My dad and I were watching the H H Holmes is actually Jack the Ripper special on the history channel, making fun of the absurdity of this "investigation." But I want to know if any of the historians on this sub agree with this theory, or if the experts can disprove this rather quickly.
It's very unlikely that Holmes was the ripper. Most of the evidence for this theory is circumstantial evidence that has been created by conspiracy theorists who are desperate to tie the two cases together. The main connection between the two is that they were both active around the same time. However, Holmes' life has been thoroughly studied and there is no reliable evidence suggesting he was in London at the time of the Ripper murders. Another piece of evidence worth noting is that Holmes and the Ripper had very different Modus Operandi. Unless Holmes significantly changed his M.O. after returning to the US then he could not have been the Ripper. Basically, there is just very little evidence to support this theory. It is a pet theory cooked up by fans of conspiracy and coincidence in order to enhance the cult of personality surrounding Holmes by associating him with the near mythological status of Jack the Ripper. If you were to compile a list of the most likely suspects for Jack the Ripper based on historical evidence, Holmes is unlikely to make it into the top 10.
Who do historians believe is Jack the Ripper?
The major flaw with the HH Holmes theory is simple biology.
He had a daughter via his second wife Myrta Belknap on July 4, 1889. Nine months earlier gets you to October 1888 and there is no evidence Myrta traveled with him to England. Eddowes was killed 30 Sept 1888 and Mary Kelly was killed 9 Nov 1888.
The timeline would require HH Holmes to leave England in September 1888 and then return in in time to kill Mary Kelly. Never mind that it possible his daughter was conceived in September 1888...in the US.