VINCENT THE RIPPER: Amazon e-book Available JULY 29!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely spectacular description of what the book represents!

You’ve captured the essence of it in a way that suggests you possess highly tuned observational instincts. Your insight into the true feel of the concept is to be admired, especially after only reading the summary and not the book itself yet. You’ve provided a bright light in the midst of a dark forest filled with sounds of howling, ravenous wolves. Thank you!

I believe your instincts will be rewarded when you read the book.

Thanks for taking the time to write this. Superb!

With much respect,
Dale

Hey Dale,

I just read the below on your website.

"The first letter believed to be from Jack the Ripper arrived in London on September 24, 1888, and the next, on Sept. 27, provided the name of Jack the Ripper. In October, 84 Ripper letters were then received in London, and in November, 62 were received. Then in December, only 9---the last letter for 1888 being received on Dec. 23. Over this time, Ripper letters arrived nearly every day, with the longest gap being 5 days. The next letter received after the Dec. 23 letter was not until 16 days later on Jan. 8, 1889. Vincent van Gogh cut off his ear on the night of Dec. 23 and was admitted to the hospital early the next morning. He remained in the hospital until his release on Jan. 7, just one day before the next Jack the Ripper letter arrived in London on the 8th. The Ripper letters stopped on Dec. 23 because Vincent had cut off his ear and was then in the hospital and incapable of sending Ripper letters. The Ripper letters then started up again on January 8, the day after Vincent was released from the hospital. Vincent van Gogh was Jack the Ripper."

Unless I'm reading you incorrectly, you're saying that Vincent was responsible for the Dec. 23 1888 letter but then, because he was in hospital until January 7th, having cut off his ear on the night of Dec. 23, wasn't able to send any further Ripper letters during that 15 day that period. Have I got that right?

So, am I right in thinking that your theory involves Vincent expending time and money to travel to Limerick, Ireland, shortly before 23rd December, send a pointless letter from Limerick to the Head Postmaster in London informing him that he will be travelling across Ireland and Scotland, and then rush back to Arles in time to cut off his ear on 23rd December (although the evidence suggests he was out drinking with Gaugin on the evening of the 22nd so must have been back by then)?

Have you checked the timetables for how long such a journey to Limerick and back would have taken? It would appear that Van Gogh went to a museum in Montpellier with Gaugin on 16th or 17th December 1888 and then wrote to his brother from Arles the next day. Is what you are suggesting he must have done even remotely plausible?

[Tom_Wescott]

Tee Hee! And of course he did cut off his ear!!!!

Lawende could have recognized him by his 'ear & eyes' then.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Vincent alias Jack]

Hey Dale,

I just read the below on your website.

"The first letter believed to be from Jack the Ripper arrived in London on September 24, 1888, and the next, on Sept. 27, provided the name of Jack the Ripper. In October, 84 Ripper letters were then received in London, and in November, 62 were received. Then in December, only 9---the last letter for 1888 being received on Dec. 23. Over this time, Ripper letters arrived nearly every day, with the longest gap being 5 days. The next letter received after the Dec. 23 letter was not until 16 days later on Jan. 8, 1889. Vincent van Gogh cut off his ear on the night of Dec. 23 and was admitted to the hospital early the next morning. He remained in the hospital until his release on Jan. 7, just one day before the next Jack the Ripper letter arrived in London on the 8th. The Ripper letters stopped on Dec. 23 because Vincent had cut off his ear and was then in the hospital and incapable of sending Ripper letters. The Ripper letters then started up again on January 8, the day after Vincent was released from the hospital. Vincent van Gogh was Jack the Ripper."

Unless I'm reading you incorrectly, you're saying that Vincent was responsible for the Dec. 23 1888 letter but then, because he was in hospital until January 7th, having cut off his ear on the night of Dec. 23, wasn't able to send any further Ripper letters during that 15 day that period. Have I got that right?

So, am I right in thinking that your theory involves Vincent expending time and money to travel to Limerick, Ireland, shortly before 23rd December, send a pointless letter from Limerick to the Head Postmaster in London informing him that he will be travelling across Ireland and Scotland, and then rush back to Arles in time to cut off his ear on 23rd December (although the evidence suggests he was out drinking with Gaugin on the evening of the 22nd so must have been back by then)?

Have you checked the timetables for how long such a journey to Limerick and back would have taken? It would appear that Van Gogh went to a museum in Montpellier with Gaugin on 16th or 17th December 1888 and then wrote to his brother from Arles the next day. Is what you are suggesting he must have done even remotely plausible?

Thanks for taking the time to visit the website and analyze what’s there. I’m not in the least presenting Vincent traveled to Ireland. Vincent was a clever and creative devil. He was very effective at using the Ripper letters to bring fear to the public and misdirection to the detectives. And the Dec. 23, 1888 Limerick Ripper letter is a good example of his creative misdirection.

Please note the envelope. What is missing? Postage. Someone might say, “Well, it fell off.” Why is this not true? Because there is a Limerick postmark and cancellation stamp over the area where postage would be. If the postage fell off, then the ink from the stamps would be missing. What does this reveal? The postmark and cancellation stamps were not put there by a Limerick post office. They were created by the Ripper to give the impression the letter was from Limerick. Vincent used his artistic skill to trace a coin and then added the rest. He did this on more than one occasion, sometimes even creating an obvious fake drawn stamp of the queen.

Also, Vincent created the fake postmark with the date of Dec 23, which was the date he expected it to arrive in London, sending it from Arles on the 22nd. This is another give away, because the Official Paid London postmark shows Dec 23, the day it was received. The mail moved swiftly, but it’s unlikely a letter sent from Ireland would arrive the same day in London.

Also, the London receiving postmark being an Official Paid postmark instead of the standard postmark with the post office location is an indication something was noticed that was wrong with the letter—which would be it arrived supposedly from Ireland but had no postage. But it also may have been because it arrived from France with an Ireland postmark. These sorts of giveaways are found throughout the Ripper letters.

The Ripper letters are a very important factor in providing the evidence to Van Gogh’s guilt. He wrote most of them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for taking the time to visit the website and analyze what’s there. I’m not in the least presenting Vincent traveled to Ireland. Vincent was a clever and creative devil. He was very effective at using the Ripper letters to bring fear to the public and misdirection to the detectives. And the Dec. 23, 1888 Limerick Ripper letter is a good example of his creative misdirection.

Please note the envelope. What is missing? Postage. Someone might say, “Well, it fell off.” Why is this not true? Because there is a Limerick postmark and cancellation stamp over the area where postage would be. If the postage fell off, then the ink from the stamps would be missing. What does this reveal? The postmark and cancellation stamps were not put there by a Limerick post office. They were created by the Ripper to give the impression the letter was from Limerick. Vincent used his artistic skill to trace a coin and then added the rest. He did this on more than one occasion, sometimes even creating an obvious fake drawn stamp of the queen.

Also, Vincent created the fake postmark with the date of Dec 23, which was the date he expected it to arrive in London, sending it from Arles on the 22nd. This is another give away, because the Official Paid London postmark shows Dec 23, the day it was received. The mail moved swiftly, but it’s unlikely a letter sent from Ireland would arrive the same day in London.

Also, the London receiving postmark being an Official Paid postmark instead of the standard postmark with the post office location is an indication something was noticed that was wrong with the letter—which would be it arrived supposedly from Ireland but had no postage. But it also may have been because it arrived from France with an Ireland postmark. These sorts of giveaways are found throughout the Ripper letters.

The Ripper letters are a very important factor in providing the evidence to Van Gogh’s guilt. He wrote most of them.

Dale,

Thank you for your reply.

If Van Gogh sent this letter in the mail from Arles, why is there no French postmark, or any other evidence of it having been posted in France, on it?

You are aware, aren't you, that the postmark and obliteration mark would have been stamped on the envelope in Limerick whether there was a stamp there or not? That is no doubt why there was an "official paid" stamp added in London, because the postage hadn't been paid in Limerick.

Assuming that the number on the Limerick postmark is a "3" to make "23", and not an indistinct "1", is it your suggestion that Van Gogh posted the letter in Arles on 22nd December having added a fake Limerick postmark with an impossible date in the future? What would the French postal service have made of such a thing when they saw it? How could he have got away with it?

And then the French postal service tamely transported it to London without marking the envelope at all?

And the British postal service received it from France, with the postage then being paid, without any surprise that it was bearing a (fake) Irish postmark?

According to a 1909 book by John G. Hendry entitled "The history of postmarks of the British Isles from 1840 to 1876" (p.115):

"From 1st October, 1860... the mail service between London and Dublin was accelerated so as to perform the journey between the two capitals in 11.5 hours..."

That suggests to me that if a letter could get from Limerick to Dublin in 1888 within 12 hours, which seems possible, a letter could travel between Limerick and London within a 24 hour period and thus be postmarked on the same day.

The short point is that I don't see how Van Gogh could possibly have posted a letter from France without a stamp but bearing a fake (but correctly laid out) Limerick postmark without that letter bearing any evidence of having been posted in France. You haven't explained it in your post. Would you mind elaborating on that point for me?

[Geddy2112]

I know the bloke was an artist but making fake postage stamps, all that effort for one letter? Sorry I do not buy that at all. Very far-fetched...