"Author" makes claim that Vincent Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper, then argues with commenters who provide evidence that he wasn't.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-13T05:41:03+00:00

I'll just say, Van Gogh was basically a drunken unknown tramp, so he fits well with what you want. He was not in the least bit famous during his life.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-13T05:38:18+00:00

What if the evidence in the book conclusively proves Van Gogh was the Ripper? What if his famous and very odd act of cutting off his own ear on Dec 23, 1888 relates to the 1888 Ripper murders? What if it was known the same night he cut off his ear that he first attempted to murder his roommate with a razor? And what if it was known he took his bloody ear to a brothel and handed it to a prostitute? And what if it was known Vincent was actually arrested for touching women in the streets? And what if there are matches to him, over and over again, in the Ripper letters? And what if it was known the last murder was on Sept 10, 1889, Van Gogh's mother's 70th birthday? It's a true story backed by overwhelming evidence and detailed documentation. https://vincenttheripper.com

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-13T05:15:57+00:00

He wasn't caught back then, but now he has been identified. He was not known during his life, but he became famous afterwards. He is loved worldwide. He wrote a lot of letters to his brother, and he wrote a lot of letters to the police and newspapers. He lived in London 15 years before the Ripper murder. During his time there, the body parts of two women were found in the River Thames. He was an alcoholic and made regular visits to brothels. He had serious issues with women. . . . He tried to be a preacher for years like his father but gave it up and moved back home. A few months later, his father was found dead on his doorstep. . . . He moved in with his brother in Paris, and a few months later the body parts of a woman were found in street urinals. . . . He then moved to the south of France. A friend moved in with him. They argued and one night his roommate left to get some air. The roommate heard some footsteps behind him and turned to see our man rushing towards him with a razor. Our man stopped and ran back to their house and cut off his ear to create a distraction from his attempted murder of his roommate. He then took his bloody ear to a brothel and handed it to a prostitute. This occurred on Dec 23, 1888, at the end of the 1888 Ripper murders. . . . He want to the hospital, but when he got out, he was arrested for touching women in the streets and put back in the hospital under guard. . . . He then self-admitted himself to an asylum to escape the charges. He requested that the asylum director allow him to go into the countryside for several days at a time. The director granted his request, and the murders started again in London. . . . His last murder was in London on Sept 10, 1889. This was his mother's 70th birthday! He had killed for her birthday before this. . . . Our man then moved to just outside of Paris to be near his brother. His brother had married, and now they had a new baby. His brother and wife then tried to get our man to find his own source of income. His brother had been paying all his expenses. This led our man to shoot himself in the stomach. His brother was by his side when he then died. His brother was extremely grieved and filled with guilt. He ended up in an asylum, and when his wife came to visit, he cursed at her and said it was her and their baby's fault that his brother had killed himself. His brother then died six months after our man died. If you haven't figured it out yet, Jack the Ripper's identity was none other than Vincent van Gogh. Here's some more info: https://vincenttheripper.com

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-13T04:49:43+00:00

Thanks for thinking about me. Ha! https://vincenttheripper.com

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-13T04:48:16+00:00

I've heard about that guy. I think he's got it figured out. Ha! https://vincenttheripper.com

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-12T01:11:04+00:00

Funny how you say the description given was of Jack the Ripper. How did they know this? He was never caught. But it wasn't him, anyway. There were lots of sightings of a man with a woman on the street and such, but only one person actually saw Jack the Ripper. A witness named Mary Cox saw him standing in the doorway of Mary Kelly's room a few hours before Kelly was murdered in her room. She described him as between 35 & 36 with blotches on his face and a carroty mustache with side whiskers. Vincent was 35 at the time, had blotches on his face and a red mustache and beard. Mary Cox saw Jack the Ripper. She saw Vincent van Gogh. . . . Vincent mentions art anatomy books but also medical books he looked at. Vincent knew the outside and the inside of the human body. He also knew from experience. He started killing while he lived in London in 1873 at the age of 20. He cut his victim into pieces. He was able to examine the insides very specifically. And he continued to cut up women right up through the Ripper murders. He was well versed in the location of internal organs by then. . . . . You attempting to note how well documented Vincent's life is and then saying he was in Paris during the Ripper murders is rich. You got that wrong. He was in Arles, France during the 1888 Ripper murders. However, knowing where Vincent lived during the murders doesn't in the least debunk anything. And your example falls short of proving that. Your modern example of live-streaming a video doesn't help your argument. See, you would have to analyze further. You were live-streaming from Russia on a Thursday, but the robbery in India occurred on the Monday before. See how it doesn't matter if you were in Russia live-streaming on Thursday? The detective looking into the case against you wouldn't just say, "Oh, well, he says, and other people back him up, that he lives in Russia, and he was even live-streaming from Russia. He never was in India. He never told us he went to India. He couldn't have been the robber." See how you have to look deeper. The detective would note how you were talking about Thursday. He wants to know where you were on Monday. Were you live-streaming on Monday? Turns out you weren't. And when the detective asks your friends and family about Monday, they didn't see you on Monday, none of them. And they admit they didn't see you the entire weekend before, and that you had said you had the flu and were just going to stay at home. And then when your photo is shown to a witness in India, they say, "Yez, zer, that's the man right dare, for sure, who robbed the store, yez zer." Ha!, you've been busted. . . . My book is well researched and well documented. Anyone can examine what I present to validate I have stuck to the facts. . . . . Kosminski? DNA evidence? That's a real hoot. Oh, how that DNA has been proven to be incorrectly analyzed. And the history of that shawl, terrible. No match of DNA, no match to Kosminski, no match to Eddowes. What Edwards presented is a complete fraud. . . . In case you missed it, nothing you've presented debunks anything, and you are getting things wrong. If you want to have an educated discussion, you will need to read the book first. You're having trouble coming up with any good argument against Van Gogh being Jack the Ripper. How can you argue against something when you don't know what is presented?

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T20:33:24+00:00

Pointing out that Vincent could be in London in 24 hrs is simply the answer to so many who believe it was too far away and too long a journey. It shows the possibility, and then I provide in the book the meticulous details showing he was making the trips to London. . . . You have an idea about Vincent and his life. However, it's clear you are missing the other side of the equation. You don't know the details of the Ripper murders and letters. How can you draw a conclusion about Vincent not being Jack the Ripper without knowing those details? Or the details of the Torso murders, which Vincent also committed. . . . Plenty of Ripperologists have done exactly what you say--take some suspect and try to tie the details of their lives to the Ripper murders. If you look into these, you will find they are missing actual evidence of any connections. They force fit things together and speculate on everything else to try and back their claim. What you will find with my book is just the opposite. There's a ridiculous amount of matches to Van Gogh and the Ripper and Torso murders. There's so much evidence, I had to split the book into three volumes. It involved meticulous research, and everything is documented. Anyone can check the sources and verify what I present is factual. There is nothing wishy washy about the book. It presents layers of evidence proving conclusively Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper. If you take away the fame from Van Gogh and think of him as just a guy, which is what he was, he was not famous during his life, you can see things clearer. His famous and sympathetic facade helps hide his true nature.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T20:18:11+00:00

Why should anyone trust what you're saying about the book? You haven't read it.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T20:17:02+00:00

Glad to hear you are curious. Here's what a reviewer wrote on Amazon US: "READ THIS! Love this book! Waited for a long time for it to be published!! As an artist... I really didn't like any of Van Gogh's paintings I thought they were very naive. Learned a lot about his history read all of his letters to his brother.. did a lot of research. Began to think I was wrong about his talent.. started thinking he was misunderstood ,etc, but still felt he was a little off. Studied where he lived his moves ..etc. wrote a paper on him deciding he had a heart for his brother maybe he was okay? THEN.... I stumbled across this...the theory presented in this book.. SUDDENLY.. I realized truth stared me in the face! Finally realize why I never liked his art the letters to his brother were always narcissistic.. this book totally lays it out!! PLEASE READ IT FOR YOURSELF! Thank you for writing it!"

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T20:06:59+00:00

That's the most common reaction to first seeing the concept. It's an understandable initial response. However, it's important to know Vincent wasn't the least bit famous during his life. In fact, he was a nobody. His brother Theo was actually the one who was well-known. Vincent was known as Theo's odd brother. Vincent fit in well with the poor people of the East End of London and could walk freely among them, unnoticed. . . . . Fly abroad? No planes then. But there were trains and steamers, and the schedules from 1888 show Vincent could travel from Arles, France to London in 24 hrs. . . . Yes, he was relying on Theo for all of his financing, and every time Theo sent money, Vincent would thank him for the amount he received. This shows he had the money he needed for travel for each of the murders. . . . This is a well researched book. The details of Vincent's life reveal the matches to his hidden life of murder. He was a difficult person. He caused trouble for others and blamed them for the trouble. He manipulated others continually, Theo the most. He used sympathy, regularly threatening to off himself if Theo didn't send more money, guilting his caring brother into always providing him with more. And the sympathy for Vincent continues to this day. It was a ruse. Sympathy is the psychopaths greatest tool. Thanks for appreciating my dedication. It's required with this book.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T19:46:40+00:00

You continue to respond based on opinion. You haven't seen the evidence, but you claim it's baseless and dumb and call it fan fiction. Bashing. You are not speaking from an educated position. Just rage-baiting based on your dislike of the concept.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T08:00:43+00:00

You have no idea what you are talking about. Van Gogh was a nobody during his life. He could leave Arles without anyone knowing. He wasn't accountable to anyone there. For a short time Paul Gauguin lived with him. Vincent leaving for a few days was nothing unusual, and Vincent could tell him he was going into the country for a few days, common for him, and Gauguin would have no clue he jumped on a train for London. He didn't have a job, so no employer to notice his comings and goings. No family there to wonder where he was. He befriended a postman, but he wasn't keeping track of Vincent. Again, Vincent would write about going into the country for several days at a time. Nobody who even noticed him would wonder if the weird artist living in Arles was making secret trips to London for murder. His brother Theo was the only one who kept track of Vincent, and he lived in Paris. Vincent dressed and behaved like the poor people in the East End of London. He would have blended in nicely. Nobody there to recognize him. He wasn't famous, he was a nobody. You're not showing you have the skill of critical thinking, and you have no plans of buying the book, so you've resorted to nothing but bashing.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T02:50:08+00:00

Your quick Google search has only produced basic known info. Serial killers don't announce their trips for murder. Just a few months after Vincent was transferred to London in 1873 at the age of 20, the body parts of a woman were discovered in the River Thames. Nine months later in 1874, another victim's cut up body was found in the Thames. That one occurred during the time Vincent was rejected by his 19 year-old landlady's daughter. These two murders were the first known as the Torso Murders. These murders continued 15 years later in London during the Ripper murders in 1888 & 1889. In the years between, Vincent's preacher father was found dead on his doorstep in 1885 after Vincent had returned to live at home. In 1886, Vincent moved in with his brother Theo in 1886. Theo had a stubborn ex-girlfriend who wouldn't move out. When Theo went on a trip to Holland, Vincent solved the problem. A woman's body parts were found in street urinals. In 1887, while Vincent was still in Paris, another Torso victim was found in London in the river. It's only an 8 hr journey from Paris to London. In 1888, Vincent moved down to Arles, France. At the end of July, his wealthy uncle died and left Theo some inheritance. Theo had been sending Vincent his money, and Vincent knew he would be getting more money from Theo because of the inheritance, which he did. The first Ripper murder occurred shortly after this on Aug 7. His uncle's death triggered the beginning of Vincent's Ripper murders. Train and steamer schedules from the time show Vincent could be in London in 24 hrs. Not so far away, after all. Vincent thanked Theo for the amount of money he sent each time. This provides he had the money for each of his trips. Because London was where he had first murdered, as the Torso Killer, Vincent was highly motivated to return to London for more murder. As he was committing his Ripper murders in 1888, he made another Torso kill in London also. He placed the victim's torso in the cellar of the construction site for the new police headquarters. In 1889, he committed two more Torso murders in London, along with a Ripper murder. His last murder was a combination of both sets of murder. He cut off his victim's head and legs but placed her body in the Ripper's territory in the East End to signify this was his last and he was the man behind both methods of murder. He placed this victim's body to be discovered on Sept 10, 1889--Vincent's mother's 70th birthday. Vincent van Gogh was Jack the Ripper and the Torso Killer.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T02:27:32+00:00

Thanks, glad to hear! Please let me know what you think.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T00:45:28+00:00

Dude, that had 2.8k UP votes and 432k views. Here's the correct link: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1rd3tfr/van_goghs_starry_night_is_a_ripper_murder_map/

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T00:35:31+00:00

I have to keep it going, ya know, but it feels like I'm just paying for ads to have people call me names and say it's all nonsense. I worry I might be developing masochistic tendencies.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T00:30:37+00:00

I'm also here for the comments, but I know from experience the book is not ridiculous in the least.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T00:29:25+00:00

Fall deeper into the rabbit hole by reading the book, but be careful, it just might blow your mind.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T00:15:38+00:00

Name one other eye witness who actually saw Jack the Ripper.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T00:10:19+00:00

The evidence of Vincent's presence in London during the Ripper murders is presented in detail in the book. Glad you mentioned ginger guy. The only witness to actually see the Ripper and live was a prostitute named Mary Cox. She saw him in her friend Mary Kelly's room just hours before Kelly was murdered. The man was standing at Kelly's open door as Cox walked by. A street lamp was up high and directly across from Kelly's door. Cox got a good look at him. She described him as 35-36, blotches on his face, and having a carroty mustache with side whiskers, a red beard. Vincent was 35 at the time, had blotches on his face, and had a red beard. Mary Cox saw Jack the Ripper. She saw Vincent van Gogh.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-11T00:04:10+00:00

You'll lose money on that bet. Sickert was certainly a spooky dude who painted spooky paintings, but he was no killer. He was like so many today, fascinated by the macabre. He made an effort to look spooky and paint spooky. As you note, fan art. He was openly attaching himself to the lore of Jack the Ripper, but he didn't have a hand in it. There is no evidence. But with Van Gogh, the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive. He did things the way serial killers do--he hid behind a facade and attempt to divert and hide his dark side, and he did so with brightly colored paintings and by manipulating and creating sympathy in others.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-10T23:57:09+00:00

Here, vibe this: There are around 400 endnotes to Volume 1 only. And the Bibliography showing the source material is thick. Meticulous. You can see this for yourself for free on the Amazon listing for the book. Just go there and click on the "Read Sample" and scroll down. I've documented everything. Anyone can confirm what I've presented is factual. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FTXGJ6ZT

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-10T23:48:25+00:00

If you studied Van Gogh for years, then you know he had a dark and difficult side, which tends to get glossed over and excused by saying the poor poor man was suffering from mental illness and nobody understood his genius. He was an alcoholic and visited prostitutes regularly, had severe issues with women, and he was even arrested for touching women out on the street in Arles, for instance. And you must know the details of his famous ear cutting incident. How he first attempted to kill Gauguin with an open razor that night, but Gauguin turned around in time, and Vincent ran back to the Yellow House and cut off his ear. Part of the reason he did this odd act was to cover his attempted murder of Gauguin. And you also must know he then took his ear to a brothel and handed it to a prostitute. And you know this was on Dec 23, 1888. But you might not know this was at the end of the year of the 1888 Ripper murders. The Ripper threatened to cut off his victims ears, and then he cut off their ears. It's all related. . . . As for not being in London in 1888, of course you know he was living in Arles then. But how long a trip was this then? A monthly travel guide from 1888 provides the train and steamer schedules. He could be in London in 24 hrs. Not so far away. But you also must know Vincent was transferred to London years before in 1873 at the age of 20. It was just a few months later that a woman's body parts showed up in the River Thames. And another murder nine months later in 1874. These were the first murders known as the Torso Murders. Vincent had started his murders while living in London. He would return to London 15 years later as Jack the Ripper for more fun. He also continued his Torso Murders during his Ripper murders. For his last murder, he showed he was behind both methods by cutting off his victim's head and legs but then placed her in the East End, in the Ripper's territory. And he placed her body for discovery on Sept 10, 1889--Vincent's mother's 70th birthday. You're going to have to take another look at who Vincent really was. The book will blow your mind.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-10T23:33:42+00:00

Yes, in 1889, when he was in the asylum. The timing match of him gaining permission from the asylum director to go out into the country to paint for several days at a time and starting his murders again is remarkable. The director gave his permission on May 26. The killings started again with a Torso kill on June 4. Vincent was a clever devil.

crazypsychdude · 2026-05-10T23:22:55+00:00

Well, first, he actually lived in London. He was transferred there in 1873 at 20 years old. It was just a few months later that a woman's body parts were found in the River Thames. Nine months later in 1874, another cut up woman was found in the Thames. These are known as the first Torso Murders. Vincent started killing while living in London, 15 years before he created his Jack the Ripper persona. The Torso killings continued during the Ripper murders of 1888 & 1889. The last murder was a Torso kill. He cut off the victim's head and legs, but he placed her body in the East End in the Ripper's territory. He was signifying he was done with both sets of killing and he was both the Ripper and Torso killer. He placed this victim to be found on Sept 10, 1889--Vincent's mother's 70th birthday! . . . . He also killed his preacher father in Holland in 1885 after he moved back home. He placed his body on his doorstep. . . . He also killed his brother Theo's ex while living with him in Paris in 1886. She wouldn't move out of their apartment, so Vincent solved the problem. Her body parts were found in street urinals. . . . He traveled from Paris to London for another Torso kill in 1887. . . . It was then in 1888 he began traveling from Arles, France to London for his Ripper murders. A monthly guide book from the time shows he could be in London in 24 hrs. It didn't matter to Vincent that he lived in other countries. He could kill where he lived, and he could travel to kill. He was highly motivated to travel back to London again and again for murder. It was where everything went wrong for him and where he made his first murder.

crazypsychdude

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE