Van Gogh was MURDERED, says forensic expert

(The Daily Mail) Painter Vincent van Gogh may have been murdered, a leading forensics expert has claimed.The long-held theory that the troubled artist shot himself in a wheat field near Paris in 1890 may have to be reconsidered after the shocking claim.Dr Vincent Di Maio, an expert on gunshot wounds, reassessed vital evidence from van Gogh's shooting and believes the painter could not have shot himself in the chest.Dr Di Maio, a key witness in the trial of George Zimmerman - the man who was accused of shooting US teenager Trayvon Martin, used evidence and testimony from the time to come to his conclusion.According to Vanity Fair, the forensics expert told Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith - who have long believed that van Gogh did not commit suicide - that the painter's fatal wounds did not look as if they were self-inflicted.According to the son of van Gogh's physician Paul Gachet Sr, Paul Jr, the wound had a 'brown and purple halo around [it]'.Previously historians thought that the purple area was caused by the proximity of the gun to van Gogh's chest and that the brown colouring was caused by gunpowder burns.Speaking of the 'purple halo', Dr Di Maio said: 'In fact, 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.'He added that the brown ring was simply 'an abrasion ring and seen around virtually all entrance wounds. It just indicates an entrance'.Dr Di Maio also called into question how van Gogh would have been able to shoot himself in the left side of his chest with the revolver he is alleged to have used.'It would be extremely difficult to shoot oneself in this location [i.e., on the left side] with the left hand. The easiest way would involve putting one’s fingers around the back of the grip and using the thumb to fire the gun,' he said.'Using one’s right hand is even more absurd. You would have to put the right arm across the chest and again place one’s fingers on the back of the grip and use the thumb to fire the gun.'The forensics expert added that the painter would have had scorch marks on his hand if he had shot himself at such close range, which no testimony from the time suggests was the case.Dr Di Maio's final conclusion read: '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.' Mystery remains over who, if not himself, van Gogh's shooter was.It took 29 agonising hours for the artist to die, just days after he had ordered more paints - suggesting he had no intention on taking his own life. Police are believed to have investigated the shooting briefly but no records remain of what they found.Whispers around the village of Auvers-sur-Oise, where van Gogh lived and died, at the time of the painter's death suggested that he was killed by 'young boys'.In the 1930s, Scholar John Rewald travelled to Auvers to ask residents who lived in the village at the time of the death what they knew.Some said van Gogh was shot accidentally by a group of boys and that the painter chose to protect their identity by saying he had tried to commit suicide. Mr Naifeh and Mr White Smith put their theory to a curator at the Van Gogh Museum, in Amsterdam, who told them: 'I think it would be like Vincent to protect the boys and take the "accident" as an unexpected way out of his burdened life.'But I think the biggest problem you’ll find after publishing your theory is that the suicide is more or less printed in the brains of past and present generations and has become a sort of self-evident truth.'Vincent’s suicide has become the grand finale of the story of the martyr for art, it’s his crown of thorns.' Bakudaily.Az