325 replies to this topic

[third_eye]

If there is a case where apologies are unnecessary then this one fits the box to shoes, Mr Dale Larner is an bona fide 'idiot'

shameless one at that

not insulting or disrespecting,

on the contrary, Mr Dale Larner is the one being disrespectful to the able and sane members of the literary community

[Dale Larner]

Medium Brown, on 21 February 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

I've actually shifted through the evidence.
The "Lillies" picture with Mary Kelly supposedly hiding is a bit tenious.
But what happens if art is doing more than imitating life.
Who's to say the letter signed " Jack" that was sent to the police was not actually the Ripper's handiwork.
Tbh if Van Gogh had a habit of mutilating and killing prostitutes his killing ground would have been more likely to be Paris.
But the more clever criminals are not likely to choose the most obvious places.
Alas Van Gogh was poorer than a church mice.
He only got his fame and fortune posthumously.
Besides Van Gogh would look conspicuous with a ginger beard and straw boater in the fog- shrouded streets of London.
But any theory consisting of a lone person is not actually a conspiracy.
So Dale's got a legiminate reason for doing this so I wish him the best of British.

The letters
Van Gogh’s handwriting and the timing of his life match to the Ripper.

Killing ground
Paris would have been easier, but for one thing, his brother, Theo, was living there. But the main reason for London was because Vincent had lived there as a young man, and it was where everything went wrong for him. I present that he committed his first and second murders while living there. He then had plenty of motivation for returning to London later to murder again and again, acting under his Jack the Ripper persona.

Vincent was poor
Theo provided him with enough to live and paint on and also enough to travel to London for each of the murders. He only needed 100 francs for a roundtrip to London and back.

Vincent’s red hair
Departing from the dark-haired false image of the murderer created at the time, a few key witnesses in London spotted a man with a ginger beard and a carroty mustache. One of those witnesses even saw the murderer in his victim’s room the same night she was murdered. It was Vincent.

Good comments, and thanks for the encouragement,
Dale Larner

[Dale Larner]

Maureen_jacobs, on 06 March 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

As an avid reader of anything JTR, I find these responses quite childlike.  I may not agree with he author on his claims, as I have not read the book, however, I have read a plethora of material regarding the murders.  I've bee fascinated for as long as I can remember.

One of the things that does make me wonder, is that Van Gogh was mentioned years ago as a possible suspect.  I believe that as a writer, we do have a certain responsibility to insuring our facts are supported by evidence.  Without reading the book, who are we to judge?

I do not believe that Van Gogh had anything to do with the commission of the crime.  I find other suspects much more plausible.

Despite my feelings of self promotion, and individuals seeking attention for something, this person has what many scientists call a possible theory. We once thought the earth was flat, did not believe in the possibility of flight, etc.

Please give others respect and carry on with your civil discourse.

@maureen_jacobs

Well said, Maureen. A rational mind steps forward from among the encircling hyenas. Thanks for your reasonable attitude. It’s the right way to be, and you’re examples are spot on. History is littered with stories of once-accepted beliefs about some subject or person which were then proven false. Even without bringing up the Ripper connection, the accepted belief of who Van Gogh was is limited and overly sympathetic. He was a rough character, and I show that his roughness was much deeper than his heavy drinking and regular visits to the brothels.

I’m all for being skeptical, as you present. That’s the way I am, and it’s also good to be curious and open to the possibilities, especially when the research has been thorough.

Thanks for being a thinking person and for holding up the banner of a knowledge seeker. It's always about getting to the truth, no matter where that leads.

Stay strong,
Dale Larner

[CrimsonKing]

Dale Larner, on 07 March 2013 - 01:08 AM, said:

Well said, Maureen. A rational mind steps forward from among the encircling hyenas. Thanks for your reasonable attitude. It’s the right way to be, and you’re examples are spot on. History is littered with stories of once-accepted beliefs about some subject or person which were then proven false. Even without bringing up the Ripper connection, the accepted belief of who Van Gogh was is limited and overly sympathetic. He was a rough character, and I show that his roughness was much deeper than his heavy drinking and regular visits to the brothels.

I’m all for being skeptical, as you present. That’s the way I am, and it’s also good to be curious and open to the possibilities, especially when the research has been thorough.

Thanks for being a thinking person and for holding up the banner of a knowledge seeker. It's always about getting to the truth, no matter where that leads.

Stay strong,
Dale Larner

History is also littered with well known facts!Disputing facts with schoolyard tales does nothing to prove your theory.The more i have read through this topic this might not even be a dime store mystery novel.If "holding up the banner of a knowledge seeker" means looking for facts from fantasy,then i am glad someone other than myself has been bestowed with this honor.

[Dale Larner]

freetoroam, on 06 March 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

But but but, this can not be!!!!

On the 3rd of April he was in London killing Emma Elizabeth Smith and yet managed to write a letter from Arles.
On the 8th of August, he was in London the day before murdering Martha Tabram.
On the 31st of August he was in London again murdering Mary Anne Nichols and yet managed to write a letter on the 29th and 30th stating that he had to find the money to pay his rent.

etc etc etc etc ........................

if the Van Gogh theory is true, then I think this shows that our postal services and train speeds have gone down hill greatly from those days.


third _eye, you are the man.

Points worth noting:
1. Like others, I don’t count Emma Smith as a Ripper victim. The evidence isn’t there.

2. You’re right about the postal service speeds. It’s not as good as back then. It was more like FedEx then. Sending letters was their internet. Express mail trains were used throughout Europe to get letters and goods to their destination quick. A letter sent just about anywhere in Europe was expected to be delivered to just about anywhere in Europe by the next day—quite fast.

3. Using those same express trains, Vincent could travel to London in 24 hrs. and travel back to Arles, France in 24 hrs. Things moved quicker than it would seem.

4. It must be understood that Vincent rarely dated his letters, and also that the envelopes were not kept, so no postmarks for dating, and that biographers and researchers have dated the letters based on piecing together the contents and other details. Of course, they’ve done an admirable job, but the dates of the letters aren’t always known absolutely.

5. Even so, the dating and contents of Vincent’s letters match up very well to the murders. For good reason—he was Jack the Ripper.

Please know I’ve read and studied all of Van Gogh’s 800 letters and know the dating. The contents and dating don’t work against what I put forward—it works towards it.

Thanks for looking further,
Dale Larner

[Lava_Lady]

third_eye, on 06 March 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

If there is a case where apologies are unnecessary then this one fits the box to shoes, Mr Dale Larner is an bona fide 'idiot'

shameless one at that

not insulting or disrespecting,

on the contrary, Mr Dale Larner is the one being disrespectful to the able and sane members of the literary community

Sounds like you are angry.  It's just a theory... I don't think you need to be upset.  This book won't put Van Gogh in jail, I promise

There are many books out there in our small world a lot of them tout ideas we don't personally agree with, I can think of quite a few right off the top of my head.

Dale's theory is something he believes in & you don't agree... that has been established,  very clearly I might add, but it's harmless.  I don't feel disrespected by his theory at all.  I don't have any personal stake in it and I don't think you do either.

As a matter of fact, if the book gets published, you are free to not buy it and/or read it.

You seem to know a lot about Van Gogh and I will give you the benefit of the doubt because I simply don't care to put any time and effort into doing any research on him.  Maybe you can respond to Dale's book by writing your own in defense of vg

[third_eye]

Lava_Lady, on 07 March 2013 - 03:04 AM, said:

Sounds like you are angry.  It's just a theory... I don't think you need to be upset.  This book won't put Van Gogh in jail, I promise

There are many books out there in our small world a lot of them tout ideas we don't personally agree with, I can think of quite a few right off the top of my head.

Dale's theory is something he believes in & you don't agree... that has been established,  very clearly I might add, but it's harmless.  I don't feel disrespected by his theory at all.  I don't have any personal stake in it and I don't think you do either.

As a matter of fact, if the book gets published, you are free to not buy it and/or read it.

You seem to know a lot about Van Gogh and I will give you the benefit of the doubt because I simply don't care to put any time and effort into doing any research on him.  Maybe you can respond to Dale's book by writing your own in defense of vg

I don't have to write my defence, the law provides :

Quote

slander
n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one's occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much as if not more than printed publications.

here

Quote

defamation
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error.

here

Quote

libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

here

Just to be certain one understands the difference :

Quote

fair comment
n. a statement of opinion (no matter how ludicrous) based on facts which are correctly stated and which does not allege dishonorable motives on the part of the target of the comment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that to protect free speech, statements made about a public person (politician, officeholder, movie star, author, etc.), even though untrue and harmful, are fair comment unless the victim can prove the opinions were stated maliciously-with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm. Thus, a public figure may not sue for defamation based on published opinions or alleged information which would be the basis of a lawsuit if said or published about a private person not worthy of opinion or comment. This is a crucial defense against libel suits put up by members of the media.

here

and what he's doing is not 'harmless'
He is perpetuating a lie for self profit at the expense of someone who is no longer with us.
Yes, he is a liar and is lying and he knows that I know that he is.

Just to quote a few of his recent lies :

Quote

A rational mind steps forward from among the encircling hyenas. Thanks for your reasonable attitude. It’s the right way to be, and you’re examples are spot on. History is littered with stories of once-accepted beliefs about some subject or person which were then proven false. Even without bringing up the Ripper connection, the accepted belief of who Van Gogh was is limited and overly sympathetic. He was a rough character, and I show that his roughness was much deeper than his heavy drinking and regular visits to the brothels.

He discards solid available evidences which he knows about and then proposes that because Vincent was a heavy drinker and visits brothels regularly, has a brother that sends him money, that makes Vincent a prime suspect, no Mr Larner says guilty, and he claims to have 'proof and evidence' That is the fine line crossed.

Quote

Thanks for being a thinking person and for holding up the banner of a knowledge seeker. It's always about getting to the truth, no matter where that leads.

Its not a matter of where the 'truth' lies, its a matter of where the lies leads and getting to it by virtue of acceptable lies. Harmless ?
KNowledge ? YOu tell me ...

On that note, more lies from Mr Larner  :

Quote

3. Using those same express trains, Vincent could travel to London in 24 hrs. and travel back to Arles, France in 24 hrs. Things moved quicker than it would seem.

Even if the train was on schedule which was rare, that is station to station, Vincent did not live at a train station nor Jack ever killed anywhere near train stations

Quote

2. You’re right about the postal service speeds. It’s not as good as back then. It was more like FedEx then. Sending letters was their internet. Express mail trains were used throughout Europe to get letters and goods to their destination quick. A letter sent just about anywhere in Europe was expected to be delivered to just about anywhere in Europe by the next day—quite fast.

Blatant lies, even if the letters were sent from major cities,from rural areas the due date was much longer

Quote

4. It must be understood that Vincent rarely dated his letters, and also that the envelopes were not kept, so no postmarks for dating, and that biographers and researchers have dated the letters based on piecing together the contents and other details. Of course, they’ve done an admirable job, but the dates of the letters aren’t always known absolutely.

Mr LArner reads, he lies, he plays for the fools, he read but he dare not face the truth. He is a liar

Quote

5. Even so, the dating and contents of Vincent’s letters match up very well to the murders. For good reason—he was Jack the Ripper.

Please know I’ve read and studied all of Van Gogh’s 800 letters and know the dating. The contents and dating don’t work against what I put forward—it works towards it.

Yes Mr Larner, you are a liar, you have proven that yourself more than adequately.
Vincent has left us more than enough evidence as witness to prove you a most blatant and shameless liar.
Vincent says it ... YOU, Mr Larner is a liar

[Lava_Lady]

Wow... You give tbe op a lot of power but, if you want to be angry then so be you...   
You should know that just because someone expresses an opinion, it doesn't make it true and again, Vincent will not be upset about this accusation... I promise you that!  

[third_eye]

Lava_Lady, on 07 March 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

Wow... You give tbe op a lot of power but, if you want to be angry then so be you...   
You should know that just because someone expresses an opinion, it doesn't make it true and again, Vincent will not be upset about this accusation... I promise you that!  

I assure you, if I was any where near angry, I would have shown much less restraint, it wasn't just an 'opinion' expressed.
He not only accused but clearly pronounced Vincent guilty. That is as bad as it gets, especially if it is baseless and founded on lies, which is worse.
You know you are in no position to promise anything such as that.
I on the other hand can and will promise you that these people will be more than just 'angry' or 'upset' :

The Van Gogh Family Tree
http://www.vggallery...family_tree.htm

[Lava_Lady]

third_eye, on 07 March 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

I assure you, if I was any where near angry, I would have shown much less restraint, it wasn't just an 'opinion' expressed.
He not only accused but clearly pronounced Vincent guilty. That is as bad as it gets, especially if it is baseless and founded on lies, which is worse.
You know you are in no position to promise anything such as that.
I on the other hand can and will promise you that these people will be more than just 'angry' or 'upset' :

The Van Gogh Family Tree
http://www.vggallery...family_tree.htm

I can promise you Vincent won't be angry because he's
dead and has been for a long time.

[third_eye]

Lava_Lady, on 07 March 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

I can promise you Vincent won't be angry because he's
dead and has been for a long time.

I wouldn't be so sure, dead though Vincent may be.

[Lava_Lady]

third_eye, on 07 March 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

I wouldn't be so sure, dead though Vincent may be.

lol well, that sounds like a different category of posts.. ghosts and hauntings!  Another interest of mine

[third_eye]

Lava_Lady, on 07 March 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

lol well, that sounds like a different category of posts.. ghosts and hauntings!  Another interest of mine

Maybe I should introduce you to a few of my friends ....
     




~edit : needed another one of those bouncy thingies aesthetically speaking

Edited by third_eye, 07 March 2013 - 08:24 PM.

[Lava_Lady]

third_eye, on 07 March 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

Maybe I should introduce you to a few of my friends ....
     




~edit : needed another one of those bouncy thingies aesthetically speaking

Sure, but let's not hijack this forum.   If you would post some of experiences in the proper forum, I would love to read them.

[freetoroam]

Dale Larner, on 07 March 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

Points worth noting:
1. Like others, I don’t count Emma Smith as a Ripper victim. The evidence isn’t there.

2. You’re right about the postal service speeds. It’s not as good as back then. It was more like FedEx then. Sending letters was their internet. Express mail trains were used throughout Europe to get letters and goods to their destination quick. A letter sent just about anywhere in Europe was expected to be delivered to just about anywhere in Europe by the next day—quite fast.

3. Using those same express trains, Vincent could travel to London in 24 hrs. and travel back to Arles, France in 24 hrs. Things moved quicker than it would seem.

4. It must be understood that Vincent rarely dated his letters, and also that the envelopes were not kept, so no postmarks for dating, and that biographers and researchers have dated the letters based on piecing together the contents and other details. Of course, they’ve done an admirable job, but the dates of the letters aren’t always known absolutely.

5. Even so, the dating and contents of Vincent’s letters match up very well to the murders. For good reason—he was Jack the Ripper.

Please know I’ve read and studied all of Van Gogh’s 800 letters and know the dating. The contents and dating don’t work against what I put forward—it works towards it.

Thanks for looking further,
Dale Larner

With all due respect, you are going round the houses now to try to prove your point, and its on very very wobbly wheels. If the facts were so obvious you would not have to push so hard with trying and it is now getting trying indeed!
2 and 3 ? joke right? maybe you should write a book on humour, now that i would buy. (you can include your Jacque Le Ripper theory in it too.

Please note: express trains did not pass through a tunnel in those days and it was necessary to take a boat as part of the journey.  So for him to get a train and boat from Arles to London - Victoria station, then to the East end, find a prostitute, kill her without being noticed then return to Victoria station (I can`t believe I am putting this, its just too funny) to catch the train then get a boat to catch another train then get another train to Arles, would be cutting it very fine to say the least!

Edited by freetoroam, 07 March 2013 - 11:06 PM.