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

[Simon Wood]

Hi Henry,

Yes, that joke was a real stinker.

I'll promise never to mention the S-word again if you promise to buy better Christmas crackers.

Regards,

Simon

[Henry Flower]

Simon, pleeeease don't open that can of worms again. I've had it up to here with that particular nonsense from one particular 'contributor'. Their bone-headed idiocy has left me feeling quite Sickert-heart.

Sorry. That was bad.

[Simon Wood]

Well done, Errata,

Were they vacationing with Sickert by any chance?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Errata, you seem to have killed this thread stone dead!

Those pesky facts, ruining everything!

Note he didnt answer when Too Looses girlfriend passed away either?

Shame that


kindly

Phil

[Henry Flower]

Errata, you seem to have killed this thread stone dead!

Those pesky facts, ruining everything!

[Errata]

So, it turns out if you use this arcane tool called google, you find out where both Lautrec AND Bourges were during the Autumn of 1888. And its not England.

[bolo]

Hi galexander,

I don't know how many times I have to say this but all the clues point in the same direction.........

I'm not trying to rain on your parade but I cannot see any real clues here. So HTL suffered from some type of venereal disease, had a doctor friend and liked red-haired women, was a modern artist, visited brothels and painted the inmates on a more or less regular basis... ...just where are the clues here?

And then - are you sure his doc would be capable of these crimes? Just because one is a doctor doesn't mean he is able and willing to go on a killing spree to avenge one of his patients. What makes you suspect him apart from a gut feeling?

Again, I don't want to ridicule your thoughts or anything but without hard evidence, they're little more than baseless assumptions.

Regards,

Boris

[Errata]

You don't have to be a Sherlock Holmes to work it out........

No, you don't. But you are asking people to give you money to write a book for them. And they aren't going to give you that money if you don't have a viable suspect.

So Bourges wasn't by TL's side during the autumn of 1888. Where does his correspondence say he was? Have you looked at his correspondence? How do you know he wasn't well documented as being someplace else, like the riviera, or laid up with a broken leg?

So he was a doctor. How many other doctor friends did TL have? Or butchers or murderers?

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you have to back up what you say with facts. Not "well his family was weird" facts, but "he wrote his mother in September saying that would be in England on business for a few weeks" facts.

And by the way, people with syphilis don't look sick. Not until they are end stage and within a few weeks of dying. It's not like AIDS where you watch someone die day by day. If people looked sick, do you think THAT many people would have been infected? She may have been syphilitic, but if she LOOKED sick, it was something else. Probably TB.

Hell. Scratch actually researching your suspect, and go look up syphilis.

[galexander]

I get that all of that could point to someone in TL's life being the killer. It's thin, but I get it. But everything you just pointed out... none of it has to do with Bourges. There is no link. Nothing there points to the doctor.

By the way, you are operating under a few biological misunderstandings. First of all, cousins marrying has no more chance of producing birth defects than two strangers. 10 generations of cousins marrying has quite a bit more chance. Secondly, women don't always know they have a sexually transmitted disease. It isn't visible, most women confuse it with a bladder infection, and that's if they feel it all since we women folk have a biological reason not to have a whole lot of nerve endings in the area. Most women find out they have been infected by finding out their partner has been infected. With prostitutes, there isn't a whole lot of disclosure. They could die of it without knowing.

The fact is, what happened to TL is nothing new. In fact it happened to millions, many of them perfectly innocent housewives who get to watch their babies die for the next few years. So why this doctor? Why the doctor of a minor aristocrat with batshit parents (which was also not unusual) who purposefully surrounded himself with the dregs of society, and knew full well what the risks were because he watched his friends die from it? Why the doctor of a man who could never countenance such an act on his behalf? Did his parents know he had syphilis? Did he tell them? Why this guy? Why not one of his opium buddies, or his manservant or his father?

I will answer each of your points one by one.

I suggest Henri Bourges as a possible suspect even though I admit I have no final proof. Bourges is a strong suspect in my opinion because of his medical background and the fact that he was absent from Lautrec's side during the critical months in question.

Gaudin's symptoms must have been fairly apparent because François Gauzi noted that she looked unhealthy.

In a letter to his mother of November 1888 Lautrec speaks of ‘la petite vérole’ being a ‘the fly in the ointment’. ‘La petite vérole’ can be either a reference to small pox or syphilis. Since it is unlikely Lautrec had small pox (a highly contagious and deadly disease) it seems almost certain he had syphilis.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but all the clues point in the same direction.........

You don't have to be a Sherlock Holmes to work it out........

[Errata]

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?

I get that all of that could point to someone in TL's life being the killer. It's thin, but I get it. But everything you just pointed out... none of it has to do with Bourges. There is no link. Nothing there points to the doctor.

By the way, you are operating under a few biological misunderstandings. First of all, cousins marrying has no more chance of producing birth defects than two strangers. 10 generations of cousins marrying has quite a bit more chance. Secondly, women don't always know they have a sexually transmitted disease. It isn't visible, most women confuse it with a bladder infection, and that's if they feel it all since we women folk have a biological reason not to have a whole lot of nerve endings in the area. Most women find out they have been infected by finding out their partner has been infected. With prostitutes, there isn't a whole lot of disclosure. They could die of it without knowing.

The fact is, what happened to TL is nothing new. In fact it happened to millions, many of them perfectly innocent housewives who get to watch their babies die for the next few years. So why this doctor? Why the doctor of a minor aristocrat with batshit parents (which was also not unusual) who purposefully surrounded himself with the dregs of society, and knew full well what the risks were because he watched his friends die from it? Why the doctor of a man who could never countenance such an act on his behalf? Did his parents know he had syphilis? Did he tell them? Why this guy? Why not one of his opium buddies, or his manservant or his father?

[Bridewell]

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

I can't see any evidence at all.

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.

What do you read into it other than that Thadee Natanson thought the woman who had infected Lautrec with syphilis was dead? It seems a pretty unambiguous statement to me.

This is all very interesting, but for the life of me I can't see its relevance to the Whitechapel Murders.

[Stephen Thomas]

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

[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?

[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.

[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?