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

[Ayailla]

I agree with Phil, but explaining why I agree with him is proving a difficult task.

I guess it boils down to the difference between Jack the Ripper and Hitler for me. Jack the Ripper personally pulled out a knife and killed all of those women. Hitler never personally killed anybody. He ordered the deaths of millions, but he never personally pulled a single trigger.

Your argument, Dale, is completely flawed in that respect. Hitler was not a serial killer. He was something much worse.

It's taken me half an hour to figure out how to word this response without offending anybody.

[Phil H]

Ayailla

In my view the difference is this:

Hitler was a dictator who presided over and approved GENOCIDE. But unlike some other dictators - Saddam Hussein and idid Amin are examples - he did not personally kill people. Saddam Hussein is reputed to have take Ministers out of meetings into a side room and to have shot them personally. I'd call him a "killer". Hitler, I'd describe as guilty of crimes against humanity.

My serious concern - and why I would have reservations about buying any book he wrote - is that "Vincent alias Jack"/Dale seems to have no discernment or judgement in such matters.

Surely, if the discussions on this site mean anything, it is the importance both of detail, establishing the facts and discriminating between facts and opinion/hearsay and myth. Our would-be author appears simply to grasp at the first parallel to come to mind, rather than considering whether it is relevant or even correct.

Further, modern Ripperology has surely gone beyond picking a historical figure (always well known you'll note) and saying "Prince Eddy" (or whomever) could have done it and therefore must have done it!!

There is evidence that is relevant both positive and negative - with Van Gogh its easy - is there evidence (of any kind) that he was In London at the relevant time (IMHO Britain would not be specific enough) and is there matching or corroborative evidence that he was NOT in France at that time. Do we have any evidence from his paintings (not subjective but in terms of subject) or his letters and other writings, that he was familiar with the East End. Do we have any mention from any other source of him being in London at the relevant time? What do the official records and archives say. have French police, and other official archives/sources been checked? Have local newspapers etc for where Van Gogh was living in 1888 been checked for mentions of his whereabouts on specific dates.

I doubt, given the standard of the posts "Vincent alias Jack" has posted in this thread that ANY of that has been done to a level that would impress anyone with scholarly credentials.

The grasping at straws with Hitler does nothing to convince me otherwise.

Phil

[Robert]

Re Hitler, he was of course a soldier for four years, so he may well have killed people. But that doesn't count.

As far as I know - and it's only as far as I know - he never killed anyone personally after 1918, or even hit anyone, including subordinates. I don't know if he even visited the camps. I'm not sure if he watched the piano wire film following the unsuccessful coup of 1944. He may have done. But his killing seemed to be of the impersonal sort.

[Ayailla]

Phil,

You pretty much said exactly what I wanted to say in that post, but wasn't sure how to word it. I didn't think yelling, "Hitler wasn't a murderer!" was the right way to go about it, because I could cause a lot of offence. Thank you for being so eloquent and presenting the exact point I was trying to make.

I agree with the rest of your post too. The fact of the matter is, this boils down to SOLID EVIDENCE.

There is no solid evidence on Dale's website, and he has presented none here. I find it ridiculous that he claims he has. A quote from a few pages back that he could present a photograph of Vincent in the act and we still would not believe him is, quite frankly, insulting, because he has provided nothing of the kind. He has not provided any evidence VVG was in Whitechapel, let alone England, other than, "He could have done it." Well, I have a Great-Grandfather that was alive at the time. I could claim he was JtR on the basis of, "He could have done it." but it wouldn't be enough without solid evidence.

(How silly would I look if somebody proved that my great-grandfather actually WAS JtR after me saying that? )

The problem with this entire thread is simply this. Dale won't provide us with any solid evidence, because he claims it is in the book. To find out what the hell he is on about, we would have to buy it. How many people contributing to this thread are willing to do that after reading what Dale has written?

Dale. If you believe you have presented us with solid evidence in this thread, please point me to it, because I have read the entire thread and I can't find a single shread of solid evidence to back up your point.

[Phil H]

The genuine researchers in Ripper studies are, in my experience on Casebook generous with their time, helpful and publish much of their material as articles in the Ripper periodicals. Hence the most recent research on Kosminski was made public.

It is rather 1960s/70s to be obsessed with publishing a book. Somethings warrant it - the Ultimate, Letters, Scotland Yard investigates etc are solid works of reference - essential. So is the "A-Z". Rumbelow, various studies of the East End, and all of Paul Begg have pride of place on my shelves. But suspect based books (unless it is Evans on Tumblety revealing a hitherto unknown contemporary suspect) or Martin Fido's book (and most recently Rob House on Kosminski -take me back to the days of MacCormick when journalists were out to make a quick buck by sensationalist publications.

Some, from their posts on here, make it clear that they see kudos in saying that they will, or have published a book. I have bought many, and they sit on the shelves to consult if the occasion arises (but I hardly ever re-read them). If - as in Uncle Jack - the evidence has not been tampered with, many reek of special pleading and false logic or sophistry.

Please don't get me wrong - I am in no way attacking good quality, solidly based Ripper writing (and there are good examples other than those I have specifically mentioned above) but like you, Ayailla, I do not see the proposed volume on van Gogh as falling into that category. It is for the author to convince us otherwise, of course.

The bad examples of Ripper writing (which is my theme in this post) are - Like Holy Blood and Holy Grail (in another sphere of interest) or Stephen Knight's book on JtR - identifiable by their reliance on "perhaps" or "maybe" becoming firm facts within pages. By their casual approach to the use and weighing of evidence or to the historical method generally.

As I posted in another thread recently, in evaluating evidence and considering the arguments/cases advanced by others, each of us must try to separate out:

a) the facts (avoiding cherry picking or ignoring inconvenient material);

b) interpretation;

c) good historical thinking and reasoning (based on logic etc);

d) special pleading;

e) the absorbtion of initial assumptions as later facts (this is what i call building a case on weak foundations).

A, B and c are good; D and E should be rejected firmly. Knight's book is a good example of the reliance of a case on D & E and he deliberately and knowingly ignored material inimical to his case.

I am firmly of the view that before any individual can be regarded as a reasonable MODERN suspect, more is required. In the absence of specific material linking an individual (such as van Gogh) to the crimes, I believe that a reasonable case has to demonstrate at least one (if not more) of the following:

a) presence in the East End in the period (or links to it or knowledge of it - an ability to get there is not IMHO of itself sufficient);

b) a link to a victim;

c) motivation and likelihood (known hatred of women, tendency to violence etc).

Anything else is in my view to weak to support the construction of any sort of case.

I would be interested to hear what Vincent alias Jack has to say about those requirements.

Phil

[Ayailla]

a) presence in the East End in the period (or links to it or knowledge of it - an ability to get there is not IMHO of itself sufficient);

Dale believes he has this. Can he provide evidence besides, "It's all in the book"?

b) a link to a victim;

I don't think Dale has mentioned this one.

c) motivation and likelihood (known hatred of women, tendency to violence etc).

According to Dale, VVG was killing these women for his mother. Can we have evidence of this, or even an explanation as to WHY he was doing this? He supposedly killed one of the victims on her birthday. Was it as a present to her? Did he TELL her he had done this?

I'm not finding anything in what Dale has said so far to convince me.

[Ayailla]

Sorry to double post, but I have a question for Dale.

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)?

[Phil H]

Ayailla

a) presence in the East End in the period (or links to it or knowledge of it - an ability to get there is not IMHO of itself sufficient);

Dale believes he has this. Can he provide evidence besides, "It's all in the book"?

Well, if true, it's more than has been achieved for many "suspects". There is no link for druitt. Kosminski, of course lived there. If he has "evidence" it will be interesting to see what it comprises.

According to Dale, VVG was killing these women for his mother. Can we have evidence of this, or even an explanation as to WHY he was doing this? He supposedly killed one of the victims on her birthday. Was it as a present to her? Did he TELL her he had done this?

I would need to see written evidence - a diary, letters (all properly authenticated of course). There was a theory suggesting JK Stephen killed many women and they were linked to Prince Eddy by various dates. It was always a stupid theory. But in itself a date (especially a single date such as a birthday) could be no more than coincidence.

The key people that our would-be author has to convince in this case are, of course, all the erudite and prestigious authors who have spent lifetimes and built reputations on the basis of their study of VVG's works and life. Since I am unaware that any of these internationally based scholars, who have spent countless hours poring over VVG's correspondence etc without any of them glimpsing for a moment that he was a serial killer, I think Dale will have his work cut out.

When a celebrated figure is nominated in such a controversial way, it is not we Ripperphiles who have to be convinced, but a far wider audience. I wonder what the VVG museum in Amsterdam would have to say if shown Dale's evidence??

I'm not finding anything in what Dale has said so far to convince me.

Me neither.

Phil

[Bridewell]

I wrote a book about it. It took 3 years to complete the research and another 2 years to write the book. I then finished it mysteriously and wonderfully on Nov. 9, 2011--the anniversery date of Mary Kelly's murder.

Hi Dale,

You say the book was finished on 9th November 2011. That's 14 months ago. Presumably you now have advance copies available for peer review? Have they gone out to the publishers of Ripperologist, Casebook Examiner etc? So far the only person who has commented on the merit of this work is you and, as the author, you're (understandably) not going to provide the most objective assessment.

If it's as good as you say it is, I hope it's a best-seller.

[Ayailla]

You have a very good point, Bridewell. The website offers no objective opinion of his book other than his own. Even the quotes on the first page of the site were probably written by himself.

Dale, would you be willing to provide advanced copies to some of the more respectable members of this message board for review? Maybe a blog post on here would be a good advertisement for you!

[Phil H]

'll bet good money that's an offer that won't be taken up....

I'd review a copy....

Phil

[miss marple]

Ah well, it will take the heat off Sickert.ha haha

The point about being a creative , eg writer or artist is that your demons are exorcised either unconsciously or consciously and psychological problems are worked through art.
Picasso worked through depression over the suicide of his friend Carlos Casagemas by painting the blue pictures.

Wilson prob meant serial killers.

Most serial killers are psycopaths with no empathy or feeling for other humans and and overwhelming vanity and sense of superiority.
Hitler was a failed painter with no talent. His frustration led him into politics. He channelled his creativity into making a fantasy Aryan race. As a charismatic leader he persuaded people that he was infallible, putting on a performance in public, but despising the people in private. He had no regard for life and was ruthless in exterminating any who crossed him. Classic psycopath.


Wilson is right. The act of creation is a positive life force. Serial killing is a perversion of creativity that has no other outlet because the killers are damaged beings.
Any one could kill in anger or war including artists!

[Bridewell]

Respectable

Dale, would you be willing to provide advanced copies to some of the more respectable members of this message board for review?

Are there those among us who are not respectable?

[Bridewell]

Review

'll bet good money that's an offer that won't be taken up....

I'd review a copy....

Phil

Stout-hearted fellow! Respect!

[Bridewell]

Reviews

Actually, Dale. I'd review a copy too. Give me a miss though if it's all about hidden images in paintings, becaue the same claims have been made against Sickert & Toulouse Lautrec and they can't all be Whitechapel serial killers.