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

[galexander]

If you still think JtR was a psychosexual serial killer then consider the following:

Mary Ann Nichols, the first victim, was murdered on the 31 August 1888.

Mary Kelly, the last victim, was murdered on the 9 November 1888.

That's five victims (four if you exclude Stride) in a period of less than 2 and half months.

That's not long.

All the serial killers I've heard of murder over years before they are caught, not weeks.

[galexander]

.....we've repeatedly asked you to "put up or shut up".....I've only been on here since February myself...but I know well enough that if anybody at all on Casebook put up any totally unsupported set of allegations, they'd be asked to justify them, failing which, they'd get shot down in short order

What are you talking about totally unsupported?

And who do you think you are, Joe Stalin or something?

[galexander]

Hi Gale,

Just in case you haven't noticed, the horse you're flogging is dead.

Regards,

Simon

Bullocks!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gale,

Just in case you haven't noticed, the horse you're flogging is dead.

Regards,

Simon

[galexander]

You were wrong. Perhaps you meant 'years' rather than 'months' - if so, admit that one way or another you made an error - as Bridewell has demonstrated - instead of this absurd display of petulance. And even if you meant 'years', you might still have the integrity to agree that there is no conclusive evidence concerning her time in Paris. It's hearsay. I believe it's true, but that doesn't entitle me to claim that I 'know' she went there, let alone during 'the months before her death' - and then presume to lecture those who point out my error.

And by the word "months" you mean less than 12 months?

But isn't 18 months or 24 months longer than 12 months?

Yes they are but we are still talking about months are we not?

People speak of 30 or 40 years, so why can't we speak of 30 or 40 months?

Presumably that is against the rules?

I said "months" at the time because in the context it made more sense than saying "years".

Simple.

[Limehouse]

I must admit I did enjoy that one, galexander:

so you admit to blatant sarcasm!

You'd think I'd beaten a nun to death with a sick puppy or something.

Blatant sarcasm.... gosh!

Oh No! Not sick puppies again! Aren't they on the other bonkers thread?

[Henry Flower]

I must admit I did enjoy that one, galexander:

so you admit to blatant sarcasm!

You'd think I'd beaten a nun to death with a sick puppy or something.

Blatant sarcasm.... gosh!

[Cogidubnus]

So you admit to blatant sarcasm.........

And what does that say about yourselves precisely?

You register and log on to this forum to discuss JtR and the best you can do is gas about a load of nonsense and then throw sarcastic comments at anyone who has the slightest original idea on the subject!

It says no more than that we've all been pretty patient, (well over 200 dull and turgid posts patient), that we've repeatedly asked you to "put up or shut up"...that you've continually failed to do so...and some of us are getting antsy about it...

It's not about discrimination against fresh thinking, or a newcomer...I've only been on here since February myself...but I know well enough that if anybody at all on Casebook put up any totally unsupported set of allegations, they'd be asked to justify them, failing which, they'd get shot down in short order

Sincerely, all you need do is tackle the second part of my post - the bit that goes:-

This forum is all about evidence (as far as is possible at this distance in time) and reasoning...and I'm afraid you simply haven't presented anything fresh in either direction...sorry!

You've admitted it wasn't Toulouse L'Autrec, you've admitted Bourges wasn't even in the country...so fess-up time - Show us some evidence rather than vague insinuations...or at the very least show us some joined-up reasoning...

Good luck

Dave

[Henry Flower]

Oh galex, if only a surly, pompous attitude could compensate for the glaring holes in your theory, we'd all be convinced.

You said:

It is known that in the months before her death Kelly spent some time in Paris

You were wrong. Perhaps you meant 'years' rather than 'months' - if so, admit that one way or another you made an error - as Bridewell has demonstrated - instead of this absurd display of petulance. And even if you meant 'years', you might still have the integrity to agree that there is no conclusive evidence concerning her time in Paris. It's hearsay. I believe it's true, but that doesn't entitle me to claim that I 'know' she went there, let alone during 'the months before her death' - and then presume to lecture those who point out my error.

In my question I specifically asked how many sexually motivated serial killers were there BEFORE JtR. And you answered that such a question was irrelevant because there were plenty AFTER as any fool could see! But this was not the question I had asked........

The question you asked was irrelevant.

In fact, all your questions are irrelevant. Not because the forum is Orwellian, nor because we have psychopathic personality profiles, and certainly not because I am the biased parrot of officialdom: your questions are irrelevant because you freely admit your suspect was, as far as your evidence shows, in the wrong country at the time of the Whitechapel murders.

I can only presume that's what you mean when you proclaim the 'originality' of your theory.

[galexander]

Galex, I can't thank you enough.



Yes, I checked out your link. It contains the following:



No known evidence. May have made up the entire episode. Thanks galex - most illuminating. You go on to say that 'even wikipedia' claims she went to France. What, even wikipedia?! The online encyclopedia to which any idiot off the street can contribute articles? Oh well, it's settled then; I defer to such overwhelming scholarly authority! My complete ignorance of the Ripper murders ... Please note - I do not say she DID make it up - merely that you do not know what you clearly claim to know. You're turning hearsay into documented fact because it suits your theory to do so.



Why prior to JtR? Why would that be relevant? I think we can agree there has been a sufficient number of sexually-motivated killers and mutilators to render the question meaningless. The answer, in any case, is definitely 'plenty'. None are as famous as JtR, largely because he was merely the first to have been a mass-media phenomenon. But he was far from being the first sexual serial killer. Needless to say, law enforcement professionals seem to disagree almost unanimously with the idea that these were anything other than serial killings motivated by a perverted sexual need.



So what? It still has literally nothing whatsoever to do with the Ripper crimes. I made a cheap gibe because I thought it warranted one, galex.



Galex, here's a news flash: when you try to bolster your case with constant illogical insinuations that you then try to weasel away from, cheap gibes become rather tempting. As far as I can see, all you've done is made circumstantial insinuation after insinuation: you never seem to offer an explanation of the exact course of anything.



Fine. Let's broaden it out a little then. Do you have ANY evidence - documentary, hearsay, oral tradition - placing Bourges in London on any of the murder dates? If you don't, you don't. Just be honest and say so. You could also allow us to help you - by telling us exactly what your sources are for Bourges's reported whereabouts in Mont Dore or Bicetre - that way we could take a look for ourselves and decide whether those sources might have their own weaknesses. But as it stands you are happy to admit that as far as the evidence shows - and you have nothing to contradict it - your chief suspect never left France during the Ripper murders?



There is no kind way of saying this: as far as the evidence you've shared here is concerned, I just don't find a single piece of it 'compelling'. I'm not biased. I don't have a preferred other candidate. I don't mind if it was Bourges. I'd be happy to congratulate you on your work. I have no axe to grind; I simply don't find any of your evidence even vaguely convincing. Especially given that your suspect was in France at the time, and therefore HTL's paintings cannot reflect his unconscious disturbance at what Bourges had done.



Original ideas are not immune from scrutiny simply on the basis that they are original. Ideas more credible and far more 'original' than your stale stuff get discussed here every day. Would I be more open-minded if I simply accepted risible nonsense as probable truth? If I failed to question the glaring flaws in your theory? Would you prefer that? 1984? Please, stop the self-aggrandizing self-pity. Did you really expect to come here and simply have us all applaud you? To ignore the fact that your named suspect was in France at the time? Because we find that one fact more compelling than circumstantial evidence and clues hidden in paintings, you think there is something Orwellian about the forum?! Please, get over yourself.

And yes, I was indeed joking. I'm going to be charitable and assume you spotted that obvious fact.

Sincerely,

S.P.O.O.

It's so easy to have a go at Wikipedia. But this is what Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner have to say about the matter in The Jack The Ripper A-Z:

Came to London, c. 1884, working first in a high-class West End brothel. At this period she frequently rode in a carriage. At least once she went to Paris with a gentleman, but returned in a few weeks, disliking living in France.

And added to this is the French name she picked while staying in Paris, 'Marie-Jeanette'. And this was the name included on her death certificate.

So, what do you think?

Why prior to JtR? Why would that be relevant? I think we can agree there has been a sufficient number of sexually-motivated killers and mutilators to render the question meaningless. The answer, in any case, is definitely 'plenty'. None are as famous as JtR, largely because he was merely the first to have been a mass-media phenomenon. But he was far from being the first sexual serial killer. Needless to say, law enforcement professionals seem to disagree almost unanimously with the idea that these were anything other than serial killings motivated by a perverted sexual need.

How cleverly you duck my question, presumably because you were unable to answer it. In my question I specifically asked how many sexually motivated serial killers were there BEFORE JtR. And you answered that such a question was irrelevant because there were plenty AFTER as any fool could see! But this was not the question I had asked........

Fine. Let's broaden it out a little then. Do you have ANY evidence - documentary, hearsay, oral tradition - placing Bourges in London on any of the murder dates? If you don't, you don't. Just be honest and say so. You could also allow us to help you - by telling us exactly what your sources are for Bourges's reported whereabouts in Mont Dore or Bicetre - that way we could take a look for ourselves and decide whether those sources might have their own weaknesses. But as it stands you are happy to admit that as far as the evidence shows - and you have nothing to contradict it - your chief suspect never left France during the Ripper murders?

If you had asked a polite question you may have got a polite answer. But you failed to do this. Instead you gave into temptation and like many others on this forum enjoyed throwing sarcastic remarks at a budding author presumably for the shear sadism of it [indeed you may have psychopathic personality profiles yourselves.....].

I don't have any documentary evidence placing Bourges in London, if I did I would already have told you about it. My source for placing Bourges in the Monte Dore health spa and Bicetre insane asylum at the time of the killings were Lautrec's own personal correspondence to his mother.

[Harry the Hawker]

Galexander, you are a pompous ***.

Regards,
'arry

[galexander]

This is demonstrably wrong. Barnett quite clearly says, in his evidence, that he and MJK had been living together for the previous 18 months, and he worked as a market porter - in London:

Galexander, as you persist in your failure to provide evidence that MJK was in Paris, I'll help by providing some that she wasn't:



Mary Kelly was not in Paris in the months before her death. The above is from Barnett's witness statement. It's evidence - the sort of stuff which Henry Flower keeps asking for, and which you constantly side-step with references to Lautrec's artwork.

Habeas Corpus. Put up or shut up, please.

Regards, Bridewell.

You obviously didn't do basic mathematics at school.

1888 - 1884 = 4 years.

And 4 years is greater than 18 months.

Try and work it out would you............

[galexander]

On the contrary, I feel that your failure to detect the obvious sarcasm , says all there is to say about your approach to this forum...

So you admit to blatant sarcasm.........

And what does that say about yourselves precisely?

You register and log on to this forum to discuss JtR and the best you can do is gas about a load of nonsense and then throw sarcastic comments at anyone who has the slightest original idea on the subject!

I rest my case.

[Bridewell]

Nineteen Eighty-Four

No, what I object to is the narrow mindedness of some of the participants on this forum. It appears not a single original idea is permissible on this forum......... I can only liken it to George Orwell's 1984!

In "Nineteen Eighty-Four" Orwell created a nightmare world wherein one person (Big Brother) was right simply because he said so, and all contrary opinion was crushed by a combination of brute force and brainwashing. Nobody is disputing your right to hold the views that you do. All that is being suggested is that you need to adduce some 'bona fide' evidence in support of your claims if you expect them to be taken seriously. If you believe that such a benign and reasonable attitude was a feature of Big Brother's Oceania, you are sadly mistaken.

Bridewell.

[Henry Flower]

Galex, I can't thank you enough.

It is well established that Kelly 'rode in carriages' and travelled to Paris sometime after 1884. This issue has already been previously covered on this forum:

Yes, I checked out your link. It contains the following:

In fact, I don't think anyone can answer this question for you. There is no known evidence, and MJK may well have made up the entire episode

No known evidence. May have made up the entire episode. Thanks galex - most illuminating. You go on to say that 'even wikipedia' claims she went to France. What, even wikipedia?! The online encyclopedia to which any idiot off the street can contribute articles? Oh well, it's settled then; I defer to such overwhelming scholarly authority! My complete ignorance of the Ripper murders ... Please note - I do not say she DID make it up - merely that you do not know what you clearly claim to know. You're turning hearsay into documented fact because it suits your theory to do so.

I would argue that sometimes there isn't smoke without fire regarding suggestions of syphilis, the doctor theory etc, etc. The masonic conspiracy theme is not a central issue in my book at all, far from it. I only discuss the theme is passing. As for the psychosexual sadist theory, can I ask how many serial murders there were fitting this category prior to JtR?

Why prior to JtR? Why would that be relevant? I think we can agree there has been a sufficient number of sexually-motivated killers and mutilators to render the question meaningless. The answer, in any case, is definitely 'plenty'. None are as famous as JtR, largely because he was merely the first to have been a mass-media phenomenon. But he was far from being the first sexual serial killer. Needless to say, law enforcement professionals seem to disagree almost unanimously with the idea that these were anything other than serial killings motivated by a perverted sexual need.

What was depicted in the painting in question was pioneering surgery and not your run of the mill dentistry. I have already answered this point previously.

So what? It still has literally nothing whatsoever to do with the Ripper crimes. I made a cheap gibe because I thought it warranted one, galex.

All I was saying here is that the timing of the murder in Mitre Square was rather precarious to say the least. I did not and have never offered an explanation of the exact course of events that evening. Again just another gibe.......

Galex, here's a news flash: when you try to bolster your case with constant illogical insinuations that you then try to weasel away from, cheap gibes become rather tempting. As far as I can see, all you've done is made circumstantial insinuation after insinuation: you never seem to offer an explanation of the exact course of anything.

Of course I would love to produce the relevant documentary evidence but documents from that precise period of time are often few and far between as I am sure you probably know.

Fine. Let's broaden it out a little then. Do you have ANY evidence - documentary, hearsay, oral tradition - placing Bourges in London on any of the murder dates? If you don't, you don't. Just be honest and say so. You could also allow us to help you - by telling us exactly what your sources are for Bourges's reported whereabouts in Mont Dore or Bicetre - that way we could take a look for ourselves and decide whether those sources might have their own weaknesses. But as it stands you are happy to admit that as far as the evidence shows - and you have nothing to contradict it - your chief suspect never left France during the Ripper murders?

But you ignore the fact that I even went to the extent of researching this 'hunch' in quite some detail and have produced some quite compelling circumstantial evidence as a result. Just a pure fluke presumably?

There is no kind way of saying this: as far as the evidence you've shared here is concerned, I just don't find a single piece of it 'compelling'. I'm not biased. I don't have a preferred other candidate. I don't mind if it was Bourges. I'd be happy to congratulate you on your work. I have no axe to grind; I simply don't find any of your evidence even vaguely convincing. Especially given that your suspect was in France at the time, and therefore HTL's paintings cannot reflect his unconscious disturbance at what Bourges had done.

No, what I object to is the narrow mindedness of some of the participants on this forum. It appears not a single original idea is permissible on this forum......... I can only liken it to George Orwell's 1984!

Original ideas are not immune from scrutiny simply on the basis that they are original. Ideas more credible and far more 'original' than your stale stuff get discussed here every day. Would I be more open-minded if I simply accepted risible nonsense as probable truth? If I failed to question the glaring flaws in your theory? Would you prefer that? 1984? Please, stop the self-aggrandizing self-pity. Did you really expect to come here and simply have us all applaud you? To ignore the fact that your named suspect was in France at the time? Because we find that one fact more compelling than circumstantial evidence and clues hidden in paintings, you think there is something Orwellian about the forum?! Please, get over yourself.

And yes, I was indeed joking. I'm going to be charitable and assume you spotted that obvious fact.

Sincerely,

S.P.O.O.