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

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

Although I have no particular love for furry animals [Winnie the Pooh, Paddington Bear and my two dogs excepted], dig around and you may find my [non-Ripper] children's book.

It's a unique genre which allows room for many truths to be told.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Maybe, just maybe, the children the world over will be subjected to the very first JTR primer.

Hi Callie...but we've already been there:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6661&page=7

(See post 61 onwards...)

Personally I think it would've been a real moneyspinner...my own kid's would've loved it...had I not...oh...err...hmmm...

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Although I have no particular love for furry animals [Winnie the Pooh, Paddington Bear and my two dogs excepted], dig around and you may find my [non-Ripper] children's book.

It's a unique genre which allows room for many truths to be told.

Hi Simon

Being relatively new round here, I have no idea of your proper (non-Casebook) name but would I be correct in assuming your parents broke up? (or at least the book suggests it perhaps?)...

All the best

Dave

[Callie]

Dave- I...uhh... knew that. I just wanted to see if you remembered that it had already been discussed. And guess what? You did. Kudos.

Oh yes, I can just imagine how many parents would gladly part with their earnings for that book. Can't you?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

My name is my name; and, yes, you would be correct in assuming my parents broke up, but only by dint of my father being blown out of a Lancaster bomber in the skies over Germany.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

No!

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

Er, no actually. You are the one claiming that Henri de Toulouse Lautrec was, in some way, involved in the killings. You are the one making the positive assertion. It is up to you to prove your case, not just to your own satisfaction, but to that of others. This you have failed to do. Are you going to post some evidence at some point? I ask because this thread is now getting very long in the tooth, and evidence in support of your assertion has been conspicuously absent.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Simon

I definitely had the wrong one then...

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Er, no actually. You are the one claiming that Henri de Toulouse Lautrec was, in some way, involved in the killings. You are the one making the positive assertion. It is up to you to prove your case, not just to your own satisfaction, but to that of others. This you have failed to do. Are you going to post some evidence at some point? I ask because this thread is now getting very long in the tooth, and evidence in support of your assertion has been conspicuously absent.

Sorry Colin, but with respect no he doesn't...all he needs do is put out some cheap photos on thick cardboard, with minimal text, and the less-critical sector of the 4 to 6 year old market will make him a best-seller...the more demanding child, will of course, gravitate towards the Mr Men...

Dave

[Henry Flower]

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..........?!

Presumably women who need to make money as prostitutes and models are in a position to pick and choose which artistic school they will or will not pose for? Idiot. Or perhaps she decided she would only pose for painters who seemed a bit Rippery.

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.

Stevens was 'NOT' an Impressionst, galex, but neither was Lautrec. Can't you get anything right? You're as ignorant of Art History as you are of the Ripper murders. He was a Post-Impressionist. Quite a big difference, quite an important evolution historically. D'uh! You can look them up in any library or on your favourite primary source, Wikipedia.

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

OH MY GOD - the sheer effing chutzpah of YOU making that demand of others. Pompous, ignorant, arrogant hypocrisy. Your theory is garbage, you have no evidence. Give it up and get a life.

[Henry Flower]

Simon -

Hi Gale,

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

Why is that?

Because neither of them would know how to do it?

[miss marple]

Hooray, Henry!
Spot on. Galexander's ignorance of Art history would be funny if he were not so arrogant.
If he wanted a Lautrec model to be Mary Kelly, he could have at least chosen an Irish one, such as May Belfort. Omps no, we know too much about her, as indeed we know about Carmen's modelling career in the 1880s and 90s.

Miss Marple

[Henry Flower]

miss marple perhaps we're being too harsh on poor galex; after all, he asks in the sensational thread title whether Toulouse-Lautrec is implicated in the murders; then he states that Lautrec wasn't implicated and isn't under any suspicion, and likely knew nothing about it; then he spends weeks pointing out that Lautrec painted brothels and prostitutes, and dental procedures - without ever quite telling us what his point is, given that he has already exonerated Lautrec. He posits Bourges as the Ripper, before conceding there is no evidence at all that Bourges was outside France during that autumn, and counters our protests by whinging that he only said Bourges might have been the Ripper, not that he definitely was...

And similarly, he is careful not to state too definitively that Gaudin was Mary Kelly. All we get are his standard circumstantial insinuations backed up by no evidence at all. Constant evasive insinuations followed by slithering retreats. It's hard to fathom whether he actually has a theory or not. My only hope for him is that in talking himself out of a corner he never intended to talk himself into, he might inadvertently come up with an actual theory. But I'm not holding my breath.

So far - Toulouse-Lautrec, alone among nineteenth century artists, contracted a sexually transmitted disease and painted scenes of bohemian lowlife. He had a doctor who was in France at the time of the murders, but someone like that doctor - or some other doctor of some artist like Toulouse-Lautrec might certainly have been behind the Ripper murders, because ...

Er... because Mary Kelly claimed she had been to France? Because one of the five victims may possibly have been to France and galexander once heard some ghostly noise in a gallery? Is that where we are?

I don't know, miss marple - if that doesn't convince you, then frankly I don't know what would. For me, case closed.

[galexander]

Interestingly the only established author I've been able to discover under the nom de plume G Alexander is a writer of childrens books about furry animals.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13556239-cute-animals

Don't get me wrong...I'm not sure this is you, and in any event, I have nothing against the genre...but is this to be a book about the ripper per se or Diddles?

All the best

Dave

That's not me.

When you start looking around there are quite a few G Alexander's on the net.

[galexander]

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!

Well it seems you have failed to answer a simple question and have even deliberately avoided it.

You have used classic Trolling tactics and in addition you have filled the discussion with off-topic chatter.

And what are we to conclude by this?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gale,

You and Dale Larner are the ultimate trolls.

Do I hear wedding bells?

Regards,

Simon