Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

News Flash!! . . . VINCENT VAN GOGH WAS JACK THE RIPPER!!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Limehouse View Post
    Between 35 and 36 years old eh? Well, you're spot on, I'll say that. Between 35 and 36 years old means he was 35, right?

    Sorry to get sarcastic, I didn't want to, but I really feel you are starting to sound desperate.


    Simply sticking to the facts as provided in the paper, Limehouse.

    The Times, November 13, 1888
    Referring to Mary Coxís statement at the inquest, ďHe appeared to be between 35 and 36 years of age.Ē

    Doesnít exhibit desperation, but instead specificity. It could be said itís presented as if Cox wasn't only saying he was about 35 or about 36, but more specific, as in, he was somewhere between 35 and 36, which matches even more so to Vincent, who was 35 and 7 months old.

    I hope being specific didn't cause the main point to be lost, though--Mary Cox said the man she saw with Mary Kelly was 35, and Van Gogh was 35.

    Cheers,
    Dale Larner
    www.vincentaliasjack.com
    www.facebook.com/vincentaliasjack
    www.VincentAliasJack.com

    Comment


    • Hi Dale,

      Aside from the fact that thousands of thirty-five-year-old men were alive in London at the time, what hard evidence do you have for VVG being the Ripper?

      Regards,

      Simon
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • mutilation

        Hello Simon. Well, don't forget his experience mutilating ears.

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • Hi Lynn,

          Please don't start me on Van Gogh jokes.

          Regards,

          Simon
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • The Facts

            Originally posted by Vincent alias Jack View Post
            Simply sticking to the facts as provided in the paper, Limehouse.

            The Times, November 13, 1888
            Referring to Mary Coxís statement at the inquest, ďHe appeared to be between 35 and 36 years of age.Ē

            Doesnít exhibit desperation, but instead specificity. It could be said itís presented as if Cox wasn't only saying he was about 35 or about 36, but more specific, as in, he was somewhere between 35 and 36, which matches even more so to Vincent, who was 35 and 7 months old.

            I hope being specific didn't cause the main point to be lost, though--Mary Cox said the man she saw with Mary Kelly was 35, and Van Gogh was 35.

            Cheers,
            Dale Larner
            www.vincentaliasjack.com
            www.facebook.com/vincentaliasjack
            If Mary Cox was able to tell the age of a person to within a month, just by looking at them, she should have been working the fairgrounds instead of walking the streets. Also, the Times article is a secondary source. The primary source, her police witness statement, says:

            The man whom I saw was about 36 years old, about 5' 5" high, complexion fresh and I believe he had blotches on his face, small side whiskers and a thick carroty moustache, dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and black felt hat".

            It's quite clear that Mrs Cox is giving an estimate of the age - "about 36", but if you want to argue that she wasn't, and that she got it exactly right, then it can't be 35-year-old Van Gogh, can it?

            Regards, Bridewell.
            "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

            Comment


            • Bridewell, you must remember that Van Gogh was a master painter, and could well have painted the blotches on his face to add a year to his appearance.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                Just a quick question, as I'm rather tired of the 'clues in paintings' meme.

                It seems that clues to several unsolved murders - for example, JtR, Black Dahlia - are to be found in the works of well-known artists. Can anyone on casebook name a solved murder case (especially one involving a sexual predator) in which clues to the murder were found in works of art executed by well-known artists or writers?

                If not, why not? Perhaps the Sickert/Vincent/Gauguin proponents might care to answer that.
                That's easy enough, Henry.

                Answer: Yes, the Jack the Ripper case, Vincent van Gogh.

                It isnít necessary to compare other cases or artists or artwork. Van Gogh being Jack the Ripper isnít dependant upon any of it.

                Must it first be proven that other artists have killed in order for one artist to be found guilty? If a plumber were on trial, would it be necessary to find that other plumbers had murdered in order to find the plumber guilty?

                Seeing that you quote Nietzsche, it does not surprise me that your logic is a bit jumbled, but machts nichts, Iím still having fun.

                Cheers,
                Dale Larner
                www.vincentaliasjack.com
                www.facebook.com/vincentaliasjack.com
                www.VincentAliasJack.com

                Comment


                • Semenal work

                  Personally I would contend that Van Gogh's Fishing Boats on the Beach of Saintes, painted in June 1888, the very year of the murders, is a critical work in understanding this theory.

                  There are eight boats shown, four on the beach and four afloat (but disappearing into the distance) predicting a total of eight deahs. The canon is thus shattered.

                  The mutilations are pressaged by the akimbo angling of the masts and sails against a blotchy sky...

                  I think we are being a trifle unforgiving here of a genius who has discovered the true identity of Jack the Kipper...

                  Dave
                  Last edited by Cogidubnus; 04-11-2012, 01:01 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Solved

                    Originally posted by Vincent alias Jack View Post
                    That's easy enough, Henry.

                    Answer: Yes, the Jack the Ripper case, Vincent van Gogh.

                    It isn’t necessary to compare other cases or artists or artwork. Van Gogh being Jack the Ripper isn’t dependant upon any of it.

                    Must it first be proven that other artists have killed in order for one artist to be found guilty? If a plumber were on trial, would it be necessary to find that other plumbers had murdered in order to find the plumber guilty?

                    Seeing that you quote Nietzsche, it does not surprise me that your logic is a bit jumbled, but machts nichts, I’m still having fun.

                    Cheers,
                    Dale Larner
                    www.vincentaliasjack.com
                    www.facebook.com/vincentaliasjack.com
                    A "solved" murder case (which is what was asked for) is one where an offender has been tried and convicted by a court. Unless you can show that he had a murder conviction, this cannot include Vincent Van Gogh .

                    Regards, Bridewell.
                    "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                      If Mary Cox was able to tell the age of a person to within a month, just by looking at them, she should have been working the fairgrounds instead of walking the streets. Also, the Times article is a secondary source. The primary source, her police witness statement, says:

                      The man whom I saw was about 36 years old, about 5' 5" high, complexion fresh and I believe he had blotches on his face, small side whiskers and a thick carroty moustache, dressed in shabby dark clothes, dark overcoat and black felt hat".

                      It's quite clear that Mrs Cox is giving an estimate of the age - "about 36", but if you want to argue that she wasn't, and that she got it exactly right, then it can't be 35-year-old Van Gogh, can it?

                      Regards, Bridewell.
                      Thanks for helping to make my point, Bridewell, and thanks for including the "carroty moustache." Keep that up and you'll be an ally in no time. I look forward to it.

                      Sincerely,
                      Dale Larner
                      www.vincentaliasjack.com
                      www.facebook.com/vincentaliasjack.com
                      www.VincentAliasJack.com

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        Hi Dale,

                        Aside from the fact that thousands of thirty-five-year-old men were alive in London at the time, what hard evidence do you have for VVG being the Ripper?

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        Of course, Simon, Van Gogh being 35 at the time is just one of the many pieces of the puzzle. Other pieces are presented at the website www.vincentaliasjack.com and, quite naturally, the book will then have to be referred to later in order to see the full measure of the evidence, which is voluminous, exhaustive, overwhelming, and delightful.

                        Thanks for asking,
                        Dale Larner
                        www.facebook.com/vincentaliasjack
                        www.VincentAliasJack.com

                        Comment


                        • I thought the clincher about the boats pic was the man on the beach with the bubble issuing from his mouth, containing the words "Come in Mary Kelly, your time is up."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                            A "solved" murder case (which is what was asked for) is one where an offender has been tried and convicted by a court. Unless you can show that he had a murder conviction, this cannot include Vincent Van Gogh .

                            Regards, Bridewell.
                            Itís a shame all my hard work has been for nothing. The discoveries, all that research, and then to write such a large book proving that Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper, only to have it all dashed because he was never previously convicted of murder. Drats. Life is so unfair.

                            Thanks just the same, Bridewell,
                            Dale Larner
                            www.vincentaliasjack.com
                            www.facebook.com/vincentaliasjack
                            www.VincentAliasJack.com

                            Comment


                            • Dear Mr Learner,

                              Your rather breathless sarcasm cannot hide the fact that you avoid the issue: why is it only ever unsolved murder cases in which people find laughable clues hidden in works of art? No murder case in history has ended with a conviction based on clues having been found secreted in major works of art. Your theory has nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders or with Vincent, or indeed with the real world.

                              It's a joke. Your work is garbage. Your 'discoveries' are delusional at best. Like a recent Sickert proponent here, you retreat into inane sarcasm and a superior tone when your work convinces nobody.

                              I really can't be bothered to waste any more time on your drivel.

                              Comment


                              • I hope someone makes a movie off Dale's book and he becomes a millionaire. I could totally see Tim Burton making this movie.

                                Yours truly,

                                Tom Wescott

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X