Serial killer doctor Henry Howard "H.H." Holmes was the most viable suspect for the 1888 Whitechapel London murders attributed to the enigma we have come to know as "Jack the Ripper". The research in this nonfiction true crime investigative journal of documents and case file historic accounts reveals startling information that leads the listener to perhaps the most hidden secrets behind the crimes. A "perfect dichotomy" that produces evidence that one man may have been a serial killer on two continents in the 19th century, responsible for the deaths of hundreds, or thousands of innocent victims.
Documentation amassed from the London Metropolitan Police, the British National Archives, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and the American National Archives, along with many outside sources, bring to light new testimony and eyewitness reports that help to solve these 125-year-old crimes resolving this cold case crime.
We've sent an email with your order details. Order ID #:
To access this title, visit your library in the app or on the desktop website.
Wait, Holmes and Mudgett are the same guy, right?
Amateurish production all around. The recording quality, while never completely inaudible, is so poor and uneven, as to make the listener question the legitimacy of the entire project.
The author is clearly motivated to tell this story, however he lacks the rhetorical skill to present information effectively. On no fewer than a dozen occasions, the listener is informed that Herman Mudgett is otherwise known as H.H. Holmes. Once established early on, shouldn't that be a given? Simple mistakes, which proper editing would have sorted, abound. In addition to confusing imply and infer, I believe that the author thinks modus operandi and motive are synonyms.Perhaps most annoyingly, the bulk of the Ripper part of the story involves rather churlish attempts at takedowns of competing Ripper authors, read in an appropriately mocking tone by the narrator. This after a lengthy, condescending diatribe about the importance of methodically assessing evidence. (A process he entirely ignores with his own paper-thin theory.)I don't consider this spoiler, as it's too absurd (but be forewarned, just in case), but the author acknowledges that 6 different conclusions can be considered "plausible" regarding Holmes being the Ripper. These range from no connection at all at one end, to committing all the murders on the other. Thanks for sorting that out.
The problem isn't that the American accents weren't good (they weren't), but rather that they were unnecessary, and unnecessarily overwrought. The narrator's presentation did reflect the snarky tone of the author, though.
There was potential in the depiction of Murder Castle aspect of Holmes, but the Ripper part of the story just fell to pieces.
Trust your first instinct and pass on this one.
Wish there had been more...
Since you ask, I'm not sure I would. Dane Ladwig came across as conceited, more interested in talking about the fact that he felt he solved the Jack the Ripper case than actually presenting his evidence for it.
Not stopped to ask me to purchase a hard copy of the book.
It's in dire need of a follow-up.
As I had never heard this theory before, I was intrigued. I did learn quite a bit about H.H. Holmes, previously I had only read about the Pietzl case. The idea that he could be Jack the Ripper seems plausible, but the author never really presented his evidence for thinking so. I kept waiting for a timeline of events, laying everything out, a clear presentation of the case. Everything was sort of round about and difficult to follow.