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

[Cogidubnus]

Because Simon, that would come under the heading of cruel and unusual punishment...

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gale,

I notice that there hasn't been any witty repartee between you and Dale Larner.

Why is that?

Regards,

Simon

[galexander]

........and she was FRENCH.
Lack of birth records mean nothing, she may have been born out of wedlock, Gaudin probably was'nt her real name
and
I don't need to' prove' anything about art history, its all there. You have to prove your theory or admit you made a mistake.

Miss Marple

If she was born out of wedlock she would still have been issued with a birth certificate.

And what about a marriage certificate and also a death certificate?

On the contrary Miss Marple, it's up to you to prove your own case!

[galexander]

Galexander,

You have come up with the outlandish theory that Lautrec's French model Carmen Gaudin suddenly 'disappeared' in 1B86 and morphed into Irish Mary Kelly in the East End in 1887.
Of course you have not researched her properly, because her continued existence underminds you theory.

Lautrec was painting Carmen till about 1889, his style of painting her changed, the later paintings are softer more reflective.There are many documented paintings of Carmen,
Later on she was painted by Fernand Cormon, who had taught Lautrec.
She was in Paris in the 1880s. she was a laundress and part time prostitute, Lautrec met her in 1885, she did not exist in a vacuum, but was known to the artistic community [ also painted by Alfred Stevens] and she was FRENCH.
Lack of birth records mean nothing, she may have been born out of wedlock, Gaudin probably was'nt her real name
and
I don't need to' prove' anything about art history, its all there. You have to prove your theory or admit you made a mistake.

Miss Marple

Fernand Cormon was one of the leading historical painters of his day. He was a traditionalist and not an Impressionist like Lautrec.

Presumably Gaudin posed for Cormon in various period costumes..........?!

Similarly Alfred Stevens was NOT an Impressionist either. He was famed for painting elegant women in fine attire. Hardly your laundress/part-time prostitute types.

Again Miss Marple could you please quote your sources in future.

[Bridewell]

I believe this to be spurious. If you don't know the D.O.B. then how can you know the D.O.D.?

Mary Jane Kelly: Date of Birth: ??/??/???? Died 9th November 1888.

Regards, Bridewell.

[miss marple]

Galexander,

You have come up with the outlandish theory that Lautrec's French model Carmen Gaudin suddenly 'disappeared' in 1B86 and morphed into Irish Mary Kelly in the East End in 1887.
Of course you have not researched her properly, because her continued existence underminds you theory.

Lautrec was painting Carmen till about 1889, his style of painting her changed, the later paintings are softer more reflective.There are many documented paintings of Carmen,
Later on she was painted by Fernand Cormon, who had taught Lautrec.
She was in Paris in the 1880s. she was a laundress and part time prostitute, Lautrec met her in 1885, she did not exist in a vacuum, but was known to the artistic community [ also painted by Alfred Stevens] and she was FRENCH.
Lack of birth records mean nothing, she may have been born out of wedlock, Gaudin probably was'nt her real name
and
I don't need to' prove' anything about art history, its all there. You have to prove your theory or admit you made a mistake.

Miss Marple

[galexander]

Dear O dear, don't people check anything. What's the nonsense about Carmin Gaudin being Mary Kelly? She lived until 1920. And posed for The Laundress in 1888.

MissMarple

I can only assume you are perhaps quoting from the following:

http://nga.gov.au/Exhibition/MASTERP...lID=4&ViewID=2

Where it says:

Carmen Gaudin (1866?–1920)

I believe this to be spurious. If you don't know the D.O.B. then how can you know the D.O.D.?

If you search the online databases for French ancestry you get "No Records" under the name 'Carmen Gaudin'.

http://www.familylink.com/ppc/?ss=fr...FQ8htAodcky5Xg

[Bridewell]

Please quote your sources for the date of 1920 for Carmen Gaudin.

As I have already stated previously although a painting may well be dated as 1888 or 1889 this does not necessarily mean that the painting was actually completed in this year.

It may be the date when the painting was first catalogued at a public exhibition.

In the biographies on Lautrec we are told that Lautrec parted company with Gaudin in 1886.

Yes, Galexander, but it was you who suggested that Carmen Gaudin could have been Mary Kelly way back on Post 11 of this thread:

The problem with prostitution is that pseudonyms are almost always used. Mary Kelly was a common name among prostitutes of the East End of the time.

HTL's favourite model Carmen Gaudin had red hair (dyed) and split with Lautrec around the time Kelly returned from Paris to the East End. Carmen Gaudin itself could have been a pseudonym, the name has a slight ring to it and could have been Lautrec's own creation.

Have you forgotten this utterly discredited aspect of your own theory, or are you simply disassociating yourself from it at this rather late stage?

Regards, Bridewell.

[galexander]

Dear O dear, don't people check anything. What's the nonsense about Carmin Gaudin being Mary Kelly? She lived until 1920. And posed for The Laundress in 1888.

MissMarple

Please quote your sources for the date of 1920 for Carmen Gaudin.

As I have already stated previously although a painting may well be dated as 1888 or 1889 this does not necessarily mean that the painting was actually completed in this year.

It may be the date when the painting was first catalogued at a public exhibition.

In the biographies on Lautrec we are told that Lautrec parted company with Gaudin in 1886.

[miss marple]

Dear O dear, don't people check anything. What's the nonsense about Carmin Gaudin being Mary Kelly? She lived until 1920. And posed for The Laundress in 1888.

MissMarple

[Limehouse]

The only reason why I raised this topic is because I cover the Stride issue in my book.

I find the double event an unlikely situation.

I find the idea of Lautrec and any of his family, friends or associates being the ripper an unlikely situation.

In terms of embracing new thinking concerning ripper suspects, the point of threads like this is to debate the merits of the new thinking - which is exactly what those making a contribution are doing.

[galexander]

So post these insights on the appropriate threads!

Dave

The only reason why I raised this topic is because I cover the Stride issue in my book.

I find the double event an unlikely situation.

[Cogidubnus]

So post these insights on the appropriate threads!

Dave

[galexander]

I applaud you, galexander, for having the courage to perform such a comprehensive change of tack this late in the day. It takes guts to try something new, so well done you!

How about changing tack yourself, and indeed any poster on this forum, when it comes to accepting any new thinking on the Whitechapel murders?

I've already mentioned the possibility that Stride may not have been a Ripper victim because a different murder weapon was used and she lacked any of the classic Ripper injuries.

The simple facts are; two victims on the same night, Stride and Eddowes; and two different murder weapons, a short round blade (like a penknife) in the case of Stride and a long straight blade (like a mortician's knife) in the case of Eddowes.

[Henry Flower]

In the mean time I will be following common sense

I applaud you, galexander, for having the courage to perform such a comprehensive change of tack this late in the day. It takes guts to try something new, so well done you!