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

[Abraham Lincoln]

Apologies - didn't mean to resurrect this monstrosity of a thread - I've been away for a while and it just got my goat.

<shuffles off in shame>

J

Absolutely. This is indeed a monstrosity of a thread and an unforgiveable slur on a truly great and sensitive artist. An abomination to even suggest that Vincent was capable of such a loathsome thing. What next I wonder, a book claiming Tchaikovsky to be Jack ?

kind regards,
Abe

[Cogidubnus]

Apologies - didn't mean to resurrect this monstrosity of a thread - I've been away for a while and it just got my goat.

<shuffles off in shame>

Never mind...you gave ME something to grin about on a grim Monday night anyway! Don't think anyone noticed...<sidles off stage left>

Dave

[JDow]

Why would he do this?

What a load of drivel. Intellectually insulting and demeaning of a great man.

J

Apologies - didn't mean to resurrect this monstrosity of a thread - I've been away for a while and it just got my goat.

<shuffles off in shame>

J

[JDow]

It would seem too far a distance to travel for murder again and again, but not for Vincent. And it would seem too long a trip, but not so. The Marseille to Paris to London route was efficient due to coordinated and swift mail train and steamer routes. Bradshaw's Continental Railway Guide of 1888 provides that Vincent could travel from Arles to London in as little as 24 hrs.--not so far away after all.

Why would he do this?

Getting from Arles to London in as little as 24 hours is presumably more difficult than doing it in, say, 48 hours.

So why would he make the travelling more difficult for himself? He didn't HAVE to be back to write a letter on a specific day.

Unless, that is, someone is retrofitting a theory into his known movements.

What a load of drivel. Intellectually insulting and demeaning of a great man.

J

[Wade Aznable]

@ Dale: because I hardly have time and energy to push things I DO believe in, and because, in all honesty, the evidence AGAINST provided by other posters in this thread, to me, is more than enough to dismiss Your solution.
Too bad it's not a hoax, then: my admiration for You would have skyrocketed!
(And, by the way, I would NEVER have named You "a madman"; actually I named You a genius!)

@ Dave: whoooops, I missed Your post, otherwise I would just have quoted it! "Been there, done that" and way before me! Damn!

Best regards,
W

[Cogidubnus]

So, methinks, the book is a hoax (actually, I think it doesn't even exist - not necessary for Dale's purposes: we've seen plenty of pseudobiblia, in fiction, from the Necronomicon onwards, and even before!), and Dale stood up to teach us a lesson - the lesson being, sometimes we Ripperologists take ourselves too seriously (and the fact this thread has reached 400 posts can be taken as proof of that). A stroke of pure genius, chapeau, kudos, bravo - let's give the Da(le)vil his due.

Point admirably delivered, Dale, and taken, you cunning, evil Moriarty. But I gotcha.

On the other hand, if I'm a pure paranoid, and Dale really believes it was VVG...
Well, the lesson stands anyway.

Hi Wade,

Been there, done that...see post #203

All the best

Dave

[Wade Aznable]

What if...

Greetings, everyone.

A thought has been lurking in the back of my mind for a while, and I'd like to share it with you.
As I've already said, I agree with the posters who noted Dale's gracious replies, and sense of humour. Politeness and humour are fine indicators of a brilliant intellect, as far as I'm concerned, and Dale showed a lot of both.
On the other hand, I also saw some of his paintings on the net, and although I'm no art critic, I must say that I liked them.
So, what do we have here? A smart gentleman, with creativity, a sense of humour, and, I guess, technologically savvy enough to build up a site advertising his book. Very well.
The book, on the other hand, gives us an absolutely unbelievable solution to one of the greatest misteries of crime ever happened. One which keeps people (including me) with bated breath for a solution, and which has always generated great controversy and high temper. So?

So, methinks, the book is a hoax (actually, I think it doesn't even exist - not necessary for Dale's purposes: we've seen plenty of pseudobiblia, in fiction, from the Necronomicon onwards, and even before!), and Dale stood up to teach us a lesson - the lesson being, sometimes we Ripperologists take ourselves too seriously (and the fact this thread has reached 400 posts can be taken as proof of that). A stroke of pure genius, chapeau, kudos, bravo - let's give the Da(le)vil his due.

Point admirably delivered, Dale, and taken, you cunning, evil Moriarty. But I gotcha.

On the other hand, if I'm a pure paranoid, and Dale really believes it was VVG...
Well, the lesson stands anyway.

Best regards,
W

[Bridewell]

Seconded

Thanks for your polite reply Dale. You will never convince me, but I admire your dignity and your good natured acceptance of people's criticism and even their scorn. It is quite in contrast to one or two other posters who have posed equally doubtful suspects. If anyone desrves to be right - you do but I wish you hadn't selected Van Gogh.

I second that. I see nothing whatever to suggest that Van Gogh was in any way involved in the Whitechapel Murders, but Dale has been courteous throughout.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Limehouse]

You know all psychopathic serial killers hate their mothers. Van Gogh murdered for his mother’s birthday as a kind of gift for her, believing she was partly responsible for why he was killing.

Killed in such a violent and revolting way because he found it satisfying and it exhibited his control over women, and he wanted to shock others.

Placing dead dogs with Mary Kelly’s body was another way to shock, but I also believe it was partly to have a joke and to send a message to the police for their talk of sending bloodhounds after him, stating this is what he would do to their dogs.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

Thanks for your polite reply Dale. You will never convince me, but I admire your dignity and your good natured acceptance of people's criticism and even their scorn. It is quite in contrast to one or two other posters who have posed equally doubtful suspects. If anyone desrves to be right - you do but I wish you hadn't selected Van Gogh.

[Vincent alias Jack]

I don't really understand how Vincent's mother fits in to all of this. Why did he kill these women in such a violent and revolting way - because it was his mother's birthday?? And - why the dead dogs? It seems a strange way to celebrate your mother.

You know all psychopathic serial killers hate their mothers. Van Gogh murdered for his mother’s birthday as a kind of gift for her, believing she was partly responsible for why he was killing.

Killed in such a violent and revolting way because he found it satisfying and it exhibited his control over women, and he wanted to shock others.

Placing dead dogs with Mary Kelly’s body was another way to shock, but I also believe it was partly to have a joke and to send a message to the police for their talk of sending bloodhounds after him, stating this is what he would do to their dogs.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[Vincent alias Jack]

Vincent was in Arles at the Fall of 1888. He painted no MJK face nor other victims, but still life with flowers… End of the story.

Van Gogh was in Arles in 1888 and traveled to London for murder and painted MJK in the flowers, and it’s just the beginning of the story.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[Harry the Hawker]

By George!

OK, enough is enough. We've established quite clearly that all 19th century painters you've ever heard of were Jack the Ripper because somebody who modestly admits to having psychic powers beyond mortal comprehension says so.

Speaking as one such person, whose credibility is just as great, though I say it myself, as those courageous souls who have proven beyond reasonable doubt that their hunches, hallucinations, and random creepy feelings show that Vincent van Gogh and not actually Toulouse Lautrec but some friend of his you've never heard of until after you've accidentally bought the book were simultaneously Jack the Ripper for totally different equally well-established reasons, I have to tell you that a slight error has been made.

The true culprit was Giovanni Giacometti (1868-1933), a 19th century painter who obviously did it because he was a 19th century painter, yet is even more credible than the existing suspects because he's not famous enough for people with mental illnesses to fixate on, therefore I must be right and not a loony at all! Have a look at some of his pictures here...

As you can plainly see, one of them shows a nude woman in an advanced yellow-green state of decomposition. Another portrays the artist himself as being blatantly similar to Vincent van Gogh, the Lee Harvey Oswald of Ripperology, who Giacometti brainwashed with Frankenstein Skull Voodoo Death Telepathy into secretly painting false confessions that he killed the Ripper's victims and then attached dead dogs and door-knockers to them just for jolly wouldnt you in a strangely unsuccessful attempt to throw the blame onto the Masons. Observe also that the second painting on that page is, as the title blatantly admits, of somebody who is already dead!

Of course, towards the end of his days he admitted the secret to his son Alberto. Hence a certain sculpture designed in 1932 but only cast in 1949, which you can see here. It's called "Woman With Her Throat Cut". I rest my case.

Good Lord Dan, I think you've cracked it! Fine work.

Cheers!
Harry

[Mad Dan Eccles]

OK, enough is enough. We've established quite clearly that all 19th century painters you've ever heard of were Jack the Ripper because somebody who modestly admits to having psychic powers beyond mortal comprehension says so.

Speaking as one such person, whose credibility is just as great, though I say it myself, as those courageous souls who have proven beyond reasonable doubt that their hunches, hallucinations, and random creepy feelings show that Vincent van Gogh and not actually Toulouse Lautrec but some friend of his you've never heard of until after you've accidentally bought the book were simultaneously Jack the Ripper for totally different equally well-established reasons, I have to tell you that a slight error has been made.

The true culprit was Giovanni Giacometti (1868-1933), a 19th century painter who obviously did it because he was a 19th century painter, yet is even more credible than the existing suspects because he's not famous enough for people with mental illnesses to fixate on, therefore I must be right and not a loony at all! Have a look at some of his pictures here...

As you can plainly see, one of them shows a nude woman in an advanced yellow-green state of decomposition. Another portrays the artist himself as being blatantly similar to Vincent van Gogh, the Lee Harvey Oswald of Ripperology, who Giacometti brainwashed with Frankenstein Skull Voodoo Death Telepathy into secretly painting false confessions that he killed the Ripper's victims and then attached dead dogs and door-knockers to them just for jolly wouldnt you in a strangely unsuccessful attempt to throw the blame onto the Masons. Observe also that the second painting on that page is, as the title blatantly admits, of somebody who is already dead!

Of course, towards the end of his days he admitted the secret to his son Alberto. Hence a certain sculpture designed in 1932 but only cast in 1949, which you can see here. It's called "Woman With Her Throat Cut". I rest my case.

[Phil Carter]

I cant wait for the Movie !

[ Jack the day tripper ]

Nah-

The Legend of the White Spirt Murderer

jack the Paint Stripper


Yes Dale- thats how to REALLY play with words.

Phil

[moonbegger]

I cant wait for the Movie !

[ Jack the day tripper ]