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

[Rubyretro]

I will just mention one thing, Dale.

I have always been fascinated by Jeanne Calment (the oldest documented
women in the world. She died aged 122 in 1997 and was born in 1875).

Jeanne Calment lived all her life in Arles and clearly remembered Van Gogh -not surprising, since the centre of Arles is like a village now (I live just down the road), and it must have been even more so in the 1880s.

(Incidently, she worked in a shop (her parent's shop ?) selling paint and canvasses, amongst other things, and when Van Gogh had spent all his money, he had credit in her shop and could always get material on credit -she served him. So he never needed to go short on painting supplies).

As she describes Van Gogh, he was a complete weirdo when walking about the street, and very remarkable (apparently he suddenly snapped back to 'normal' in the shop, although he kept his head down, -and this is my experience of many evidently mentally ill people, having worked in shops myself).

I once heard Jeanne Calment say (on the radio) that Van Gogh was always followed by a trail of children in the street calling 'dingue-o' after him (mad man). Indeed, the people of Arles got up a petition to have him ejected after the ear cutting incident (an irony, since their descendants make a lot of money out of him now).

He was unkempt, hyperactive, never stopped muttering and plain weird.

This is confirmed by a statement by Theo's wife, when he lived with them, and Gaugin, who also understandably couldn't live with him.

The letters are lucid, as are the paintings, and his dealings in shops (so it would seem) -but that is not how he came over to other people when dealing with them directly in the street or in the home.

(Don McClean's song is not entirely false however -if Theo, and the rest of the siblings were so loving, it was because they remembered a particularly beautiful person before the mental illness took over).

All I really want to say is that there is just no way that the Vincent that lived in Arles( eating his own paint and ending up in the hospital !), could have got it together to zip over to England and back, to be Jack the Ripper.

He was into self mutilation and suicide -not murder.

He couldn't walk down a street without attracting attention and having people back off.

[Lechmere]

Yes that is why all the overtly mad suspects can be struck off the list - that includes Kosminsky and Ischenscmidt.
Firstly none of the victims would have entertained them for a second.
Secondly they would not have been able to approach the victims without attacking immediately - if their madness caused them to kill. These are stealth killings - not random attacks by people suffering from overt mental disorder.
The prejudices at the time thought a 'madman' had to have done it. We should be way beyond that now.

[Rubyretro]

Yes that is why all the overtly mad suspects can be struck off the list - that includes Kosminsky and Ischenscmidt.
Firstly none of the victims would have entertained them for a second.
Secondly they would not have been able to approach the victims without attacking immediately - if their madness caused them to kill. These are stealth killings - not random attacks by people suffering from overt mental disorder.
The prejudices at the time thought a 'madman' had to have done it. We should be way beyond that now.

Totally agree, Lechmere -well said.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"The prejudices at the time thought a 'madman' had to have done it. We should be way beyond that now."

We should. And most say they are.

The truth looks slightly different, though:

"No history of mental disorder? Right, then off you go!
Next, please!"

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

oh?

Hello Lechmere. We may be off topic, but:

"Firstly none of the victims would have entertained them for a second."

Not so, if one was drunk and the other terminally ill, as Polly and Annie were.

"Secondly they would not have been able to approach the victims without attacking immediately - if their madness caused them to kill."

This is an odd turn of phrase. Madness, itself, does not cause one to kill. Schizophrenics are usually non-violent--unless they feel threatened.

"These are stealth killings - not random attacks by people suffering from overt mental disorder."

And we know that because?

"The prejudices at the time thought a 'madman' had to have done it. We should be way beyond that now."

The prejudices of today think there was a single killer. We should be way beyond that--but we're not.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

The prejudices of today think there was a single killer. We should be way beyond that--but we're not.


Let's take this backwards Lynn...The amount of experience that 'we' have been abe to share because of technical advances in media since the 1880s and correlate into statistics, tend to demonstrate that not ony one killer for the C5 is the most probable conclusion, but that he was also responsible for
other murders either side of the C5.

That is not a prejudice, it is science, common sense, as you will...

"The prejudices at the time thought a 'madman' had to have done it. We should be way beyond that now."

Yes, because the Serial Killers that have been caught in the intervening years
since 1888 are not 'mad men'.

"These are stealth killings - not random attacks by people suffering from overt mental disorder."

And we know that because?


They all have a similar MO, victim class, and there were no witnesses to the actual killings, and no one caught ...(der...?)

"Secondly they would not have been able to approach the victims without attacking immediately - if their madness caused them to kill."

This is an odd turn of phrase. Madness, itself, does not cause one to kill. Schizophrenics are usually non-violent--unless they feel threatened.


But just how could the murderer have felt threatened by the victim in each case ?(and if these individual madmen were each not mad on the surface nor planning, I imagine that you mean that each snapped for a different reason each time ?)

Too many 'eaches'.

"Firstly none of the victims would have entertained them for a second."

Not so, if one was drunk and the other terminally ill, as Polly and Annie were.


How would you know, Lynn ? (and you've only quoted two of the Ripper's victims). Prostitutes are human beings, and arguably less naive and more streetwise than other women. I would think that they were good at summing men up, and had a sense of self preservation. Even drunk or ill.

[Lechmere]

Annie chapman didn't know she was terminally Ill - how on earth could her underlying illness affect her judgement to the cent that she went off with an overt madman. Incidentally the descriptions of JI in his mad state leave no room for Doubt

[Fisherman]

Hi Lechmere!

This discussion has been moved to the thread "One size fits all" under General Discussion.

The best,
Fisherman

[IchabodCrane]

Having had a look at Dale's website, I have a question to all artist theorists out there: who had access to MJKs crime photo in 1889, when Irises was painted? I always thought it was kept from the public and only used by police and never published in the newspapers. Any artist, Walter sickert or VvG, would have needed the photo or a copy of it to draw the dead Mary Jane into their paintings.
If this has already been answered in this thread, my apologies.

[Vincent alias Jack]

So then you admit that he didn't kill in his own area by everything that you are premising. Hard to believe that there are no lead ups, no evolutionary guide crimes where he lived (committed by Vince) that show what it is that you are trying to claim. Any killer in any country, in any history that did their killing outside the circle of their comfort? This would be a necessity that you DO need to prove your theory, and on top of that you would need to prove the same evidence through Vince and not just the precedence killer you may think you have found.

And when I said out of local killer, it was out of his town, block city block, square mile surround, not that he was a local killer. He would have to be a local killer first to be a long distance killer later, and there would have been reports of such in his area, no one perfects their trade or skill in unfamiliar territory. So find the proof at home first before claiming he was somewhere he could not have been.

Let me try to be more specific. Van Gogh lived in London. This is known. He was transferred there as a mere lad of 20 in 1873. I believe that young man made his first kill while living there that September—a torso kill, and then committed another while he lived there, nine months later—another torso kill.

He lived in London, but he did not live in the areas at the time when and where the murders were thought to have occurred and where the body parts were found. He moved from where it was believed his first boarding house was located in the Battersea area to Brixton, and a month later, a woman’s body parts were found in the Thames, and the police believed the parts were dropped in at Battersea. Vincent lived in Battersea, but he didn’t murder there until he moved from there, being smart about it.

When he returned to London to kill many years later, committing another torso kill in 1887, and then also returning in 1888 to kill as Jack the Ripper, he knew the area well—he had lived there and he had killed there.

The point—he did kill when he lived in London, but not in the area he lived, and then he returned to kill when he didn’t live in London. He knew the streets of Whitechapel inside and out. He was not living there when he killed as Jack the Ripper, so the police would have never found Jack the Ripper living in a doss house in Whitechapel, or in a boarding house in any part of London. He was not a local. He was traveling from France to murder and then leave, like a murdering phantom of the night.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[Vincent alias Jack]

You people are all missing the point.

Did Vincent kill in towns where he lived? No - because it was too dangerous to do so.

Except when he had previously lived in London: then, apparently, it was for some reason NOT too dangerous to kill on his own doorstep. When he lived in London it made sense to kill locally, whereas when he lived in Arles it made sense to travel all the way to London to kill, on various dates more or (more usually) less connected with his mother's birthday. I've been unable to ascertain any connection between his mother and Whitechapel, but we do know that Whitechapel is where Vincent kept all his dead dogs in storage.

Are we clear? He killed locally when he lived in London. But otherwise he avoided killing locally because it was oh so risky. Convenient, huh? And we know that in 1888 London was the only city Vincent could conveniently reach from Arles. It would've been far more difficult to reach, say, Paris - and after all there were no prostitutes in Paris in 1888...

It. All. Makes. Perfect. Sense.

Please see my response to Towboydds for some specifics. But I’ll just add that London was a big city and Arles was not. Van Gogh killed when he lived in London, but he was not living in the area he killed in. And Arles was simply too small a town to kill in and not expect to be suspected. Too risky, especially when the killer wanted to use Arles as a safe place to hide while he killed in London—wouldn’t want to attract any attention to Arles. Makes good, psychopathic serial killer sense.

Since Van Gogh had lived in London, he knew it well, and he returned there to murder as an outsider, making it more difficult for the police to hunt him down, but he was working as someone who knew the city well. And he chose London because he had lived there before and because he first murdered there, and because everything went wrong for him there, to name just a few reasons. He was highly motivated to travel to London and murder.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dale,

I'm not certain I can withstand any more of your arrant nonsense.

All I ask is mercy.

Show me some proof or else kill me now.

Regards,

Simon

[Vincent alias Jack]

Hi Dale,

I'm not certain I can withstand any more of your arrant nonsense.

All I ask is mercy.

Show me some proof or else kill me now.

Regards,

Simon

Nothing I’ve written is nonsense, and certainly not arrant nonsense.

Although I’ve had to study up on serial killers like Jack, I’m not one of them, so I have no desire to kill you. I could say you’ll have to find someone else to do it or to do it yourself, but I don’t want those options either.

I would suggest, instead, that you poke your head outside your window (open it first) sometime and notice the beauty all around—the sun and birds and such. There’s lots to live for. You just have to look for the special things in life that bring you joy.

Attempting to help avoid your demise, here’s some proof you may have missed. It’s a handwriting comparison.

http://vincentaliasjack.com/wordpres...ipper_matches/

All the best,
Dale Larner

[Tom_Wescott]

Is the book coming out soon?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[moonbegger]

I cant wait for the Movie !

[ Jack the day tripper ]