Throughout history, there have been many people deemed masters in the art world. From the Renaissance (Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo) to the modern (Pablo Picasso, Salvadore Dalí), their works transcends time. One such master in between the initiation of mastering art to its modernized mode is Vincent van Gogh. Well-known for his painting The Starry Night, like many masters before and after him, he suffered such turmoil — turmoil that would lead up to suicide with a firearm.
But what if the history books were wrong and Vincent van Gogh didn’t commit suicide, but was murdered? For one expert, that is the case as his professional opinion states that van Gogh did not commit suicide, but was murdered.
It should be noted this is just a professional opinion by an expert. However, if the expert’s opinion can be proven true, this would surely be big news in the art world. As a matter of fact, Vincent van Gogh is still big news in the art world and has been kept up with by the Inquisitr. Just last month, one of van Gogh’s rare masterpieces was sold for $61.8 million. Whoever won was surely blessed to have such money, but he is nowhere near as lucky as the parties responsible for finding a lost van Gogh in some attic.
Dr. Vincent Di Maio is a leading expert in gunshot wounds, according to an article by RYOT. With many years of experience, including his role studying the gunshot wounds for the George Zimmerman trial for the Trayvon Martin homicide, Di Maio knows what he is doing. After studying all the evidence available from Vincent van Gogh’s death, Di Maio has stated it’s impossible for the famous painter to have shot himself in the chest.
There are three details that Dr. Vincent Di Maio lists to cement his opinion. The first is the “brown and purple halo” surrounding the bullet wound. Originally identified by Vincent van Gogh’s physician son, it was thought to be gunpowder burns. However, Di Maio has identified it as something else, as detailed in the following.
“This is subcutaneous bleeding from vessels cut by the bullet and is usually seen in individuals who live awhile. Its presence or absence means nothing.”
If the “brown and purple halo” isn’t gunpowder burns, then the belief of a close-range shooting scenario (which is always the case in a self-inflicted gunshot wound) is now null and void. The second detail is with the gunshot wound’s location: the left side, that only a gun held awkwardly and unnaturally in the left hand could reach. Unless van Gogh was a contortionist, he would need to twist his body in a crazy position to make the bullet enter his body the way it did. Finally, van Gogh’s hands were absent of scorch marks, something that would have surely been there if he did commit suicide in the manner detailed from initial reports.
As a result, Dr. Vincent Di Maio gave his professional opinion on Vincent van Gogh’s death, saying the following.
“It is my opinion that, in all medical probability, the wound incurred by van Gogh was not self-inflicted. In other words, he did not shoot himself.”
With Dr. Vincent Di Maio’s expert opinion, Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith’s theory may now have validation. For the past ten years, the two biographers believed van Gogh was murdered. According to Vanity Fair, both biographers held firm to their ten-year theory that the painter’s fatal gun shot wound did not look self-inflicted. Thanks to Di Maio, Vincent van Gogh scholars might consider Naifeh and Smith’s theory seriously.
Now that you’ve read the report that famous painter Vincent van Gogh may have been murdered instead of committing suicide, what do you think? Do you think such a discovery would change his legacy?
[Images via Bing]