History Channel doc on JtR

[Pcdunn]

I just saw an ad for next Monday's episode of "History's Greatest Mysteries" which will be on the identity of Jack the Ripper. From the ad, I suspect they will be looking at the idea that H.H. Holmes was the culprit.

Yes, I know... but I saw recently that the results of Mudgett's DNA test with the remains in Holmes' grave did not match ... apparently lending possible credence to the rumor that Holmes didn't actually end up executed and buried in that surprisingly complex grave.

[Ally]

I know there are a couple of people who are to appear on this. It will be interesting to see what they make of it.

[Ozzy]

So that's what Mr. Clean (imdb link) does these days.
As you can imagine by the series title, these are documentaries that are about history's mysteries. Nothing new here.

[jmenges]

A strong contender for one of the worst Ripper "documentaries" in recent memory.
Rife with errors on even the most basic facts about the murders.

JM

[Abby Normal]

A strong contender for one of the worst Ripper "documentaries" in recent memory.
Rife with errors on even the most basic facts about the murders.

JM

agree, it was so embarrassing i had to stop watching. I was surprised because the series is usually pretty good.

[Pcdunn]

The episode seemed less about the murders than listing various suspect theories. They left out the authors, artists, and poets, and only mentioned Charles Cross as a witness who found a victim. Still, giving Mudgett that much screen time (when I don't think Tumblety was mentioned at all?) was perhaps too much.

Overall, I liked it. "Who was Jack the Ripper?" Is a tougher and thornier subject, the further we get away from the events in time. This program did at least make an effort to organize the "theories" in some fashion, and it was cool to put faces to some people I only know as names here on Casebook.

[c.d.]

I just saw an ad for next Monday's episode of "History's Greatest Mysteries" which will be on the identity of Jack the Ripper. From the ad, I suspect they will be looking at the idea that H.H. Holmes was the culprit.

Yes, I know... but I saw recently that the results of Mudgett's DNA test with the remains in Holmes' grave did not match ... apparently lending possible credence to the rumor that Holmes didn't actually end up executed and buried in that surprisingly complex grave.

Hello Pcdunn,

Just wondering where you got the information that the remains did not match Mudgett's DNA. I watched American Ripper last night and it said the exact opposite. Namely that the DNA was conclusive evidence that it was in fact Holmes that was buried in that grave.

c.d.

[Pcdunn]

Hi, c.d.,

I'm not sure where I got that idea, possibly jumbled with the notion that Mudgett was disappointed about something to do with his theory. Sorry for the misinformation

I recently caught the end of "American Ripper" and did see the caption that yes, Mudgett was related to the exhumed remains from the Holmes grave, so his ancestor had indeed been executed and buried per law.

That deals a blow to Mudgett's idea that Holmes escaped the grave, murdered people related to his trial, and maybe was responsible for later crimes in America and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have deterred him from the idea that H.H. Holmes was Jack the Ripper. Indeed, if he can find more solid evidence, I wish him luck. Though, personally, I think Holmes is maybe a better suspect for at least some of the Thames Torso killings.

[jmenges]

There’s no evidence that H.H. Holmes ever traveled outside of North America and there’s ample evidence that he was in Chicago in September and October, 1888.
The claim that Holmes was Jack the Ripper is absurd.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

It makes you wonder what kind of person would exaggerate and make things up just to try and convince people that Jack the Ripper was a family member?

[caz]

Agreed, Herlock.

If it was a family member of mine, or of a partner of mine, who was put forward as a potential suspect for the Whitechapel murders, I'd have moved heaven and earth to find evidence of innocence.

I will never understand the motivation of anyone who would do the opposite. It can't just be about ego and selling books - can it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Pcdunn]

I don't know. It has happened before, with other serial killers besides Jack. The fellow who thought his stepfather was the Black Dahlia murderer, one man who thought his dad was the Zodiac Killer, and even with Lechmere, some information was discredited because a descendant may have exaggerated the family knowledge about Charles.

I don't know. Mudgett is already proved to have a thoroughly despicable serial killer as a relative, why does he want (need?) to add Jack the Ripper's legacy to that burden?

I claim often to not understand people. This just makes my point.

[c.d.]

I don't know. Mudgett is already proved to have a thoroughly despicable serial killer as a relative, why does he want (need?) to add Jack the Ripper's legacy to that burden?

An excellent point.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

I don't know. Mudgett is already proved to have a thoroughly despicable serial killer as a relative, why does he want (need?) to add Jack the Ripper's legacy to that burden?

An excellent point.

c.d.

to make money

[c.d.]

The so-called Holmes curse that they talked about was interesting. Apparently a number of people connected to his trial and arrest died mysteriously shortly after his hanging. Could be coincidence and there could be logical explanations. Seeing as how Holmes was paid a great deal of money for his story I would not put it passed him to have arranged for a little pay back from beyond the grave.

c.d.