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

[Geddy2112]

One of the glaring mistakes made within the Ripperology mindset is the group think acceptance that the Ripper letters were hoaxes.

The vast majority of them are written in completely different handwriting from each other.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good catch. I would think any respectable Ripperologist would know about the one witness who got a direct look at the killer at a crime scene--standing in her room on the night of her murder, for goodness sakes. As for the beard, she was quoted as saying carroty mustache only, true. However, in Walter Dew's wonderful reflection back on the murders in "I Caught Crippen," he wrote of Mary Cox's sighting, "This information gave us for the first time something really tangible to work upon. We knew what the man we were after looked like. We knew the kind of clothes he wore and, most important of all, we knew that he was bearded." He added, "I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer." Mary Cox also said he was 35-36 yrs. old. Van Gogh was 35.

Of course there is no evidence of Vincent being in London in his many biographies. Naturally, he didn't want anyone to know. However, look a little deeper, and there it is with each murder.

One of the glaring mistakes made within the Ripperology mindset is the group think acceptance that the Ripper letters were hoaxes. No wonder nobody could find the killer. Leaving out the killers own words and everything found in and about the Ripper letters supplies mounds of evidence it was Vincent van Gogh writing to the police and papers. He was so clever and creative in his use of the letters to misdirect the public and the detectives and to control the case.

Your errors are glaring. Firstly, anyone with any knowledge of the case would tell you that there was more than one possible sighting of the killer. Joseph Lawende and two other men said that they saw a woman who was likely to have been Eddowes talking to her killer just 10 minutes or so before her body was found a few yards away. This man looked nothing like Van Gogh. Israel Schwartz saw a man struggling with a woman who looked like Stride just feet from where she was found just 15 minutes later This man looked nothing like Van Gogh. Elizabeth Long saw a man talking to a woman that she believed was Annie Chapman just feet from where her body was found just 30 minutes later: He looked nothing like Van Gogh. Yes, there is a difference in that we we know for certain that Blotchy Man was with Kelly but this certainly doesn’t mean that he was her killer so why are you assuming this? You are also ignoring the fact that George Hutchinson, who actually knew Kelly, saw her with a completely different man after she had been with Blotchy Man. Your claim that he had a beard based on Dew’s faulty memory is easily disproven, as anyone with a knowledge of the case would tell you. Dew never saw the man but Cox did. Dew was simply relying on his flawed memory of what had been said at the time. Cox’s description at the inquest:

“He had a blotchy face, and full carrotty moustache.

[Coroner] The chin was shaven ? - Yes. A lamp faced the door.


Clearly….no beard….from the only witness that actually saw this man. Therefore you have no evidence or reason to suspect it of being Van Gogh.


You can’t just cherrypick one witness/suspect just because his moustache might have been the same colour as Van Gogh’s and at the same time ignoring the fact that Van Gogh is always portrayed with a beard. We have no evidence of him ever shaving it off at this time. So your ‘evidence’ on this point couldn’t have been weaker. A man with an orange moustache counts for nothing. Especially when Kelly was later seen alive.

When you say that there is no evidence for Vincent being in London (or indeed England; or indeed anywhere other than Arles) you should stop there. Nothing further is required. No sensible theory could include the ‘suggestion’ “well he might have gone to London.” If that were the case then any vaguely similar type murderer should be considered a suspect no matter where he was at the time as long as it’s not entirely physically impossible that he could have travelled. Weak doesn’t begin to describe this theory.

That the dirt poor Van Gogh could have gone back and forth to England to commit murders doesn’t scratch the surface of believability. Any money that Theo sent was spent on paint and canvases to facilitate his one obsession in life - painting. He then had to pay rent and for food, drink and the occasionally prostitute. How much money do you believe that the long suffering Theo sent him? That he could have afforded trips abroad is beyond absurd.

It’s not a mistake for ripperologists to assume that most of all of the letters were written by others because it’s what the evidence points to. In any investigation modern day police would - in the absence of DNA - arrive at exactly the same conclusion. Letters sent from different locations, in different handwriting, in a different content style mean a different writer. You are simply using wishful thinking. You don’t have a single piece of evidence to prove that they were written by Van Gogh.