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

[Fisherman]

And it's just SO fortunate that Jack didn't pull the wrong thing out of his bag at the wrong time - paint Polly and Annie, and knife a canvas to bits.

Don´t gloat, Phil - didn´t van Gogh accidentaly cut his ear off? We may be onto something here ...!

Fisherman

[Ayailla]

So, the police found dead dogs, door knockers, and paint brushes at the scene?

[Cogidubnus]

Of course it's possible that Vincent wasn't the murderer, but knew who it was and didn't let on...Secretive bloke he was...it all went in one ear and not out the other

Sorry...I'll go shall I?

Dave

[Limehouse]

I can just see Disney buying the film rights and calling it 'Doorknobs and Paintsticks'.

[Ayailla]

There has to be a role for Dick van Dyke and his awful cockney accent in here somwhere...

[Vincent alias Jack]

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.

Hello Bridewell,

It has been a long journey. The 5 ½ yrs. to research and write it took lots of patience, but I had to continue to be taught the virtues of patience as I attempted to acquire an agent. It took 11 months. Then the agent wanted to reduce the page size, and that took more months. It has now only been 3 weeks since the process of selling it to publishers began, and still, more patience is needed.

Thanks for reminding me of how long it’s been. As you can see, I’m not quite there yet, but once the publisher has it, I’m hoping to have some experts on both the Van Gogh and Ripper sides give it a look.

Thanks for the encouragement. I hope it’s a best-seller too. The world needs to know who Van Gogh truly was.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

[Phil H]

The world KNOWS who VVG really was - a great painter.

If you have spent five and a half years researching this book - why no evidence on this site? Why no evidence in your posts of a deeper knowledge of the case?

Where is any evidence that you have engaged with those you would no doubt like to think of as your "peers" (I dount you are theirs)? Five and half years and you HOPE to have some experts "give it a look"?

That's amateur talk. professional writers engage from the start and BUILD In to their arguments and work the views of others. many of the most knowledgable people in this subject are generous with their time and would have, I am sure, been happy to help you, if contacted. Besides which most of the acknowledged JtR experts post here - but you have never posted outside this thread.

I don't for a moment, for all your talk, believe that the book will be published (though given that Uncle Jack found a publisher anything is possible). I have warned you to prepare for the tsunami of criticism you will receive if it is - both from Ripperologists and the art world. Cornwell, far more seasoned in celebrity and the publishing world than you are, and with far more resources, had a rough ride.

You think you are clever - I have you down as a time waster.

[Limehouse]

The world needs to know who Van Gogh truly was.

Thanks,
Dale Larner

With respect Dale, I think 'the world' has more pressing issues to worry about.

I also think you are in for a huge shock if you think this theory is going to be embraced as a piece of serious, academic work.

In my humble opinion, the best books about JtR have been those that do not attempt to name a definitive suspect.

[Phil H]

In my humble opinion, the best books about JtR have been those that do not attempt to name a definitive suspect.

You are quite right, Limehouse.

The name of Robin Odell - one of the first writers to attempt that - came up in another thread recently.

Since his day we have had the work of Rumbelow, Evans, Begg etc not to mention Sugden (though he got dragged into the naming of a preferred suspect somehow).

Yet we have had good work also on contemporary suspects - Tumblety (Evans); Kosminski (House) etc.

Whether Cornwell has influenced our would-be scribe in this case, i don't know.

Phil

[Ayailla]

While my experience of this is limited, I have to agree.

Some of the authors who would be considered the most respected (that I have come across anyway) have tried to avoid the topic.

I know that, on the JtR podcast, Paul Begg specifically said that if he is asked who he thinks JtR was, he refuses to answer, but says that one of the most important suspects we have is Kosminski (or something along those lines). He does not outright say..

JACK THE RIPPER WAS KOSMINSKI!!!

Far from it. He just says he is one of the most important suspects we have, not making it clear whether that is to discount him or prove his guilt.

I think there is a problem with making wide, sweeping statements like the above and not backing it up.

A lot of people think Kosminski was JtR, but if I was to create a thread like this one, claim that I have undeniable proof that it WAS Kosminski, but not provide any of said proof, other than pure speculation, and the emphasis that he could have done it, these lovely people in this board would still laugh me off the website.

Dale, I am not trying to disrespect you. I am in the same position as you on this board. I am fairly new to it and I a trying to find my feet. I am still learning about JtR and I know that I have a long way to go. However, your approach has made the people of this board react negatively. When they have tried to provide you with constructive criticism, you have ignored all of it. You have skirted over the most important questions that people have asked, these days only returning to say "Thank you," to somebody who made a slightly sarcastic comment about your possible success. All you have done is brought about ridicule by doing nothing to back up your points. It was clear from the start that you were here to sell a book, but you have done nothing to make anybody contributing to this thread want to buy it as a serious piece of research material.

If only to reserve yourself some dignity, Dale, please come back to the thread and answer some of our questions. You might be able to salvage this situation, and your reputation on the board, yet. I'd hate to fast forward a few months (or years) of this board and have people saying, "Hey, do you remember that complete Whacko that came here telling us JtR was VVG? I wonder whatever happened to him and his made-up book?"

[Ayailla]

Sorry for the double post, but I just found this recent update on Dale's website.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=227654&st=0

He's presented this in another forum too... much to the same response.

I thought you might be interested in that.

[Vincent alias Jack]

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.

The initial discovery of the hidden images is what led to the research and writing of the book. The Lautrec theory is baseless. Cornwell’s theory of Sickert had more value, since his paintings do have a sinister look, but Sickert was injecting himself into the area of murder and into the Ripper murders, having fun with it, capturing the spookiness of it—something a skilled artist would do to capitalize on the popularity of the Ripper murders. Besides that, Cornwell didn’t have much to tie Sickert to the murders, but it sounded good, and her writing skill made it interesting.

I have a quote for this: “Cornwell spent six million to get the wrong man. It only took me six thousand to get it right.” Ha!

Van Gogh’s paintings don’t generally represent an obvious spookiness or have anything to do with having fun with murder, at least not overtly. Just as in his life, Vincent preferred to keep his murderous ways under wraps, choosing to hide a depiction of Mary Kelly’s mutilated body in with some pretty flowers.

You’re right. They can’t all be Whitechapel serial killers, and they weren’t, just one—Vincent van Gogh. Ha!

Such fun,
Dale Larner

[Phil H]

Cornwell’s theory of Sickert had more value, since his paintings do have a sinister look, but Sickert was injecting himself into the area of murder and into the Ripper murders, having fun with it, capturing the spookiness of it—something a skilled artist would do to capitalize on the popularity of the Ripper murders.

And you are seriously asserting that that THAT load of piffle is supposed to sound intelligent or have anything to say about this field of study?

I don't think that legally, academically or intellectually there is anything to link a painting having a "sinister look" and an allegation of murder. And pray - DID Sickert "capitalize on the popularity of the Ripper murders" as you suggest? Where is the evidence?

Besides that, Cornwell didn’t have much to tie Sickert to the murders, but it sounded good, and her writing skill made it interesting.

Cornwell had NOTHING to tie Sickert to the murders! She had some evidence that he may have written hoax letters, but that is hardly the same thing. Do you defend MacCormack for his approach because as a journalist he wrote well?

Are you even aware that Cornwell was not the first to point a finger at Sickert?

It is a shame, in cases such as this, that libel laws do not cover the dead.

I note by the way that those of us who ask SERIOUS questions about your methodology and approach, your scholarship of understanding are ignored. That says it all really.

[Ayailla]

I note by the way that those of us who ask SERIOUS questions about your methodology and approach, your scholarship of understanding are ignored. That says it all really.

Exactly. He'll never answer our serious questions simply because he doesn't have answers beyond, "It's all in the book." He has avoided similar questions in the Unexplained Mysteries forum too.

[Limehouse]

The initial discovery of the hidden images is what led to the research and writing of the book.
Dale Larner

All this reminds me of people who se images of the Virgin Mary on bits of toast or cream crackers. It's all a bit sad really.