Jack the Ripper was H.H. Holmes?
I love discussing serial killers, and there’s nothing I like better than a good, old-fashioned crime conspiracy. It’s one of the reasons I decided to become a criminologist. And no theory has intrigued me more than the possibility that the infamous serial killers H.H. Holmes and Jack the Ripper are one and the same person. There have been literally thousands of people that have been proposed as suspects in the Ripper Murders, with the list of serious suspects somewhat shorter, but the legend has reached such epic proportions that there are those who dedicate their lives to finding out who Jack the Ripper was (they are known as “Ripperologists”). People see Jack as the OG of serial killers. He literally tore apart his 5 hapless victims. H.H. Holmes, on the other hand, was infamous for building his “Murder Castle” during Chicago’s 1893 World Fair, and killing those who dared to lodge there. His kill count before he was turned in to the police stood at 9 (although he confessed to upwards of 27 murders). What could be more scintillating than if these two killers were not two at all, but the same person?
The theory originated in 2011, when Holmes’s great-great-grandson, lawyer and former Commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve, Jeff Mudgett (Mudgett was Holmes’ actual last name), who teamed up with ex-CIA operative Amaryllis Fox to write a book entitled “Bloodstains,” which lays claim to the idea that Jack and Holmes are the same person. In it, Jeff makes some explosive claims, including that he inherited two diaries from his grandfather, and, after employing the services of an expert handwriting analyst, determined that H.H. Holmes had authored them, and that Holmes was raped as a child by a priest. Furthermore, Mudgett expanded upon the story of Holmes’s escape from prison and his staged execution (what?!). Ultimately, he states that H.H. Holmes tricked someone into going to the gallows in his place, and went on to live a long life in the shadows. Considering the last two claims, Mudgett’s assertion of knowing Holmes to be Jack the Ripper is the least far-fetched of the entire book. Below is the most compelling evidence for the claim that H.H. Holmes is also Jack the Ripper.
Mudgett states that the diaries of H.H. Holmes posit that he was present in London with one of his assistants (a literal partner in crime) during the Ripper Murders in Whitechapel. He states that the diaries outline “training sessions” between Holmes and his assistant, with the assistant being instructed to murder prostitutes and excessively mutilate their corpses, in order to cause a public outcry, with the intent being to distract from Holmes’s own murders and sexual-organ harvest of upper-class women, Rich women’s ovaries would supposedly have healthier hormones in them to aid in Holmes’ pursuit of a youth serum which would purportedly allow him to live an unnaturally long life.
At first glance, the facts would point to radical differences between Holmes and Jack, not just because of the vast geographical divide between their respective killing zones, but also because of their largely contrasting MOs. Jack the Ripper claimed most of his victims on the streets, attacking women where he could have easily been caught in the act. On the other hand, H.H. Holmes preferred to kill in private, even going to such elaborate lengths as to build a “Murder Castle,” where he rigged rooms to isolate and secure his victims. Creeping about in public with a knife in his hand just wasn’t his style. However, if we look more deeply, the parallels between the two murderers become more apparent. The Ripper, despite popular myths of him being a savage, messy slasher, was actually a calm and careful killer. Rather than simply lunging at his victims, knife at the ready, he would first choke them and lay them quietly down before commencing the evisceration. This is partially why he didn’t alert anyone within earshot to what was going on. Holmes, too, had a methodical killing style, and was also a trained medic - meaning he was adept at the removal of organs. Of course, one of the most widely-held beliefs about Jack the Ripper is that he had some degree of medical training.
It’s also important to consider that the last of the official, canonical victims of Jack the Ripper was killed in her own bed rather than on the streets, utterly obliterated by the Ripper’s blade, to the point of being almost unrecognisable. This was a huge escalation from the previous Ripper killings, both in terms of context and ferocity. Jack’s style had evolved. If Amaryllis Fox’s theory is right, this could have been Holmes trying out different methods, and moving towards the more grandiose style he displayed in the Chicago Murder Castle. Speaking of the United States, Fox and Mudgett’s investigation has revealed that Holmes left a trail of business documents which allows us to chart his movements, with the exception of between 1888 and 1889, when the paper trail goes cold, coinciding with the Ripper Killings in London. Could this therefore have been when Holmes was Jack? We do know from ship logs that an individual by the name of “H Holmes” was a passenger who sailed from the UK to the US shortly after the Ripper killings ended.
Moreover, linguistics experts consulted by Mudgett and Fox meticulously analysed the “Dear Boss” letter, widely regarded as having been sent by Jack to the London media of the time. The expert confirmed that various quirks of language suggest the writer of the letter was American. Mudgett and Fox also commissioned a forensic sketch artist to create a portrait of Jack based on witness testimonies of 13 people who’d seen the Ripper victims with men just before they died, the end result being a portrait so similar to photos of H.H. Holmes that Mudgett – an attorney by trade – firmly believes it would merit an arrest warrant if the case was active today. There is a certain logic to Mudgett’s theory about Holmes’ role in the Ripper killings. Objections to Holmes’ candidacy as a Ripper suspect include the difference in modus operandi between the methodical Holmes and the hysterical sadism of the Ripper. Mudgett’s theory, however, makes it so that the mutilations were a deliberate forensic counter-measure to throw people off Holmes’ trail and accomplished by a different hand (though under Holmes’ direction).
All of this certainly sounds exciting and even persuasive. But the fact is, there’s no solid evidence there at all. It’s all entirely circumstantial, based on coincidences, contradictory testimonies by long-dead Victorians and plain wishful thinking. So where to begin?
First, the “Dear Boss” letter. Perhaps it was indeed written by someone from the States, as the experts suggest. But that hardly matters if the letter (as with all other Ripper correspondence) was a hoax, penned by some hype-hungry journalist or local crackpot, as most Ripper experts and seasoned “Ripperologists” firmly believe. Then there’s the crucial question of geography, which obviously cannot be easily dismissed. Holmes and the Ripper lived on different continents, and there’s absolutely no evidence Holmes ever ventured onto British shores. Names in ship passenger logs don’t mean a thing – “Holmes” was hardly a rare name, after all. And, while Holmes later claimed to have “roamed” the planet for people to kill….well, this was likely another example of his rampant narcissism, and desire to mythologise himself as an awesome monster.
We also need to consider motivation. Despite the grisly, horror movie-like details of his Murder Castle, H.H. Holmes was driven solely by a basic greed for money. He regarded himself as a cunning entrepreneur, killing in order to collect on life insurance and further his material success. There’s no evidence he was driven by a lust for murder for its own sake, like Jack the Ripper appeared to be. The Ripper slaughtered the poor, helpless, penniless women of the East End. There was no greed there, except a greed for death. While we’ll possibly never know what made the Ripper kill, it seems reasonable to assume it was a deep-seated, irrational, emotional craving that he needed to satisfy. H.H. Holmes was a con-man who was willing to kill, but he was not irrational.
Jeff Mudgett is certainly convinced of his theory that Holmes was the Ripper, and perhaps the hard evidence is out there somewhere, waiting to be found. In the meantime, the controversy will carry on.
