Was it Van Gogh, Carroty Mustache?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nichols was killed just before 3.40am on the morning of 31st Aug.

On Sept 1st Vincent was definitely at home first thing in the morning:



The letter as a whole doesn't sound like the work of a man who has been spending time thinking about anything other than what to paint, how to paint, and how to eke out his financial existence while painting. The volume of work he produced would tend to confirm that this was all he cared about, and further, that he just did not waste half his autumn sat on trains and boats traveling between London and the far Mediterranean south of France because there were no prostitutes to kill in France, or because London 'meant something' to him.

Chapman was killed in the early hours of Sept 8th. That day Vincent wrote to Theo from Arles, telling him that he had settled a debt with his landlord, (Ginoux, at the Cafe de la Gare) by spending most of the week painting pictures of the establishment.

The Double Event took place 1.00-1.45 on Sept 30th. There are no letters from Vincent for a day or two, but on Tuesday 2nd he writes to Eugene Boch, giving him a detailed and exhaustive list of the paintings he is currently working on.

Kelly was killed at maybe 4am on Nov 9th. On the 10th Vincent writes to Theo telling him of some cancelled exhibition plans, and describes how he is getting on with Gauguin, who had finally arrived - after months of pleading by Vincent - on Oct 20th. Given the agonies he went through to persuade Gauguin to join him in Arles I find it impossible to believe that Vincent then left him after a couple of weeks and spent a couple of days traveling to London and back to murder a prostitute.

Dale may point out that there is a slight gap in the letters at the time of the Double Event. However, careful study of the letters reveals that this gap is far from unique, there are hundreds of letters, and many gaps of two or more days between them at various points.

Vincent van Gogh did not travel from the Mediterranean all the way up through France, across the Channel, and into London to murder a prostitute, before hopping on the first possible train home again, all the way back to the English coast, onto a ferry, across the Channel, and traveling down through the entire length of France to the Mediterranean town of Arles.

Grow up Dale. The fact that it wasn't physically impossible is literally all the evidence you have.

Hi Henry,

As you’re well aware there’s a Maybrick thread asking for ‘one incontrovertible fact’ that disproves the diary. Well we now don’t need a similarly questioned thread for Van Gogh because you’ve just killed it stone dead

The fact that someone can still continue to accuse Van Gogh when these facts are readily available serves to illustrate a total disregard for genuine research or desire for the truth. Any prospective book should be abandoned. I pointed out in an earlier post that Vincent was penniless and so, even if it was physically possible, wouldn’t have been able to afford a) to get to the coast, b) to buy a boat ticket there and back and c) to pay for food and lodgings in London. And now, thanks to Henry, we know that Van Gogh would have needed even more cash because he would have been going back and forward between London an Arles. Commit murder, go home to write a letter, back to London to commit murder, back home etc!

Again, well done Henry. It’s categorically GAME OVER.!

[Henry Flower]

Hi Henry,

As you’re well aware there’s a Maybrick thread asking for ‘one incontrovertible fact’ that disproves the diary. Well we now don’t need a similarly questioned thread for Van Gogh because you’ve just killed it stone dead

The fact that someone can still continue to accuse Van Gogh when these facts are readily available serves to illustrate a total disregard for genuine research or desire for the truth. Any prospective book should be abandoned. I pointed out in an earlier post that Vincent was penniless and so, even if it was physically possible, wouldn’t have been able to afford a) to get to the coast, b) to buy a boat ticket there and back and c) to pay for food and lodgings in London. And now, thanks to Henry, we know that Van Gogh would have needed even more cash because he would have been going back and forward between London an Arles. Commit murder, go home to write a letter, back to London to commit murder, back home etc!

Again, well done Henry. It’s categorically GAME OVER.!

Herlock I wish I shared your optimism, but hucksters like Dale will clutch at anything they can to keep their pet theory's head just above water.

If no laws of actual physics have been broken Dale will continue with his nonsense. He will claim that there is just - just! - time for Vincent to get back home if he ran for his train at Liverpool St wiping the blood from his hands as soon as he was done killing.

And besides, maybe those scholars are just wrong about the dates of the letters, or else Vincent simply wrote them in advance, or arranged for someone to post them in his absence, or whatever - no absurdity seems too great for Dale.

I have no faith in the honesty or the integrity of a man who can claim that Vincent gave his ear to a prostitute, or that he attacked Gauguin. That's either dishonest, or the result of utterly inept incomplete research.

But thanks anyway Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One final point. After the initial ‘grab for publicity’ post, followed by two ludicrous short posts there is a noticeable silence. Why? Because this cynical, evidence-free hatchet job can’t be sustained against people who have knowledge of the case and the life of Van Gogh. It may sound impressive to those who know nothing about the Whitechapel Murders but to anyone with any kind of knowledge it can be dismissed with ease.

[DJA]

Suspect Dale's project is one big ,or is it two now, satire.

[Vincent alias Jack]

Herlock I wish I shared your optimism, but hucksters like Dale will clutch at anything they can to keep their pet theory's head just above water.

If no laws of actual physics have been broken Dale will continue with his nonsense. He will claim that there is just - just! - time for Vincent to get back home if he ran for his train at Liverpool St wiping the blood from his hands as soon as he was done killing.

And besides, maybe those scholars are just wrong about the dates of the letters, or else Vincent simply wrote them in advance, or arranged for someone to post them in his absence, or whatever - no absurdity seems too great for Dale.

I have no faith in the honesty or the integrity of a man who can claim that Vincent gave his ear to a prostitute, or that he attacked Gauguin. That's either dishonest, or the result of utterly inept incomplete research.

But thanks anyway Herlock.

You know how when a newbie shows up on this forum and talks about the Ripper murders? That’s what it’s like for me when you and Herlock Sholmes talk about Van Gogh.

Man of Integrity,
Dale Larner

[Herlock Sholmes]

You know how when a newbie shows up on this forum and talks about the Ripper murders? That’s what it’s like for me when you and Herlock Sholmes talk about Van Gogh.

Man of Integrity,
Dale Larner

But the letters are absolutely, irrefutable proof that Van Gogh was in Arles at the time of the murders! How can you call yourself a ‘man of integrity’ when you ignore these crushing facts? You are the equivalent of the kid with chocolate all over his face who solemnly tells his mom ‘I swear it wasn’t me that ate all the chocolate!”

The notion that Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper doesn’t even get out of the starting blocks. There’s not a single, solitary smidgeon of evidence that stands up to even the mildest of scrutiny (including the fact that he wasn’t even in the same country at the time!) Random blobs in paintings (come on!) They look absolutely nothing like anything that you say they are. It appears that you are the only person that can see these things (I wonder why that is )

You’ve simply chosen a well known and well loved figure that was alive at the time (the ‘controversy sells’ motive) and tried to mould a case around him. And you call yourself ‘man of integrity!’

Point me at the Ripper expert (I don’t class myself as an expert but I’ve been interested in this case for 30 years) who will give you’re theory the slightest credence.
Point me at the Van Gogh expert that will give you’re theory the slightest credence.

Are you struggling Dale?

Let me guess what your reply will be along the lines of (if you respond of course as you glaringly avoid debate like the plague)......let me see...

“The stuffy so-called experts are so wedded to their dogmas that they are unwilling to consider any original, out-of-the-box thinking. People with vested interests in maintaining the status quo will never appreciate maverick, original thinkers like me etc, etc, blah, blah, blah”

Has anyone heard this stuff before?

[Henry Flower]

You know how when a newbie shows up on this forum and talks about the Ripper murders? That’s what it’s like for me when you and Herlock Sholmes talk about Van Gogh.

Man of Integrity,
Dale Larner

But Dale, you are claiming to have researched this in painstaking detail, and yet you are making absolutely false claims: Vincent did not give his ear to a prostitute, and he did not attack Gauguin.

The tone of your reply, coupled with your failure to acknowledge the error of these claims tells me everything - everything - I need to know about the integrity of your work, your research, and your intentions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is it me Henry or is there a noticeable unwillingness to debate this ‘proven’ candidate?

Apologies for the cliche but “the silence is deafening.”

[Vincent alias Jack]

But Dale, you are claiming to have researched this in painstaking detail, and yet you are making absolutely false claims: Vincent did not give his ear to a prostitute, and he did not attack Gauguin.

The tone of your reply, coupled with your failure to acknowledge the error of these claims tells me everything - everything - I need to know about the integrity of your work, your research, and your intentions.

What does this tell you?

The local newspaper, Le Forum Républicain, noted Vincent had presented himself at a brothel at 11:30 on Sunday night and had asked “for one Rachel and gave her . . . his ear, saying ‘Guard this object carefully’. Then he disappeared.”

Gauguin’s journal: “I heard behind me a well-known step, short, quick, irregular. I turned about on the instant as Vincent rushed toward me, an open razor in his hand. My look at that moment must have had great power in it, for he stopped and, lowering his head, set off running towards home.”

Mr. Integrity,
Dale

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll quote from Henry’s post. The emboldening is my own.

‘Chapman was killed in the early hours of Sept 8th. That day Vincent wrote to Theo from Arles, telling him that he had settled a debt with his landlord, (Ginoux, at the Cafe de la Gare) by spending most of the week painting pictures of the establishment.

The Double Event took place 1.00-1.45 on Sept 30th. There are no letters from Vincent for a day or two, but on Tuesday 2nd he writes to Eugene Boch, giving him a detailed and exhaustive list of the paintings he is currently working on.

Kelly was killed at maybe 4am on Nov 9th. On the 10th Vincent writes to Theo telling him of some cancelled exhibition plans, and describes how he is getting on with Gauguin, who had finally arrived - after months of pleading by Vincent - on Oct 20th. That day Vincent wrote to Theo from Arles, telling him that he had settled a debt with his landlord, (Ginoux, at the Cafe de la Gare) by spending most of the week painting pictures of the establishment.’

And so, according to your ‘theory’ Vincent Van Gogh murdered Annie Chapman in the early hours of Sept 8th in Hanbury Street, London. Then a very few hours later he managed to write and post a letter from Arles in France.

There’s a gap of a couple of days between the Double Event and Vincent’s next letter. But obviously you believe that’s no problem.

Then he butchers MJK around 4am on the 9th November and writes a letter on the tenth!

Why do these facts not bother you?

Or are you suggesting a conspiracy where Vincent wrote the letters in advance and planned for a confederate to post them for him? You yourself called Vincent a loner after all. Any theory that is confronted by cold, hard facts like these must crumble unless other facts come to light to contradict them. They haven’t and they won’t. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Just because someone half-heartedly waves a knife at someone (a man by the way) does not, in any way, demonstrate a propensity for killing and disembowelling women.

Just because a man uses prostitutes it does not predispose him to butchering them.

Picking out random, ink-blot type patterns (that no one other than you can see [Henry is an artist by the way]) is the feeblest attempt imaginable to provide proof.

Suggesting that ‘Blotchy Man’ (as he’s come to be known) fits Vincent’s description is utterly irrelevant as a) we don’t know that BM was Jack b) this description would have fit many men and c) oh yes, Vincent was in France at the time!

You call yourself a man of integrity?! Yet you wilfully ignore facts that categorically disprove your theory just so that you can produce a book.

Ripperology has more than its fair share of outlandish theories but yours (along with the Dr Neil Cream lunacy) is the only one as far as I can recall where the suspect wasn’t even in the same country as his victims at the time that they met their deaths!!!

Anyone with integrity would have abandoned ship long ago

[Herlock Sholmes]

What does this tell you?

The local newspaper, Le Forum Républicain, noted Vincent had presented himself at a brothel at 11:30 on Sunday night and had asked “for one Rachel and gave her . . . his ear, saying ‘Guard this object carefully’. Then he disappeared.”

Gauguin’s journal: “I heard behind me a well-known step, short, quick, irregular. I turned about on the instant as Vincent rushed toward me, an open razor in his hand. My look at that moment must have had great power in it, for he stopped and, lowering his head, set off running towards home.”

Mr. Integrity,
Dale

Just because someone works in a brothel doesn’t make them a prostitute. Men work in brothels. Women can work as cleaners, cooks, madams.

Why didn’t he attack any prostitutes let alone kill or mutilate any?

So Vincent stood in front of Gauguin with a razor in his hand. He must be a serial killer then

[Henry Flower]

What does this tell you?

The local newspaper, Le Forum Républicain, noted Vincent had presented himself at a brothel at 11:30 on Sunday night and had asked “for one Rachel and gave her . . . his ear, saying ‘Guard this object carefully’. Then he disappeared.”

Gauguin’s journal: “I heard behind me a well-known step, short, quick, irregular. I turned about on the instant as Vincent rushed toward me, an open razor in his hand. My look at that moment must have had great power in it, for he stopped and, lowering his head, set off running towards home.”

Mr. Integrity,
Dale

This old story has been contradicted by more discovered, more detailed documents. If you're not familiar with them then that's rather bad news for you and your book isn't it! I'll say it again:

Vincent gave his ear to a cleaning girl named Gabrielle. She had been badly bitten by a rabid dog the previous year and worked as a cleaning girl at the brothel to pay off her medical bills. Vincent would've known her, and would've known she was not a prostitute.

Repeat - she was not a prostitute, never, and Vincent would definitely have known that.

Now, you quote a journal entry that describes no attack on Gauguin. And yet you fail to see that this backs up my case and contradicts yours. No attack on Gauguin happened. Vincent ran towards Gauguin, stopped, and skulked off. Vincent was a self harmer. He cut off his ear, he swallowed toxic paint to make himself sick, he shot himself. He didn't attack Gauguin, he would probably have attacked himself, and Gauguin had a vested interest in portraying himself as being in danger.

You back up your 'attack on Gauguin' story by quoting from an entry that describes how Vincent did not attack Gauguin.

Dale, are you stupid?

I'm deleting my account, tired of wasting time on this garbage.

[Steadmund Brand]

"Ripperology has more than its fair share of outlandish theories but yours (along with the Dr Neil Cream lunacy) is the only one as far as I can recall where the suspect wasn’t even in the same country as his victims at the time that they met their deaths!!!"

Well.. you need to add Prince Eddie and H H Holmes to that list

Steadmund Brand

[Abby Normal]

This old story has been contradicted by more discovered, more detailed documents. If you're not familiar with them then that's rather bad news for you and your book isn't it! I'll say it again:


Now, you quote a journal entry that describes no attack on Gauguin. And yet you fail to see that this backs up my case and contradicts yours. No attack on Gauguin happened. Vincent ran towards Gauguin, stopped, and skulked off. Vincent was a self harmer. He cut off his ear, he swallowed toxic paint to make himself sick, he shot himself. He didn't attack Gauguin, he would probably have attacked himself, and Gauguin had a vested interest in portraying himself as being in danger.

You back up your 'attack on Gauguin' story by quoting from an entry that describes how Vincent did not attack Gauguin.

Dale, are you stupid?

I'm deleting my account, tired of wasting time on this garbage.

HF
don't go. seriously. theres a lot more people on here that appreciate your input than there are trolls (just ignore them-you can actually put them on "ignore" through your settings)

[Steadmund Brand]

Also, I think some misunderstood what I had written, let me again stress that I in no way agree with the theory at all....but I would be willing to read the book and debate the "evidence" as I will do with other outlandish theory's (Royals, Masons, Artists and Cotton Merchants )... not to mention aliens, bigfoot, Cthulhu, Side Show performers, Time Travelers ETC....

Steadmund Brand