VINCENT THE RIPPER: Vincent Van Gogh Was Jack The Ripper, Case Closed, V1

[Fiver]

Van Gogh was in Arles, which is southern France, in 1888.

Why let those pesky facts get in the way of a perefectly good theory?

[John Wheat]

Ah yes, another groundbreaking contribution to Ripperology: calling something ‘ridiculous’ and then running away. No counterpoints, no argument, just pure, empty dismissal. It’s almost impressive how little effort went into this response. If this is the level of debate you bring, no wonder you're stuck clinging to Bury like a security blanket. At least try to pretend you have something meaningful to add.



The Baron

Bury may well have been the Ripper. Van Gogh was a great artist and the idea he was Jack is absurd.

[Lewis C]

According to wiki, Van Gogh bought 2 beds on September 8th, the day of the Chapman murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh_chronology#1888

[The Baron]

Bury may well have been the Ripper. Van Gogh was a great artist and the idea he was Jack is absurd.

Ah, so now we’ve upgraded from a one word dismissal to… two sentences. Progress! ‘Van Gogh was a great artist’.. and? That somehow makes him incapable of violence? Plenty of killers had talents, that’s not a defense, it’s just a lazy excuse to avoid engaging with real discussion. If you actually have something worthwhile to say, let’s hear it, otherwise, keep the empty outrage to yourself.



The Baron

[C. F. Leon]

...

Vincent Van Gogh is without the minutest doubt the most embarrassing suspect ever named. An utter disgrace.

"MOST" embarrassing? I submit

- Lewis Carroll
- Dr. Gull
- Robert Anderson
- Prince Eddy
- Queen Victoria
- Sherlock Holmes (!!)*

These are not suspects in any sort of reasonable theorizing. It's no better than going through a "Who's Who" and selecting wherever the mud lands. [Hey, THERE'S an idea for a thread...]

* As fiction. There actually is a book where it turns out that Holmes was the Ripper. Something about about a Time-Travelling doppelganger or what. It's crap like that that give me second thoughts about retroactive book-burning...

[C. F. Leon]

"CASE CLOSED"?? This is, what, at least the third book using that phrase? Did Trump sign an Executive Order that ALL books on the Ripper MUST include that phrase in the title?

IIRC, the case WAS closed- in 1892(?), for lack of evidence.

[John Wheat]

Ah, so now we’ve upgraded from a one word dismissal to… two sentences. Progress! ‘Van Gogh was a great artist’.. and? That somehow makes him incapable of violence? Plenty of killers had talents, that’s not a defense, it’s just a lazy excuse to avoid engaging with real discussion. If you actually have something worthwhile to say, let’s hear it, otherwise, keep the empty outrage to yourself.



The Baron

I've studied the case for decades. I've also studied other serial killers. Maybe others should do the same. In short I know what I'm talking about.

[Lewis C]

"MOST" embarrassing? I submit

- Lewis Carroll
- Dr. Gull
- Robert Anderson
- Prince Eddy
- Queen Victoria
- Sherlock Holmes (!!)*

These are not suspects in any sort of reasonable theorizing. It's no better than going through a "Who's Who" and selecting wherever the mud lands. [Hey, THERE'S an idea for a thread...]

* As fiction. There actually is a book where it turns out that Holmes was the Ripper. Something about about a Time-Travelling doppelganger or what. It's crap like that that give me second thoughts about retroactive book-burning...

Queen Victoria? As the person who actually did the killing? That's a new one on me, and yes, it would be hard for a suspect to be more absurd than that one.

One thing to be said for Van Gogh being the most embarrassing suspect is that I believe that there are 4 people who have been named suspects who have proven alibis, and one of them is Van Gogh. The other three are Ostrog, Cream, and Prince Eddy. But at least Ostrog was named a suspect by a pretty good source, Macnaughten, and at least Cream is a known murderer, and at least Prince Eddy lived in England. I suspect an alibi could be proven for Queen Victoria too, but she's so absurd that no one thought it was necessary to do so.

If you follow through with your thread idea, I propose Theodore Roosevelt as a suspect. He turned 30 during the autumn of terror, so he's the perfect age, and he had a moustache. He also was married in London in late 1886 - someone might think that that's significant.

In any discussion of most absurd suspects, Joseph Merrick should get a mention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just imagine - we have someone suggesting a suspect who all art historians tell us was in France at the time of the murders. As Lewis has pointed out, on the day of the Chapman murder he is buying two beds for the Yellow House in preparation for Gaugin’s visit. On October 23rd Gaugin arrives which is a huge event for Vincent as his biggest dream is for the Yellow House to be a kind of ‘headquarters’ for an artistic movement with Gaugin at its head. Neither Vincent or Gaugin mentioned the fact that just a week later he told Gaugin “sorry Paul, but can you fend for yourself for a week as I have to nip over to England to kill a prostitute. Yes, I know that I’ve only just got back from doing that but I simply have to go. You know how it is.” It’s pathetic isn’t it.

From Dale’s website we even get the fact that one of the ripper letter mentions the ‘ripper’ claiming to have been 35 which is how old Van Gogh was at the time. Fairly conclusive evidence….if a) the letter was genuine, and b) no one else was 35 at the time. Apart from that though.

He then points out that it was physically possible to travel from Arles to London in 24 hours (so he must have dashed straight to the station after buying the beds) He also points out that he had an incentive to have returned to London….we are intrigued, why? Because he did his first murder there. Ah, so he’s using an invention to show the likelihood of another invention. Fascination analysis I think that we would all agree. Just because he was in Brixton at the time (it is well known that he was in London early in his life when he was employed for a time in the art business) Dale attributes the Battersea torso to him (evidence - none) Nine months later another torso is blamed on Vincent simply because abuse his landlady’s daughter rejected him. (I recall quite a few rejections when I was young and I always went out and murdered someone in revenge so this is valid evidence of course and should be applauded)

Just after Vincent got home his father died. His family blamed him because of their regular arguments. Dale states that Vincent physically killed him. Evidence - well he was already a serial killer after all. Oh yes, I’d forgotten about that. Brilliant reasoning.

Then Dale uses the poetic ‘realising that murder was like a muse to him he returned to London’ to fit in another Torso murder. Evidence…come on, he was the torso killer so it must have been him. Keep up chaps.

According to Dale the absolutely impoverished Vincent realised that he needed the murders to help him paint so from August to December he not only found the money and time to travel back to England (without anyone else mentioning it) he found the money and time to do it 6 times to kill 7 women. I wonder if Dale has totalled up the cash required?

That his brother Theo regularly sent money is shown as proof that he had the money to travel (how much did it cost for the train and steamboat journey there and back including accommodation and food in London whist there. Add that to the amount of money Vincent spent on paint and canvasses, food, drink, the occasional prostitute, the two beds, the rent on the Yellow House) That he could have travelled to London is risible. Also, as Vincent was very unpopular in Arles (seen as a local looney) wouldn’t someone have mentioned him leaving (with a party being arranged no doubt!)

From May 8th 1889 when Van Gogh admitted himself to the St Remy asylum (hardly the act of a serial killer) where he remained until May 1890 he leaves the asylum to go to Ouvers-sur-Oise to paint (under the supervision of Dr. Gachet (he paints Gachet’s portrait twice during that time) Gachet knew Vincent well (as you would expect) and he never mentioned anything untoward or dangerous about him. Vincent was pretty much an open book. Dale suggests that during this time Vincent nipped back to London to kill three more women (Torso victims) He must have done more miles than Michael Palin? It’s a wonder he managed to paint. But he did paint. Every day. Van Gogh never went a day without painting. It was his life; his obsession.

Then Dale said that after reading Vincent’s letters (which reveal nothing remotely incriminating and are actually incredibly poignant) he got the impression of a man who blamed others for his own misfortunes and who visited prostitutes (like many other men in Arles..hence the brothel.) Dale then read of the ripper and found himself repeatedly saying: “that sounds like something Vincent would do.” That’s game over then! I’ve never heard such self-serving piffle.

He then ‘matches’ alleged ripper letters with Vincent’s handwriting. Given that there are only so many ways of writing individual letters you would be hard pressed to find letters without the odd similar one and given the fact that there is no way of proving that any of the letters were actually by the ripper this is ‘evidence’ of the feeblest kind.

How he got the name is an absolute scream. He painted a picture of himself in a hat called a hannekenmaairs. The word means ‘mower.’ So it’s a step from Jack the Mower to…you guessed it…Jack the Reaper…you couldn’t make this stuff up…well, actually Dale did make this stuff up.

Finally, I challenge anyone to look at the supposed ‘images within the painting’ without scratching your head and laughing. This constitutes desperation of highest order. Not one of them remotely resembles anything. They were simply Vincent painting what he saw…brilliantly in my opinion.

An open mind should always be shown in this case but that shouldn’t come without reason, evidence or basic common sense. We can criticise any suspect from Kosminski to Druitt to Bury to Hutchinson to Kelly but at least they were provably in the correct part of the planet at the time of the murders and ‘well he ‘could’ have travelled falls woefully short. Show me his name on a ships manifest, show me his name recorded in England in the autumn of 1889. No one will because he wasn’t there. He was in Arles painting, living with Gaugin, falling out with Gaugin, living his usual disorganised, troubled life of only one obsession…painting. Dale accused me of trying to get him cancelled which is a strange accusation as I have absolutely no say on who posts here or anywhere else for that matter. He didn’t come by Vincent as a suspect after reading, he chose a ‘suspect’ who would have the benefit of attracting publicity, he then made things up in an obvious attempt to incriminate a clearly innocent man. Anyone who gives this theory a seconds credence is …. well, I won’t use any particular word but I’ll be interested to hear their ‘review’ after they have paid for this piece of nonsense.

[Abby Normal]

add to the stupidest suspect list:

maybrick, sickert, conspiracy theory, lewis carroll. but im sure baron and lombro dont think so lol.

[Abby Normal]

I've studied the case for decades. I've also studied other serial killers. Maybe others should do the same. In short I know what I'm talking about.

hey john
dont waste your breath. barons posts are only to wind people up.

[John Wheat]

hey john
dont waste your breath. barons posts are only to wind people up.

Thanks Abby.

[Lombro2]

Yeah, those are "stupid" like Rex Heuermann as LISK.

[Abby Normal]

Yeah, those are "stupid" like Rex Heuermann as LISK.

whats your point? rex heuermann is the lisk.

[Indian Harry]

Nine months later another torso is blamed on Vincent simply because abuse his landlady’s daughter rejected him. (I recall quite a few rejections when I was young and I always went out and murdered someone in revenge so this is valid evidence of course and should be applauded)

At least you concede this point Herlock.