Tweet
I imagine this has been touched on before, so excuse me if it's redundant. I was just watching a documentary on the History Channel (and I take anything they say with a huge grain of salt), but towards the end they alluded to H.H. Holmes possibly being the Ripper and that there were similarities between his murders and the Ripper's. Yet they didn't go into any real detail of Holmes' murders. There was a lot of detail about his "castle" and the way he disposed of any bodies/evidence, and it said that some of his victims were alive and aware while he mutilated them--which sounds like it could possibly be a progression from the Kelly murder, but not part of the Ripper's known m.o.
But they just kind of glossed over the evidence of him being in London during the summer and autumn of 1888. Is there any hard evidence of this? And he was so wealthy, why would he stay in the East End unless he had some prior knowledge of London?
But they just kind of glossed over the evidence of him being in London during the summer and autumn of 1888. Is there any hard evidence of this? And he was so wealthy, why would he stay in the East End unless he had some prior knowledge of London?
Comment