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

[Barnaby]

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

And then, unfortunately, to the lay public Dale Lernar will be on equal footing as Stewart Evans. Wait, Stewart who? Dale Lernar will rival Patricia Cornwell as the top expert in the field. The danger of these books is that the majority cannot discriminate the good from the not so good.

[Henry Flower]

Barnaby, you are absolutely correct. But I think we can rest assured that Mr Larner is a great seeker after truth, not merely out to make a quick buck for himself. Those who merely want to pocket cash on the back of bogus research and discoveries nearly always resort to:

Flashy sensationalist titles
Written in CAPITAL LETTERS
And followed by EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!
Claiming that they have FINALLY SOLVED THE CASE!!!!!!!
Revealing that, blow me down, the Ripper was a WORLD FAMOUS NAME!!!!!!

Now Mr Larner wouldn't resort to such methods - after all, he's researched this case diligently for years and years, ever since he deduced a sense of 'entitlement' in Vincent and was able to find similar characteristics in the Ripper! And then, lo and behold, some blobs of paint revealed the face of Mary Kelly!!! Yes, he took a small century-old photo of a face so mutilated that no-one is quite sure where her features are, and he compared it with some vague brush marks in a painting of flowers, and he found an almost exactly vague match!!! Yes, one set of vague and indecipherable marks matched another... vaguely.

Mr Larner can accuse me of faulty logic all he likes, but having followed the links on his site to his own artwork and writing I think a wiser man of his modest abilities might modestly desist from criticizing Nietzsche in such authoritative tones. The world is full of pygmies throwing stones at the ankles of giants, and Mr Larner is one of the more comic examples. His own attempts at painting do not inspire me with any confidence that he knows in any case how to look at a painting intelligently, and I'm sure that a publisher (if he eventually finds one) will happily supply a professional to tidy up his often faulty grammar.

[Harry the Hawker]

Barnaby, you are absolutely correct. But I think we can rest assured that Mr Larner is a great seeker after truth, not merely out to make a quick buck for himself. Those who merely want to pocket cash on the back of bogus research and discoveries nearly always resort to:

Flashy sensationalist titles
Written in CAPITAL LETTERS
And followed by EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!
Claiming that they have FINALLY SOLVED THE CASE!!!!!!!
Revealing that, blow me down, the Ripper was a WORLD FAMOUS NAME!!!!!!

Now Mr Larner wouldn't resort to such methods - after all, he's researched this case diligently for years and years, ever since he deduced a sense of 'entitlement' in Vincent and was able to find similar characteristics in the Ripper! And then, lo and behold, some blobs of paint revealed the face of Mary Kelly!!! Yes, he took a small century-old photo of a face so mutilated that no-one is quite sure where her features are, and he compared it with some vague brush marks in a painting of flowers, and he found an almost exactly vague match!!! Yes, one set of vague and indecipherable marks matched another... vaguely.

Mr Larner can accuse me of faulty logic all he likes, but having followed the links on his site to his own artwork and writing I think a wiser man of his modest abilities might modestly desist from criticizing Nietzsche in such authoritative tones. The world is full of pygmies throwing stones at the ankles of giants, and Mr Larner is one of the more comic examples. His own attempts at painting do not inspire me with any confidence that he knows in any case how to look at a painting intelligently, and I'm sure that a publisher (if he eventually finds one) will happily supply a professional to tidy up his often faulty grammar.

Henry, you continue in your unerring habit of hitting the nail squarely on the noggin. I salute you.

Regards,
Harry (not Indian)

[John Wheat]

Having looked at his website I'd say he's already surpassed the great Cornwell what with that Van Gough painting clearly showing the Mary Jane Kelly mortuary photo. If I'm however wrong atleast he's going to make some fast money trading on murders.

[Bridewell]

The Point

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

Hi Dale,

It's surprising that the carroty moustache is mentioned and that the carroty beard isn't. It's also surprising that Mrs Cox mentions the blotchy face that Vincent van Gogh didn't have.

Attached is Gaugin's 1888 portrait of Van Gogh:



Wasn't it good of Gaugin to make subtle changes to his mate's phizzog so as not to reveal his dastardly involvement in the Whitechapel Murders?

[Bridewell]

Van Gogh Letters From Arles

(Letter 526, Arles, c. 21 August 1888: I am hard at it, painting with the enthusiasm of a Marseillais eating bouillabaisse, which won't surprise you when you know that what I'm at is the painting of some big sunflowers. I have three canvases going – 1st, three huge flowers in a green vase, with light background, a size 15 canvas; 2nd, three flowers, one gone to seed, having lost its petals, and one a bud against a royal-blue background, size 25 canvas; 3rd, twelve flowers and buds in a yellow vase (size 30 canvas). The last one is therefore light on light, and I hope it will be the best. Probably I shall not stop at that. … Next door to your shop, in the restaurant you know there is a lovely decoration of flowers; I always remember the big sunflowers in the window there. …. So the whole thing will be a symphony in blue and yellow. I am working at it every morning from sunrise on, for the flowers fade so soon, and the thing is to do the whole in one rush.)

(Letter 534, Arles 9 September 1888: But you will see these great pictures of the sunflowers, 12 or 14 to the bunch, crammed into this tiny boudoir with its pretty bed and everything else dainty. It will not be commonplace.)

Sunflowers come into their best bloom in the late summer in France and here we have Vincent hard at work painting sunflowers in Arles on 21st August (ten days before the Nichols murder) and the very next day after the murder of Annie Chapman, writing about them in Arles.

I've got an idea which you may not like very much, but here goes:

Vincent Van Gogh, who is most famous for painting sunflowers in France, spent the late summer & early autumn of 1888, in France, sunflower painting.

If you have bona fide evidence (as opposed to speculation) that Van Gogh travelled from England to France, on either 8th or 9th September 1888, which, if he was the Ripper, he has to have done, you may provoke a bit of interest. That is absolutely essential if you are to argue that Van Gogh was JtR. Can you prove that Van Gogh made that journey?

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

Ancestry

Hello Bridewell, Vincent. If you seek Van Gogh's movements during the autumn of terror, then permit me to recommend Ancestry. They have passenger manifests available.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Ancestry

Hello Bridewell, Vincent. If you seek Van Gogh's movements during the autumn of terror, then permit me to recommend Ancestry. They have passenger manifests available.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn,

I've had a look on Ancestry. Leaving out those who arrived before Vincent was born, there are two entries for Van Gogh arriving in the UK in the 19th century:

11th August 1858: A Van Gogh arrived in London from Rotterdam on the Batavier. His occupation is "Troopman", so unlikely to be Vincent who was 5.

26th August 1859: V Van Gogh Jr arrived in London from Rotterdam on the Concordia. He was a "Merchant", so unlikely to be Vincent who was 6.

That's All, Folks!

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

alias

Hello Bridewell. Well done, mate.

By the way, next move (I predict): "Ah, but he sailed under an alias."

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

I have just discovered that an important part of Cox's description has been omitted from all the books. After describing the blotchy face etc she finishes : "Oh, by the way, his eyes were china blue and they seemed to know the darkness of my soul. Sorry I couldn't be more definite."

So there you go.

[Henry Flower]

Bridewell, the most obvious explanation is that he surfed across the Channel on his palette.

However, if you haven't located his voyage to London to work for Goupil in '73, or his return to work as a teacher in Ramsgate, then evidently the passenger manifests at Ancestry are not complete.

[Henry Flower]

But the challenge to Dull Learner remains, as Bridewell has succinctly stated:

If you have bona fide evidence (as opposed to speculation) that Van Gogh travelled from England to France, on either 8th or 9th September 1888, which, if he was the Ripper, he has to have done, you may provoke a bit of interest. That is absolutely essential if you are to argue that Van Gogh was JtR. Can you prove that Van Gogh made that journey?

If he has it, let's see it. Absent such evidence, Mr Larner should do the decent thing and withdraw his idiotic case. I'm sick and tired of such serious accusations being made, on the basis of such pathetic 'evidence', against real people who are no longer here to defend themselves.

It's not only intellectually bankrupt, it's morally and ethically disgusting. You wouldn't dare slander the living in such a serious manner, Mr Larner, especially on the basis of such deluded and risible evidence - they would sue you for every cent you had, and rightly so.

[Harry the Hawker]

But the challenge to Dull Learner remains, as Bridewell has succinctly stated:



If he has it, let's see it. Absent such evidence, Mr Larner should do the decent thing and withdraw his idiotic case. I'm sick and tired of such serious accusations being made, on the basis of such pathetic 'evidence', against real people who are no longer here to defend themselves.

It's not only intellectually bankrupt, it's morally and ethically disgusting. You wouldn't dare slander the living in such a serious manner, Mr Larner, especially on the basis of such deluded and risible evidence - they would sue you for every cent you had, and rightly so.

Hear hear.

Gosh, it's gone rather quiet, hasn't it?

Cheers!
Harry

[Bridewell]

Bridewell, the most obvious explanation is that he surfed across the Channel on his palette.

However, if you haven't located his voyage to London to work for Goupil in '73, or his return to work as a teacher in Ramsgate, then evidently the passenger manifests at Ancestry are not complete.

Hi Henry,

In fairness to Dale, that has to be acknowledged, but the original challenge stands.

Regards, Bridewell

[Suzi]

Been off for a while......Back and good to see Van Gogh up as the latest suspect!! !!!!!

Surely he must have been staying with Victoria at Balmoral or possibly The Ten Bells with MJK at the time!!

[ Hmmm with the White Rabbit too no doubt! ( Lewis Carroll.....noooooo!) .....How did that pass us by!!!]


Now where were we with the ' grey local man in the street that was known and trusted possibility'....vague and as unlikely as that may be!!.....