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

[Nic1950]

Hi

Well I have just read all of this thread and its now destroyed my theories. I now see JTR as a commuter who carries his paintbrushes and murder weapons all in one bag and not only is he looking for his next victim but also some dogs and doorknockers. I see it clearly now and poor Vincent must have been exhausted with all the travelling, murdering, evading capture, painting, catching dogs, sorting out his next doorknocker, I mean its too much to take in. Come on now, I don't mind spending my money on the next book but it would have to be a lot more conceivable.
Thanks
Nic

[Phil H]

Telling, isn't it?

[Ayailla]

He has made 74 posts. All of them have been in this thread.

[Phil H]

Has anyone known Dale to post in, or contribute to any thread other than this one?

Has he discussed aspects of the case in any other thread?

It just makes me wonder how deep or rounded his knowledge of JtR really is. He may "lurk" of course and read but not contribute - but his avoidance of checking out his arguments, or exploring aspects of or issues surrounding the case strikes me as odd.

In this day and age research in a vacuum is somewhat unusual Even academic authorities will usually expose their ideas in seminars, conference papers, discussions with students etc.

Just a thought,

Phil

[Ayailla]

You know... I come away from this thread for 5 minutes and miss all the drama!

I missed the return of Dale, but he didn't answer any questions. All he did was latch on to the Hitler debate.

Dale, we have asked you many questions about the evidence you hold. You have made claims and we have asked you to back them up. I asked you the following:

On your website, you claim that VVG killed his brothers girlfriend, and that she was one of the victims of the Torso Murders. Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever besides pure speculation? Where is your evidence that Theo's girlfriend was murdered at all? Do you have evidence he ever HAD a girlfriend other than Johanna Bonger (who he married in 1889)?

Can we expect a response to ANY of our questions any time soon?

[MsWeatherwax]

Am I the only one considering the purchase of Who's Who 1888 just to see if there are any celebrities of the era yet to be "conclusively" proven to be Jack?

I'm at a complete loss as to why it needs to be someone in/famous...well, besides promoting the possibility that JTR was actually one William Smith* (purveyor of the finest jellied eels in the East End) wouldn't sell as many books.

* If there does one day turn out to be a William Smith who was a jellied eel salesman and misogynistic psychopath, I'd be happy to accept 10% of whatever book sales eventually materialise. Thanks.

[TomTomKent]

Am I the only one considering the purchase of Who's Who 1888 just to see if there are any celebrities of the era yet to be "conclusively" proven to be Jack?

[Nemo]

No problem Phil

Since it appears that I misunderstood the tone of your post, I sincerely apologise for referring to you as a tosser and a conceited prat

My opinion of the extremely debauched Nero hasn't changed one iota though

Nothing personal Phil - anyone who talks to me in a derisory fashion should expect some choice words in response - that's all

Regards

Nemo

[Phil H]

Thank you, nemo, for that display of erudition and charm. I appreciated it greatly. I am sure everyone else did too.

Yes, you did misread the tone of my original post on Nero. My sincere apologies if I offended - I was simply expressing a contrary view. But, yes, I have studied his life.

To be serious, I think writers (especially the ancient ones like Suetonius and Tacitus) deliberately distorted Nero's character and reputation. (the same may also be true of Gaius "Caligula" - Nero's uncle.) Certainly Trajan, often regarded as one of the best Roman emperors (and himself no saint), is reported as saying that he wished his rule matched up to the first five years of Nero's reign.

It is quite possible that Nero was a weak, artistic man with sadistic tendencies. He was deposed which suggests his rule was not entirely successful. On the other hand, had he not panicked, he might have held on and reigned longer.

Serious questions have been raised about his persecution of the Christians after 64AD, on the good grounds that it is difficult to believe that the alleged numbers of Christians were in Rome by that date. Peter and paul may have died but that is hardly a persecution. What we may be seeing is Domitian's actions reflected back on his predecessor.

So far as the murder of Poppaea is concerned, the French have always made space in their law for the "crime of passion/crime passionelle" - in the days of the death penalty, I believe it was exempted as a deed done in a sort of momentary frenzy or madness. I would categorise Nero's action against Poppaea as possibly in that light, though that is simply my opinion.

More widely, I believe that Nero and Caligula were possibly engaged in experiments to Hellenise the principiate - by which I mean they planned what Constatntine did 250 odd years later, in moving the capital east to where the wealth grain supply and many of the empire's problsm were located.

Caligula and Nero were both direct descendents of Mark Antony (through his daughter Antonia) and just as Antony toyed with the idea of a divine kingship in the east, so may Caligula and Nero. It might explain both men's adoption of a much more regal style than that practiced by Augustus, Tiberius or Claudius and such experiments as Nero's Golden House. In their eyes it would have been practical modernisation not tyranny or insanity.

My apologies for high-jacking the thread, but I did want to explain where my views on Nero come from and to indicate that they are neither frivilous nor ill-based, just somewhat iconoclastic and perhaps to some, new.

Phil

[Nemo]

Oh give over you conceited prat

My original post was obviously a passing remark about Nero

Possibly I misread the tone of your reply, but I don't think so

You were not entering into scholarly debate, you were deriding and dismissing my post in favour of your personal interpretation of history

Kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach so that she and her baby dies - you consider that accidental?

Stabbing people and casting them into the sewers - you consider that a mugging do you?

You know every minute of his life do you?

You trying to appear intelligent are you?

Your knowledge is so all encompassing that anyone who differs in opinion should cite their sources?

Well fu

I'm not interested in your opinion in the slightest

Jovially

Nemo

[Phil H]

It's always a pleasure to see a member engaging in scholarly discussion and displaying good manners, on Casebook, nemo.

My post to you was polite and specific. I differ from you in my interpretation of Nero's reign it seems. But, I invited you to tell me if I was wrong. I take it I am not.

Cordially,

Phil

[Nemo]

Who the fk do you think you are talking to you fkin tosser

You expect a reply when talking to people with an attitude like that

Fk u and your sources

I don't give a fk what you think the translation is or what your interpretation of history is thank you very much

[Phil H]

But he DID NOT kill Agrippina personally, though he ordered and planned her death. Poppaea Sabina's death appears to have been accidental - he kicked her in the belly while she was pregnant during a marital row.

I see no evidence he killed multiple people and his vivits to the Subura in disguise were to mug people, not kill them.

If you differ from me on any of these points, please cite your sources.

I agree (broadly) on his last words, though my preferred transaltion is, "What a great artist dies in me!" Whether he deserved his own rating, is another matter.

Phil

[Nemo]

Hi Phil

I believe Nero tried on a number of occasions to kill his mother, he supposedly beat his wife to death, and dressed as a commoner to kill citizens at random

With those in mind, I would put money on him personally killing a large number of people

His last words were "Qualis artifex pereo!" ("What an artist is now about to perish!")

[Phil H]

You do a very good job of making yourself look small, V alias J. We don't need to do anything. Your over self-hyping is the clue.

So we should not judge an artist by his or her works but by their letters - mmmnnnn wonder what the art world will have to say about that?

Oh and let's re-define art as something different so it fits my pet theory - not usually a good approach.

And any useful theory on JtR HAS surely to be based on evidence that the proposed suspect was in the area at the time? We have had too many tin-pot theories simply drawing on subjective written material and flaws of character or (preserve us) anagrams (both Carroll). Even Barnardo (paper thin though the case is) is at least known to have been IN THE AREA at around the right time and might have seen or met Liz Stride. Even Uncle Jack recognised the need for evidence (though managed to compromise itself in producing it).

Everything I see or read about your alleged book (I doubt we'll ever see it in print) reminds me of Cornwell's misjudged and expensive attempt to frame Walter Sickert (another painter). Despite all the resources she threw at it, she has done no more than demonstrate that her suspect may have written nuisance letters to the police.

If you think we mock you, V alias J, then wait for the day (should it ever dawn) when reviewers and critics get hold of a copy, or experts on JtR have an opportunity to judge. You will find the comments then merciless, and every gap in your logic, every chink in your research or interpretation of evidence rigorously scrutinised and pulled apart. be ready. We are good humoured - they won't be.

You might, if you have not already done so - benefit from reading threads about the exposure of "Uncle Jack" - it might be a useful lesson in what may be to come.

Nemo - I don't recall that Nero ever killed anyone personally (i.e. with his own hands).

the relevance of the artist-as-killer question is that V Gogh is an artist, and Colin Wilson once made. I have now tracked it down. The statement is in his 1987 book (Jack the Ripper: Summing Up and Verdict) co-written with Robin Odell. Both men were well versed in the Ripper case and Wilson has written widely on criminology and psychology, so are in a position to know. Wilson writes:

"Does this mean that Sickert was JtR? Almost certainly not. Artists and writers may become morbidly obsessed by certain murders, but.... no artist has ever been known to commit a premeditated murder..." [my emphasis].

I asked whether any other Casebook poster knew whether that statement was true. As it relates to an artist it seems relevant to me, because if it rules out Walter it rules out Vincent.

Phil