Forensic-based questions arise over the death of Vincent Van Gogh...
According to expert Dr. Vincent di Maio
In the year 2011, a biographer duo argued that the worldwide accepted theory of Vincent Van Gogh's death may have been wrong. They suggested that in fact he didn't commit suicide and it was a local teen who killed him.
Now, thanks to a recent article in Vanity Fair by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, which notes scant evidence in favour of a suicide, the question has been brought to the forefront again.
The queries include why, for instance, would a suicidal person shoot himself in the stomach, leading to a long, painful death? What's more, they argue, accounts supporting the original theory come from questionable sources, including a girl who was only 13 at the time, and didn't tell her story publicly until decades later.
The article also focuses on the work of noted forensics expert Dr. Vincent Di Maio, who worked on the highly publicised George Zimmerman trial in recent months. Di Maio finds that based on accounts of Van Gogh's injuries, that the muzzle of the gun that shot the artist "was more than a foot or two away (closer to two rather than one)." He concludes that, "in all medical probability, the wound incurred by Van Gogh was not self-inflicted." So why has the suicide account survived so long?
Art expert Lorena Muñoz-Alonso from ArtNet.com suggests it's because it's simply a good story. His "earlobe episode... Plus his history of nervous breakdowns made him the perfect artist maudit; a troubled, unpredictable, erratic genius."
And so surely the next question must be... Who did it?