? I'm starting my book today, manuscript or no manuscript!

Graham

[Errata]

Ah-ha! Gilbert was well-known in real life as something of a mysogonist, and there are rumours that he never consummated his own marriage. Many of his operas feature an elderly and ugly woman who is the butt of fun - Katisha in Mikado for instance.

What if someone found the manuscript of Princess Ida and found that the original title of the aria Oh Goddess Wise! was actually Oh God, What Thighs! as a concealed but direct reference to Mary Kelly's attractions? I'm starting my book today, manuscript or no manuscript!

Graham

I know I want to serially kill people every time I listen to the Mikado...

[galexander]

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.

All the clues link up.

Lautrec's friend, François Gauzi, described Carmen Gaudin, HTL's favourite model, as having 'an air of disease about her' when they first met. But why would he say such a thing looking back at it in retrospect?

Thadée Natanson, another of Lautrec's close friends, was in no doubt that Lautrec had contracted syphilis.

You only have to add two and two together and it must have been Carmen Gaudin who had infected Lautrec with syphilis.

In a letter to his mother dated December 1884 he gives the English sounding name 'Jeanette Hathaway'. Since Lautrec was in the habit of placing the name 'Marie' in front of the first name, she would have been called 'Marie-Jeanette' by Lautrec. This was the name Mary Kelly had entered on her death certificate.

Added to this the account in Kelly's life of her travelling to Paris around this time where she would most likely have worked in a licensed brothel and the fact that Lautrec knew all the women who worked in these establishments, that Kelly was reported to have been good looking and may have had red hair, and you have what I would claim is a compelling theory.

[Sally]

Hi Galexander

As I've said to you before, the Marie Jeanette link it's interesting - but:

If Kelly's name was Mary Jane and she had spent time in France, mightn't it merely be an affectation? If she had bee in France she might have been called Marie Jeanette as a near French equivalent?

I just wonder if there might be a simpler explanation.

[Bridewell]

A Compelling Theory

All the clues link up.


Lautrec's friend, François Gauzi, described Carmen Gaudin, HTL's favourite model, as having 'an air of disease about her' when they first met. But why would he say such a thing looking back at it in retrospect?

How can he do it other than in retrospect?

Thadée Natanson, another of Lautrec's close friends, was in no doubt that Lautrec had contracted syphilis.

Even if Lautrec did have syphilis, in what way is this, in any way, evidence relevant to the JtR murders?

You only have to add two and two together and it must have been Carmen Gaudin who had infected Lautrec with syphilis.

Quite possibly, but if both were promiscuous, I think "must have been" may be an over-statement. How is this relevant, though, to the JtR matter?

In a letter to his mother dated December 1884 he gives the English sounding name 'Jeanette Hathaway'. Since Lautrec was in the habit of placing the name 'Marie' in front of the first name, she would have been called 'Marie-Jeanette' by Lautrec. This was the name Mary Kelly had entered on her death certificate.

She'd probably have been called either Mary or Marie by everyone she met. It was her name after all.

Added to this the account in Kelly's life of her travelling to Paris around this time where she would most likely have worked in a licensed brothel and the fact that Lautrec knew all the women who worked in these establishments, that Kelly was reported to have been good looking and may have had red hair, and you have what I would claim is a compelling theory.

Mary Kelly (according to Barnett) claimed to have been to Paris. Lautrec was French and frequented brothels. They may have met, or they may not. Do you have any proof that they actually did? If not, it's a guess at best.

Kelly was reported to have been good looking and may have had red hair.

Fine, but how is all this a "compelling theory" that Lautrec, through his doctor or otherwise, was implicated in the Whitechapel murders?

[galexander]

Hi Galexander

As I've said to you before, the Marie Jeanette link it's interesting - but:

If Kelly's name was Mary Jane and she had spent time in France, mightn't it merely be an affectation? If she had bee in France she might have been called Marie Jeanette as a near French equivalent?

I just wonder if there might be a simpler explanation.

However it is also quite possible that 'Mary Jane' was an English rendition of 'Marie Jeanette'.

And this was the name that appeared on her death certificate.

[galexander]

Mary Kelly (according to Barnett) claimed to have been to Paris. Lautrec was French and frequented brothels. They may have met, or they may not. Do you have any proof that they actually did? If not, it's a guess at best.

Kelly was reported to have been good looking and may have had red hair.

Fine, but how is all this a "compelling theory" that Lautrec, through his doctor or otherwise, was implicated in the Whitechapel murders?

But can't you see the weight of circumstantial evidence?

Carmen Gaudin was described as "unhealthy" the very first time they met.

CONCLUSION:

1. Carmen Gaudin most likely had syphilis and knew that she did.

2. She had unnecessarily infected a French aristocrat.

3. This would have angered his over-possessive parents who from all accounts were a little on the crazy side as it was. HTL's father would regularly turn up to dinner in fancy dress i.e. dressed as a medieval knight or wearing tartan.


Thadée Natanson was of the opinion of the woman who had infected Lautrec with syphilis that she was 'in all probability already dead'.

But you could read so much into those words.

How did he know she was already dead or why did he have reason to believe that she was? Was she on her last legs to such an extent that this would have been only inevitable or was Natanson perhaps referring to something else he had heard of?

[Stephen Thomas]

Possibly he went around Whitechapel without his top hat and hence stayed below the line of vision of potential witnesses.