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

[Henry Flower]

Maybe Bourges did intend to administer a simple injection: my theory has always been that the so-called 'knife wounds' on the victims were the result of a continental doctor desperately and repeatedly trying in the dark to find a vein.

[Bridewell]

Injections

I agree, and suggested so a few posts back, but galexander didn't think much of that idea!

Quelle surprise!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Limehouse]

Wouldn't a doctor just have administered a lethal injection as Harold Shipman did?
.

I agree, and suggested so a few posts back, but galexander didn't think much of that idea!

[Bridewell]

Wouldn't a doctor just have administered a lethal injection as Harold Shipman did?

I suggest you lot check your dictionaries for the precise meaning of the word Implicated as you don't seem to understand what it means.

Oxford Compact Dictionary:

Implicate: "show (person) to be involved (in crime etc)"

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

Er, 'No'.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Limehouse]

I would like you to make note of the following points:

1) I suggest you lot check your dictionaries for the precise meaning of the word Implicated as you don't seem to understand what it means.

2) You are quick to revert to nursery school logic in a desperate attempt to prove a new theory wrong.

3) Your arguments so far have been tedious, pedantic, ill informed or just plain wrong.

4) You have failed to prove or disprove anything.

And you claim that I am the one who is self-righteous? But then again what else could I have expected from a forum uninformed chatter boxes?

Well, I'm just amazed. This is, probably, the most unjustified comment made by a 'theorist' in response to posters who disagree with their 'theory'.

Firstly, you seem to be making up your theory as you go along. Was Lautrec the murderer, or was it his doctor? If it was his doctor, and Lautrec was unaware of his doctor's actions, why are his paintings in any way relevant to your theory?

Secondly, as has been pointed out by Henry (excellent posts by the way), your knowledge of art is sadly lacking. This is revealed not only by your confusion over Impressionism/Post-Impressionism, but your interpretation of Lautrec's paintings, which fail to appreciate the features of Post-Impressionism.

Thirdly, your claim that your critics have neither proved or disproved anything is pointless, since your critics are not seeking to do so, but to discuss the merits of your theory against the known evidence, which is that Lautrec's doctor was not in London at the crucial time. You may not agree with this evidence, but it is nevertheless more credible than the vague idea that it was possible to travel from Paris to London in under four hours and therefore this is what he must have done.

Finally, above all else, your suspect is weak simply because these were the wrong types of murder for your theory. The killer of these women was driven by the need to kill, to rip open the women's bodies and he was driven by the challenge of doing so in the most risky of circumstances. IF Lautrec's doctor was commissioned to kill these women for revenge, it is highly unlikely that he would have chosen to do so in such a way.

So, to answer the question you posed when openinjg this thread: Was the Artist Henri de Toulouse Lautrec Implicated in the Killings? a big, fat NO!

[Henry Flower]

I would like you to make note of the following points:

Oh, yes sir, we will! Fire away, headmaster.

1) I suggest you lot check your dictionaries for the precise meaning of the word Implicated as you don't seem to understand what it means.

I'll happily do so, and may I suggest you do the same for the words 'know', 'evidence', and 'theory'. There are also primers on the Whitechapel Murders and Art History you may wish to consult next time you want to write about either.

2) You are quick to revert to nursery school logic in a desperate attempt to prove a new theory wrong.

I'm sorry - did you have a theory?! I must've missed it. I thought you insinuated that a man might have been Jack the Ripper before admitting to having no evidence at all (beyond wishful thinking) that the historical record of his whereabouts (in France all autumn) was in any way incorrect. That, you dignify with the word 'theory'? Talk about 'desperate'!! Nursery school logic seems an appropriate and proportionate tool to use in analyzing a theory as childish as yours.

3) Your arguments so far have been tedious, pedantic, ill informed or just plain wrong.

Whereas yours have been all of the above AND hysterically funny, so you win! But let's look at those terms; tedious - yes, for one who thought we should all be more accepting of his theory, it must be tedious that we found so many holes in it; pedantic - you mean the pesky attention to detail and exactitude from which your theory is so gloriously free; ill-informed or just plain wrong - leaving aside your failure to cite a single specific example, let's just savor the rank hypocrisy of that statement coming from someone who thinks Lautrec was an Impressionist, that a man with a medical history such as his - with as many doctor friends as he had - must nevertheless have had some Rippery-Murdery ulterior-yet-unconscious motive to have painted medical scenes on several occasions. Etc. Etc. Us ill-informed?! Your hypocrisy is so stark it actually becomes enjoyable, galexander, a genuine source of fun.

4) You have failed to prove or disprove anything.

We didn't need to. You admitted to having no evidence that your suspect's reported whereabouts were wrong. We had nothing to prove or disprove. You really don't get how this works, do you? You have a theory, you have to provide evidence: either that Bourges was in London, or give us an alternative suspect. It's not up to us to prove that he was where he was claimed to be, we're not the ones accusing him of murder. Don't you get that? Are you really such an irredeemable blockhead that you think the onus is on us to disprove your theory?? Let me make this as clear as it can be for you:

Show us some evidence that Henri Bourges was not in France, where he was reported to be, in the autumn of 1888

- or -

Name a better suspect

It couldn't be much clearer. If you can't do either of those two things, what are you still doing here? What 'theory' are you actually defending? You're just making a fool of yourself.

And you claim that I am the one who is self-righteous? But then again what else could I have expected from a forum uninformed chatter boxes?

Oh yeah, we should all just have bowed down to your great theory and acclaimed your definitive solution - that a man with an unblemished reputation who was in France that autumn might hypothetically not have been in France, and therefore might have been Jack the Ripper because he was a friend of an artist who got syphilis in Paris... Get real. You are a tedious little whinger with a pathetic and unearned sense of entitlement.

But you do amuse me a little, nevertheless

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gale,

Now is the time to bow out gracefully.

Regards,

Simon

[galexander]

I would like you to make note of the following points:

1) I suggest you lot check your dictionaries for the precise meaning of the word Implicated as you don't seem to understand what it means.

2) You are quick to revert to nursery school logic in a desperate attempt to prove a new theory wrong.

3) Your arguments so far have been tedious, pedantic, ill informed or just plain wrong.

4) You have failed to prove or disprove anything.

And you claim that I am the one who is self-righteous? But then again what else could I have expected from a forum uninformed chatter boxes?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bridewell,

"Was the artist, Henri de Toulouse Lautrec, implicated in the killings?"

No.

Can we please move on?

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

The Topic

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

Okay, let's get back to the topic of this thread.

Was the artist, Henri de Toulouse Lautrec implicated in the killings?

There is, unusually, unanimous agreement on this point. No, he wasn't. You yourself concede as much in Post 10:

I am not of the opinion that HTL committed the murders in person or even that he knew they had happened.

I honestly can't think what else there is to say which isn't off-topic. Henri de Toulouse Lautrec was not implicated in the Whitechapel Murders. End of Story.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Henry Flower]

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?

That you're a classic self-righteous bore, transparently lacking in reasoning skills, and exhibiting a clear tendency towards psychological projection and priggish condescension; that the thread died because you never had any evidence, and that you know nothing about the Ripper, and even less about Art?

That's my guess. Anyone else care to have a go?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gale,

You and Dale Larner are the ultimate trolls.

Do I hear wedding bells?

Regards,

Simon

[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?

[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/1...9-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.

[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.