SERIAL KILLER: H. H. Holmes Pt. 2

After faking his best friend's death for an insurance payout, H. H. Holmes spun an elaborate web of lies. But as Holmes's stories unraveled, the true scope of his betrayal revealed a man who saw everyone around him as expendable. Even the people who loved him most. If you’re new here, don’t forget to follow Serial Killers & Murderous Minds to never miss a case! For ad-free listening and early access to episodes, subscribe to Crime House+ on Apple Podcasts. Serial Killers & Murderous Minds is a Crime House Original Podcast, powered by PAVE Studios 🎧 Need More to Binge? Listen to other Crime House Originals Clues, Crimes Of…, Murder True Crime Stories, Crime House 24/7, and more wherever you get your podcasts! Follow me on Social Instagram: @Crimehouse https://www.instagram.com/crimehouse/ TikTok: @Crimehouse https://www.tiktok.com/@crimehouse Facebook: @crimehousestudios https://www.facebook.com/crimehousestudios YouTube: @crimehousestudios https://www.youtube.com/@crimehousestudios

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Vanessa Richardson?

  Hi, everyone. Before today's episode, there's another show I want to tell you about. It's called What the Fact with Connor Tomlinson from Netflix's Love on the Spectrum and Carter Roy. Every week, they take three unbelievable true facts from history and tell you the full story behind them. Plus, Connor's infectious energy that'll make you realize history is the most fascinating thing on earth. Follow What the Fact wherever you listen, or subscribe on YouTube at What the Fact Pod.

• 0:36Speaker 01

  This is Crime House.

• 0:41Vanessa Richardson?

  Most of us are taught to make something honest of ourselves, but some people don't get the message, and instead, they decide to try and cheat their way through life. In the late 1800s, H.H. Holmes was one of those people. Whether he was robbing graves or stealing horses, he was willing to do just about anything to get ahead and make a little extra money while he was at it.

• 1:07Vanessa Richardson?

  And that spelled disaster for Benjamin Pitzl, Holmes' best friend and partner in crime. As a side note, many people have pronounced his last name as either Pitzl or Patezl, but for this episode, we'll keep it as Pitzl. Because while plenty of Holmes' crimes were white-collar schemes, there was also a far more sinister, violent side to him. And if lying didn't get him what he wanted, he was ready to take more drastic and deadly measures.

• 1:49Vanessa Richardson?

  The human mind is powerful. It shapes how we think, feel, love, and hate. But sometimes, it drives people to commit the unthinkable. This is Serial Killers and Murderous Minds, a Crime House original. I'm Vanessa Richardson.

• 2:04Tristin Engels?

  And I'm forensic psychologist Dr. Tristin Engels. Every Monday and Thursday, we uncover the darkest minds in history, analyzing what makes a killer.

• 2:14Vanessa Richardson?

  Crime House is made possible by you. Follow Serial Killers and Murderous Minds and subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts for ad-free, early access to each two-part series. Before we get started, be advised, this episode contains descriptions of murder and suicide. Please listen with care. Today, we conclude our deep dive into the dark and twisted tale of H.H. Holmes, one of the most notorious serial killers in history. Holmes was a doctor and insurance scammer who left behind a trail of violence everywhere he went. But it wasn't until his closest friend went missing that the mystery surrounding him started to unravel.

• 2:57Tristin Engels?

  As Vanessa goes through the story, I'll be talking about things like the manipulation tactics some offenders use, how investigators discern fact from fiction, and the psychological fallout of horrifying realizations.

• 3:11Vanessa Richardson?

  And, as always, we'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? It was September 1894, and Benjamin Peitzel and H.H. Holmes had just pulled off their greatest insurance fraud scheme yet. They'd successfully faked Benjamin's death and collected the $10,000 insurance payout, worth about $360,000 today. Holmes told Benjamin's wife, Carrie, that they'd used a body double in place of Benjamin. He promised that her husband wasn't really dead, he was just in hiding.

• 3:51Vanessa Richardson?

  But Carrie needed to do exactly as Holmes said, otherwise Benjamin could be caught. If the authorities realized he was alive, he could get thrown in jail, and the Peitzel family would be torn apart. Holmes told Carrie that when the time was right, he'd take her to meet Benjamin, where he was hiding out. But for some reason, Holmes also insisted that some of Carrie's children travel with him instead of her. One of her daughters was already with him. 14-year-old Alice had come along to Philadelphia with Holmes to identify Benjamin's body. But Holmes convinced Carrie to send two more of her children. So now, Holmes was in charge of three of the Peitzel children: Alice, as well as 12-year-old

• 4:34Vanessa Richardson?

  Nellie, and 8-year-old Howard. Meanwhile, Carrie kept her baby and her eldest daughter with her back in St. Louis.

• 4:43Tristin Engels?

  So remember, Fidelity Insurance Company paid out the policy to Holmes because he was acting on behalf of Carrie, the legitimate claimant. And part of why that worked was because he used Benjamin's daughter Alice to identify the body. So having Benjamin's kids with him likely is practical and also about appearances. There might be some kind of expectation that if he was acting on behalf of the family, that he'd be caring for the family in the aftermath as well. I mean, having the children with him makes the situation look more legitimate and more consistent with his story. Holmes has come under suspicion before, and he subsequently refined his methods in an attempt to avoid that. It's also consistent with his need to maintain leverage and control over Carrie,

• 5:28Tristin Engels?

  which is where we left off in episode one. He needs Carrie to stay compliant and quiet, or everything he's doing can fall apart. He now has access to her children, the most important thing to her, and that can influence how anyone would respond. This is very calculating, manipulative, deceptive, and it's instrumental behavior.

• 5:48Vanessa Richardson?

  How do you think he was able to convince Carrie to hand over her children to him?

• 5:53Tristin Engels?

  To understand that, we have to really walk through what led her to that point, through Carrie's experience. So imagine you're Carrie. You're a mother of five. You're managing on your own while your husband is away, already under financial and likely emotional strain. Then you're told that your husband has died in a very tragic and horrific way. Shock can affect someone in a number of ways, emotionally and physically, and it can really narrow your thinking. But then, just as you're starting to process the loss, just as you're telling your children about that loss and trying to prepare for what your life is going to become without your husband permanently there, you're shocked all over again because you're told that he's not in fact dead, that this was all part of a plan. Then you're given

• 6:38Tristin Engels?

  money, you're promised a better life, and you're told that you'll see him again, quote, "when it's safe, but only if you cooperate." That's incredibly disorienting. It's emotional whiplash. She went from shocked... To grief and then to relief, but all combined with confusion. And now increasing dependence on Holmes, who is controlling all the information and, at that point, her financial stability as well. And there are other pressures, too. She's still managing five children alone, without any emotional or physical help from her husband, who the children now believe more than likely is alive, and who probably also want to see him for themselves.

• 7:22Tristin Engels?

  So if Holmes is saying that he's close to their father and he's promising to reunite them, that can be persuasive, not just for Carrie, but for their children, who recently thought that they'd never see him again, but now suddenly can. So from the outside, it might seem like an obvious risk. But from her position, she's making decisions within a reality that's very complex. There's a lot of pressure and urgency there. And that, coupled with these rapid-fire emotions, can really narrow thinking drastically, especially when you want to believe in hope and just want that sense of relief.

• 7:59Vanessa Richardson?

  Well, Holmes' behavior only got more bizarre from there. Once he was in possession of the three children, he took them to Cincinnati. He was also joined by his wife, Georgiana, who was actually his third wife, who he'd married while still being married to his first two wives. When Georgiana got to Cincinnati, she had no idea her husband was also harboring the Pitzel children. He kept them all in separate lodgings and made sure they never crossed paths. But before Carrie could join them, Holmes decided to pick up and move on. He told Carrie that Benjamin was actually in Indianapolis and to meet him and the kids there. From Indianapolis, they went to Detroit and then Toronto.

• 8:42Vanessa Richardson?

  Each time, Holmes claimed that Benjamin was just one city away. Holmes was playing a complicated game, but he had to keep going because he'd gotten word that he was a wanted man. The man on Holmes' tail was an insurance investigator named W. E. Gary. He worked for Fidelity Mutual, which was the company that had paid out Benjamin's life insurance policy. The company had already moved on from the case, but Gary couldn't quite shake the feeling that something was off. So he took a second look. Holmes' story was that Benjamin was an inventor and he died in an accidental explosion. And while the elements of a lab accident were all there, it was too neat and tidy.

• 9:27Vanessa Richardson?

  To Gary, it just felt staged. He had a sinking feeling that there was a lot more to the story.

• 9:34Tristin Engels?

  Experienced investigators are good at noticing patterns. They've seen enough cases to recognize what's typical and what isn't. So when something feels off, that instinct can kick in. Oftentimes, it's warranted, but it's also common for some to confuse intuition with bias. Intuition is often grounded in experience, even if the person can't immediately articulate why, but it still needs to be tested. You can't prove anything on intuition alone. You need evidence. Bias, on the other hand, is when expectations start shaping how information is interpreted. When someone's investigating through a biased lens, they start looking for information that supports their suspicion while discounting any information that doesn't.

• 10:19Tristin Engels?

  That's where it can become difficult for individuals looking in a biased lens to let go of their hunch. A valid instinct leads to testing and verifying the evidence. Bias leads to selective interpretation. Thankfully, though, this investigator has good intuition, it would seem.

• 10:38Vanessa Richardson?

  Gary knew something was wrong. However, his company had already made its decision. Unless Gary had conclusive evidence, it was best to let things lie and not upset an already traumatized widow. But then, something did come up. Gary was in St. Louis, working another case, when someone told him about a letter that had been intercepted from the train robber, Marion Hedgepath.

• 11:02Vanessa Richardson?

  Hedgepath, aka The Handsome Bandit, was serving a 25-year sentence when H.H. Holmes ended up in prison with him. Holmes had told Hedgepath all about his insurance fraud scheme and cut him into it in exchange for an introduction to a lawyer. Hedgepath had held up his end of the bargain, but Holmes had yet to make good on his. To get back at him, Hedgepath was willing to tell anyone who would listen that Benjamin Peitzel's death was a hoax, but not in the way Gary believed. Hedgepath had learned that Holmes wouldn't let Carrie Peitzel identify the body used to get the insurance payout. And in his mind, that was because it was actually Benjamin.

• 11:45Vanessa Richardson?

  He figured that if Carrie saw her husband in the morgue, Holmes would go down for murder and insurance fraud. That's why he kept her away. But Hedgepath wasn't exactly reliable. He was always trying to find ways to reduce his sentence. So it's possible he made up the story to try to get some leniency. But Gary quickly ruled that out. Hedgepath knew enough specifics to prove he had real information. So Gary brought the new information back to his bosses.

• 12:16Tristin Engels?

  Let's talk about trust and reliability, because they're not the same, but they are both important. Trust is a decision or a judgment that's often influenced by belief, perception, or experience, and in some cases, emotion. Reliability is about consistency and accuracy, and it's something we often measure over time. In psychology, when we're evaluating whether an assessment instrument is reliable, we administer it more than once to see if it produces consistent results over time. In forensic settings, when I interview a defendant, if they have inconsistent reporting styles or they're telling me information that's not consistent with their documented history,

• 13:00Tristin Engels?

  then they're not a reliable historian, and I have to rely on collateral information more so than their self-report. In people, it's about their pattern of behavior. In Hedgepath's case, his pattern has not been reliable. But in criminal or forensic settings, someone can be unreliable in general, but still provide accurate, specific information in a particular instance, especially if they have access that others don't. In Gary's case, there are a few things that may be happening at once. And one is that Hedgepath had specific insider-level details, which increases credibility. He was his cellmate at one point. That suggests he did have documented proximity to Holmes

• 13:45Tristin Engels?

  and to information, even if the source himself isn't necessarily trustworthy. At the same time, Gary already had a suspicion that something wasn't right. So there is the possibility of confirmation bias as well, being more receptive to information that aligns with what Gary already believes. Hedgepath having a score to settle doesn't make his account more credible, at least to me. Because in my experience, when I worked in corrections, individuals would say all kinds of things to me to cause trouble to someone else on the yard or in the institution because they wanted to settle a score. And most of the time, that information was false. It was being done out of vengeful behavior.

• 14:27Vanessa Richardson?

  What could possibly be some potential risks of Gary bringing this information to his bosses?

• 14:33Tristin Engels?

  There's certainly some professional risk. His superiors have already made a decision to move on. So bringing this back up, especially without concrete evidence, can be seen as challenging that authority. That can affect his credibility, his relationships at work, and how seriously he's taking moving forward. But if they reopen the case and it turns out he's wrong, it can damage his reputation and the company's reputation. It would also reinforce the idea that he's acting on a hunch rather than any concrete evidence. And if they reopened it prematurely, it could escalate the situation or affect future investigations as well. But at the same time, there's a competing risk in not bringing it forward also. He has information.

• 15:18Tristin Engels?

  And if that information was true and he sat on that, that could be considered negligence on his part. It can feel like a lose-lose situation. But really, there's a lot to gain from coming forward with this than there is to lose, at least from my perspective.

• 15:35Vanessa Richardson?

  Well fortunately for Gary, Hedgepath's statement was enough to reopen the case. Even better, in late 1894, Gary got the go-ahead to hire some Pinkerton detectives to find Holmes. The Pinkertons had originally specialized in protecting trains and apprehending train robbers, and by this point, were a wide-ranging detective agency. If anyone could find Holmes, it was them. The Pinkerton detectives started their search at Holmes's building in Chicago that simultaneously served as a retail space, apartments, and lodgings. There were plenty of people associated with the building who were upset with him for skipping town, especially because he left a trail of unpaid bills in his wake.

• 16:18Vanessa Richardson?

  Eventually, the Pinkerton's investigation led them to a financial agent named Frank Blackman. He told them that Holmes had asked him to forward his mail. It was tricky, since Holmes was always on the move. Blackman didn't want to end up in jail himself for obstructing an investigation, so he handed the letters over to the detectives. At first, Holmes always seemed to be one step ahead of the detectives, but they finally caught up to him in Boston in November 1894. The Pinkerton detectives joined forces with the Boston Police Force. Together, they had the resources to catch H.H. Holmes once and for all. But they knew they had to act fast, because he wouldn't stay in one place for long.

• 17:02Vanessa Richardson?

  Once the authorities made their move, they had to be sure it worked, because for the moment, the police back in Philadelphia had only issued a warrant against Holmes for fraudulently identifying a body, and the Boston PD Deputy Superintendent Orin M. Hanscom didn't think that was a strong enough case for a successful prosecution. At the same time, Hanscom seemed to realize that Holmes was capable of all kinds of wrongdoing, and if he dug deep enough, maybe he'd uncover something else.

• 17:33Tristin Engels?

  This is another example of pattern recognition. Investigators are starting to see that Holmes isn't just acting randomly. There's a consistent pattern to how he operates. He appears skilled at anticipating how others will respond, which is something that we talked about. He stays mobile, he leaves when pressure builds, and at a minimum repeatedly engages in deception that's related to financial gain. And as they gather more information, like unpaid debts, prior insurance schemes, maybe even the fire in Chicago, they're starting to see consistency across different situations over a number of years. There's also a cross-jurisdictional factor there, too.

• 18:13Tristin Engels?

  When someone moves as frequently as Holmes does, different pieces of information weren't previously pieced together. Now they're being connected and they're being seen in a bigger picture. And for experienced investigators, that's enough of an accumulation of patterns to keep an investigation moving forward. It's the multiple patterns that don't quite add up or resolve that can signal sophistication in an offender that warrants further exploration.

• 18:44Vanessa Richardson?

  In this case, Hanscom's efforts paid off. He looked into Holmes a little more and found out he had ties back in Fort Worth, Texas. Hanscom wired the sheriff down there to see if he could dig up anything on Holmes. Pretty soon, he learned that Holmes was wanted for, quote, "larceny of one horse." That was a much more concrete accusation, so Hanscom gave the go-ahead. It was time to make their move. His officers could arrest Holmes on the charge of stealing a horse. But they'd soon discover that H.H. Holmes had committed crimes far more horrific than they had ever imagined.

• 19:26Speaker 03

  Did you know penicillin, the drug that has saved more lives than any other in history, was discovered because a scientist forgot to clean a Petri dish before going on vacation? I'm Connor Tomlinson and history is my thing, has been my whole life.

• 19:42Speaker 01

  And I'm Carter Roy and this is What the Fact, the history lesson you actually wished you had in high school with everything they cut for being too interesting, put back in.

• 19:52Speaker 03

  Every week, we take the wildest true things that ever happened and tell you the whole story behind them.

• 19:58Speaker 01

  I bring the history.

• 19:59Speaker 03

  I bring the facts, the tangents, and the occasional British accent.

• 20:04Speaker 01

  The wildest stuff is real.

• 20:06Speaker 03

  And the real stuff is wilder than you think. New episodes every Wednesday. Follow What the Fact on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or subscribe on YouTube at What the Fact Pod.

• 20:22Speaker 04

  Why have so many crop circles appeared around Britain? How did thousands of people demonstrate powers of telepathy? Can the dead suck the life from the living? Join me, Tim Harford, for a trip into the paranormal throughout Halloween month on Cautionary Tales. Listen to Cautionary Tales on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 20:52Vanessa Richardson?

  In 1894, the authorities were closing in on H.H. Holmes, although for once, he didn't know it yet. On November 17th of that year, four days after Holmes arrived in Boston, he went out for a walk through the city. Three Boston PD inspectors and one Pinkerton detective fell into step with him. They told him they wanted to have a little chat down at the station about his horse theft in Texas. Holmes' first reaction was to act surprised. Then he tried to talk his way out of it. But when he realized that they weren't budging, he immediately flipped. He told detectives he knew they weren't really interested in the horse theft and that he knew they were on to him for a murder charge in Chicago.

• 21:37Vanessa Richardson?

  If any of the detectives were caught off guard by that, they didn't show it. They actually weren't arresting him on suspicion of murder, and certainly not one in Chicago. Even so, Holmes knew he was in big trouble. At that moment, his biggest fear was getting sent back to Texas, where they didn't take too kindly to horse thieves. Insurance fraud would get him a couple of years, but horse theft in Texas could be closer to 15. So Holmes decided to play ball. He immediately confessed, right then and there, he had faked Benjamin Peitzel's death in order to defraud Fidelity Mutual. They could take him back to Philadelphia to stand trial.

• 22:19Tristin Engels?

  So let's talk about his reaction, because it might seem shocking that he almost incriminated himself here. But if you really break it down, this reaction fits his profile. Not only did he try to act composed initially and surprised, but he also tried to act like he was one step ahead of the investigators, too, even though he wasn't. He was trying to regain control in the moment by attempting to anticipate what it was that they were there for him for. And he was so wrong, he ended up leaking information. As we've been outlining, he's consistently done that. He's consistently tried to anticipate and predict what others will do before they do it, so that he can be steps ahead of them.

• 23:01Tristin Engels?

  And then he offers a version of events that works in his favor. In this case, he confesses to insurance fraud, which still acknowledges wrongdoing. But he only does this because it carries significantly less risk than the horse larceny charges do. So from a psychological standpoint, this looks...

• 23:20Tristin Engels?

  Like a strategic disclosure, he's providing controlled information but on his terms. And this too also fits his broader pattern. When he conceives an opportunity, he does. When pressure builds, he leaves, but here he can't leave, so he adapts. The confession becomes a tool. It's a way to redirect the situation toward a more manageable outcome while maintaining some control over how the story is being told. He's able to leave going to Texas by going to Philadelphia instead, at least in his mind.

• 23:54Vanessa Richardson?

  The authorities definitely weren't prepared to get such an easy confession out of Holmes, so they questioned him further as a way to get all the details down on the record. Holmes basically told them what the outlaw Marion Hedgepath had already said. Holmes and Benjamin had come up with a scheme to fake Benjamin's death with a decoy body, then collect a life insurance payout. Holmes claimed he found the body to use in New York from a doctor friend who he refused to name. He'd then given Benjamin instructions about how to stage the corpse to make it look like an accident. He even joked that Benjamin had done a pretty bad job at it. Throughout his whole story, he was adamant about one thing.

• 24:35Vanessa Richardson?

  Benjamin Peitzel was still very much alive, and he claimed that Benjamin and three of his children, Alice, Nellie, and Howard, were all hiding out in South America. However, that wasn't what he'd told Benjamin's wife, Carrie. Holmes had sent her on a wild goose chase all over the country, insisting her husband was always just one more city away, hiding out until the steam cooled down while he helped keep Alice, Nellie, and Howard safe. Holmes told the authorities that Carrie had absolutely no role in any of this, but he also gave them the address of where she was staying in Burlington, Vermont. And the police, who believed that Carrie was some sort of accomplice, headed straight

• 25:19Vanessa Richardson?

  for her. When the Burlington police knocked on Carrie's door, she was caught completely off guard. Even when they asked her to come down to the station, she didn't think that she was in any trouble, but when they started questioning her, she realized they thought she was involved in a life insurance scheme. Under questioning, Carrie made her own confession. Perhaps for the first time, she considered that her husband was probably dead.

• 25:47Tristin Engels?

  This has to be a very frightening experience. Carrie wasn't operating with a clear, consistent reality. She was given a lot of inconsistent information, a lot of emotionally charged information, and she was put on a wild goose chase. Coming to terms with the reality that her husband was, in fact, likely dead in the end, after first believing he was dead, then believing him to be alive, has to be so extremely destabilizing and confusing, given all that she's been through and all that she's currently going through. She may start reevaluating all prior decisions, all her conversations, and all the moments, trying to make sense of how she even got here. That can sometimes lead to guilt or self-doubt, even if she was operating on the information

• 26:32Tristin Engels?

  she was given at the time, even if she was trusting the information she was given at the time. But at the same time, she's processing this under pressure. She's being questioned by authorities, she's responsible for multiple children, and she's just been confronted with the possibility that she's been deceived in a very significant way. So, moving forward, we'd expect to see a mix of grief, confusion, anger, and a loss of trust in her own ability to interpret her own judgment or what's happening around her. This is just so very cruel.

• 27:05Vanessa Richardson?

  Now Carrie's focus shifted to the well-being of her three children, who she'd entrusted to Holmes. She willingly told the detectives everything she knew, whatever it took to bring her kids back home to her safely. So Carrie explained that she'd known about the insurance fraud plot, but there was nothing she could do to stop it. Once Benjamin and Holmes had an idea, they were off to the races. She swore up and down that she wasn't an accomplice. Holmes was a puppet master who'd sent her on a wild goose chase. Her biggest transgression was simply trusting him. The Burlington Police believed her, but ultimately, it was up to the Philadelphia authorities to decide what to do with her.

• 27:47Vanessa Richardson?

  So they arrested her and sent her back to Philly, where she would cross paths once again with H.H. Holmes. Like Carrie, Holmes was shipped back to Philadelphia. For the time being, the authorities didn't have any evidence of murder, just conspiracy to defraud. But the Boston police warned Holmes that unless he produced Benjamin alive and fast, the murder charges weren't far off. And pretty soon, Holmes changed his tune. The real truth, according to Holmes, was that he'd come up with the whole insurance fraud plot a year earlier. But when the day finally came for them to pull off the scheme, Holmes went to check on Benjamin and found him drunk and despondent.

• 28:31Vanessa Richardson?

  Holmes wasn't too shocked by this. Benjamin had a history of abusing alcohol. But this time was different. Holmes said that Benjamin was going on about feeling like he should drink himself to death.

• 28:44Vanessa Richardson?

  According to Holmes, he brushed the interaction off. He'd seen Benjamin drunk before. Hopefully, his friend would sleep it off. But when Holmes returned the next morning, he found a suicide note. And then, he found Benjamin's body. This was the real crux of Holmes' story. He said that at that moment, he made a decision. Rather than call the police, he fixed the scene. He opened the windows to let the chloroform smell out. He destroyed the suicide note. And then, he arranged the body in the way it was eventually found. He broke the bottle, lit the pipe, and set all of the other props and clues in place to make it look like an accident.

• 29:26Vanessa Richardson?

  Holmes said he did this because insurance companies didn't cover suicides. It had to be an accident for Holmes to collect on a life insurance policy that he'd been paying premiums on for the better part of a year. The police took in Holmes' new confession. It was possible he really was telling the truth now.

• 29:46Tristin Engels?

  So Holmes is changing up his story a lot, and it's going to be difficult for investigators to discern what part of this is truth and what part of it is not, or if all of it is not true. The first thing they need to do is to determine if any of this can be independently verified with the physical evidence of the scene. So they would be looking at things like the condition and the position of the body, the scene itself, and whether those details are consistent with what he's describing. And does it make sense medically and physically? Or is he strategically providing details that can't be independently verified, like a suicide letter that just so happens to have been destroyed? Or are the details that led up to this all coincidentally things

• 30:31Tristin Engels?

  that cannot be corroborated by anyone or anything other than Holmes himself? As a forensic psychologist, when we are trying to determine the reliability of someone's story, we do something similar. We look at consistency in their story. Does it stay stable? Or does it shift based on pressure or other external incentives? We compare their self-report with their collateral information for accuracy. And if what they tell us doesn't line up with that, it raises concerns. We also look at their level of detail. People who are recounting something they actually experienced tend to include more natural, specific details, whereas accounts that are constructed or rehearsed sometimes sound overly controlled or vague or strategically detailed

• 31:16Tristin Engels?

  in certain areas, but not in others. We can tell by their episodic recall. We also pay attention to how the story is told, like whether it sounds overly rehearsed or whether they are using impression management. Incentives are a powerful motivator, and those are often present in criminal investigations or in forensic fields. And Holmes has a lot to gain if this version of events is to be believed.

• 31:43Vanessa Richardson?

  Do you think Holmes' story is too perfect? And if he's lying, what would that level of dishonesty suggest about his psyche or personality?

• 31:53Tristin Engels?

  So I think we've covered extensively, or at least I've tried to highlight, how Holmes's pattern is to think a step ahead. He's constantly anticipating what other people might suspect, and then he's adjusting his behavior or his, you know, plans accordingly. So I think it's reasonable to consider that he may have anticipated this very moment, where he would have to explain himself, and he prepared for it. In that context, a highly organized, well-rehearsed explanation would be the only kind of preparation he had in a situation that he can't escape. But even when a story is detailed, it doesn't mean it's complete. And that's where investigators would likely start to look at what isn't being explained in this moment. So for example,

• 32:37Tristin Engels?

  his account can address what might have happened in that room, but does it account for what happened since his death? Like, why he took the money? Or perhaps, more glaringly obvious, in my opinion, why he wanted Carrie and Benjamin's children in the first place? Where they are now? Who's responsible for them? Who's taking care of them? Those aspects aren't fitting perfectly into this narrative. So that's an example of how a detailed story isn't always necessarily complete.

• 33:14Vanessa Richardson?

  It may have been impossible for investigators to figure out whether Holmes was telling the truth. If it weren't for a new detective in the room, a man named Frank Geyer. Geyer was a seasoned, no-nonsense investigator. Unlike many of his fellow officers at the time, he relied less on brute force and more on intellect to solve his cases. He was extremely precise and willing to take the extra steps that not everyone else was. And now Detective Geyer had a burning question he had to ask. He stood up a little straighter, looked Holmes dead in the eyes, and asked, "Then Holmes, if that is Pytzel's body, where are the children?" As detectives set out to answer that question,

• 33:59Vanessa Richardson?

  they realized they'd never fully comprehend the true horror of H.H. Holmes.

• 34:16Speaker 05

  Going up? BetMGM is. Odds flash. Live alerts that help you lock in premium odds. Bet defense. Take your stake back in cash if your player goes down with a first quarter injury. And cash out. Where bettors can settle a wager before the game even ends. With BetMGM, you're not just betting.

• 34:41Speaker 05

  You're betting on another level. Look out for exclusive bonuses and great odds on this week's Thursday night games. Download the BetMGM app now.

• 34:50Speaker 06

  Gambling problem? Call 1-800-MYRESSET. See betmgm.com for terms. 21+ only. Virginia only.

• 34:59Speaker 07

  The government gets a bad reputation, but did you know that the roads under your feet, the forecast on your phone, the letter in your mailbox, that's all government too? I'm Professor Lindsay Cormack and I'm hosting a new podcast called Government That Doesn't Suck alongside Professor Greg Jackson, who you may know from the hit podcast History That Doesn't Suck. Each episode, we dig into the surprising story of an American institution, from the origins of the internet, to the National Park Service, to the GI Bill, and so much more. You'll hear the stories behind them, plus a conversation with an expert who knows it inside and out. This is the real history of how we built the country under your feet, and you'll never look at any of it the same way again.

• 35:40Speaker 07

  Listen to and follow Government That Doesn't Suck, available now wherever you get your podcasts.

• 35:50Vanessa Richardson?

  In December 1894, H.H. Holmes claimed that Benjamin Pitzl had killed himself and that Holmes had made it look like an accident. But that contradicted his earlier claim that Benjamin was hiding out in South America with three of his kids. Detective Frank Geier was on to him. He pressed Holmes for more information. Now Holmes told the detective that the kids were actually in London, England, with a friend named Minnie Williams. She was Holmes' mistress, who was swindled out of her land, then supposedly sailed off to London with her sister, and was never heard from again. Apparently, she had the kids. Guyer didn't believe it for a second,

• 36:33Vanessa Richardson?

  and easily confirmed that the address was fake, and so was Holmes' story. But without any solid leads, Guyer knew that locating the missing children would be like finding a needle in a haystack. And the longer he searched without success, the harder it got to ignore the inevitable: that the three Peitzel kids may have met the same fate as their father. Every day that went by meant it was less likely they'd find the kids alive. But Detective Guyer wasn't ready to give up. He was gonna chase down every last lead he possibly could. Guyer was spurred on by Carrie Peitzel, who desperately wanted to see her children again. After a short stint in jail for her possible role in all of this,

• 37:18Vanessa Richardson?

  the authorities had decided to release her without officially pressing charges. After her release, she gave a statement to the Philadelphia Inquirer saying that Holmes was a, quote, "smooth-tongued scoundrel" who could make her believe just about anything. But she knew now that he was a liar and a cheat. She just wanted him to give her children back. Guyer wanted to give her the happy reunion she was still so hopeful for, so he got to work. He remembered a box that Holmes' wife, Georgiana, had surrendered back in December 1894, six months earlier. It had trinkets and letters from Holmes' personal effects. At the time, the authorities didn't think the box held anything of significance,

• 38:03Vanessa Richardson?

  but now, Guyer decided to take a second look. It was the break he'd been waiting for. In the box, Guyer found keys to multiple rental houses. He also found letters that Alice and Nellie Peitzel had written to their mother, which Holmes had kept instead of mailing. To Guyer, it seemed like Holmes had been pretending that the children were still alive.

• 38:27Tristin Engels?

  So these letters could be circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial evidence is often misunderstood. Most criminal cases are built on circumstantial evidence, and that's a fact that a lot of people don't realize. In a case like this, each item on its own might seem insignificant, but when those pieces start to connect, they form a pattern. Again, patterns. And I cannot emphasize enough how central pattern recognition is in criminology or crime scene investigation. So for example, finding letters that were never sent could suggest that Holmes has control over the children's communication with their mother. That can lead investigators to ask, why would he want to do that if he was truly helping her? Keys to multiple properties suggest he has access and movement.

• 39:12Tristin Engels?

  Why so many? Why does he move around so frequently? When you combine all of this with what's already known, it can help investigators reconstruct not just what might have happened, but how it could have happened. It also allows them to test different explanations, like, does Holmes's version of events account for all of these details? Or does it leave gaps? And that becomes especially important when a confession is inconsistent or it lacks a clear motive. Investigators have to generally rely on what the evidence supports. So in terms of building a case, circumstantial evidence can help create a story that a jury can follow. And that's important because they need to show

• 39:54Tristin Engels?

  a sequence of events that makes sense when it's viewed together. And ultimately, that's the goal. You want to show that when all the pieces are put together, they lead to a consistent and reasonable conclusion that can be proved in court.

• 40:08Vanessa Richardson?

  Why do you think he was controlling their communication with their mother?

• 40:12Tristin Engels?

  I think this likely served at least two functions that I can tell on the surface. First, it's about control over information. The children are writing to their mother, but those letters are never sent. So Carrie is being kept in a very specific version of reality, and Holmes is managing what she knows and when she knows it. He can't fully control what the children might say in those letters, and that information could challenge the Story he's trying to maintain with her. So instead, he controls whether that information ever reaches her. But then why let the children write those letters to begin with? That's the second layer, the children themselves. They're in a vulnerable position. They're separated from their parents with someone they don't even know,

• 40:55Tristin Engels?

  and they likely are confused and highly distressed by that. Having them write letters may have served to soothe them and Holmes, at least temporarily. It gives them a sense of connection and reassurance, even if he had no plans on sending those letters. And that has a behavioral function as well. If the children feel calmer, more connected, more reassured, they're going to remain calm and compliant in a situation where they might otherwise be terrified or resistant. And let's be honest, that was likely more for Holmes, not for those children. He wanted them to be compliant. He wanted them to be calm. Having calm and compliant children means he has control over them.

• 41:39Vanessa Richardson?

  No one had followed up on the letters, but Geyer wouldn't let a single stone go unturned. He needed to gather as much concrete evidence as he could. So on June 26th, 1895, Geyer headed out to Cincinnati, tracking the kids down using the letters and keys. He showed pictures of Holmes and the kids to everyone he came across, and a few people recognized them. But the kids weren't anywhere to be found there. So he moved on, heading off to Chicago next. There, Geyer checked out Holmes' old building, but ultimately just hit another dead end. So he headed off to Detroit, then to Toronto. In Canada, Geyer got desperate and switched up his tactics and asked for help from the press.

• 42:24Vanessa Richardson?

  He told them he was looking for a home that was occupied around late October, then was suddenly vacant. Once again, nothing turned up. Geyer was on the verge of giving up and going home, resigning himself to the fact that he would have to face Carrie Pitzel without any answers. But then, a man named Thomas Reeves reached out. Reeves told Geyer that he remembered Holmes renting the house next door to him. He'd even loaned the man a shovel once. In July 1895, Geyer and a local detective went to check out the house. A new family currently live there, but when Geyer explained what he was looking for, they immediately pointed to their cellar. They said a foul odor had come from there ever since they moved into the place.

• 43:08Vanessa Richardson?

  No matter what they did, they couldn't get rid of it.

• 43:13Vanessa Richardson?

  Geyer entered the cellar through a trapdoor in the kitchen. It only took a few minutes before he and the other detective found a spot in the floor that felt softer than the rest. That's where they started digging. Geyer later recalled that the horrible stench got worse as they dug farther. Until finally, about three feet deep, they discovered what appeared to be a human bone. Geyer was certain he'd found the bodies of the two Pitzel girls, Alice and Nellie. Their bodies were badly decomposed, but from what the coroner could deduce, the girls had been either poisoned or smothered. Carrie Pitzel arrived in Toronto as soon as she could.

• 43:55Vanessa Richardson?

  When she got to the morgue, she confirmed what everyone had suspected. The bodies belonged to her two daughters. There was just one final piece of the puzzle. What had happened to the Pitzels' youngest son, Howard? About a month later, Detective Geyer tracked him down to another rental home, this one just outside of Indianapolis. Sadly, like his sisters, Howard had been killed. The murderer had hidden the body by placing it in a chimney. When Holmes heard the news that the detectives had found the missing children, he reportedly said, "Well, I guess they'll hang me for this."

• 44:33Tristin Engels?

  What he says here sounds like resignation, but it's not the same as a full confession. A true confession typically includes a clear acknowledgement of what happened, how it happened, and their role in it. What Holmes offers instead is more of an acknowledgement of consequence. He seems to recognize what's coming, but he's not actually filling in the gaps or fully accounting for his actions for those consequences. And when you compare this to his earlier confession, it once again comes down to timing and options. Earlier, when he confessed to the insurance scheme, he still had some room to maneuver, because that confession functioned as a strategy. He maneuvered his way out of a more severe consequence

• 45:17Tristin Engels?

  in Texas for larceny of a horse and towards something he believed would be more manageable in Philadelphia. He was actively trying to shape the outcome. Here, the situation is much more constrained. The evidence has caught up to him. The children have been found and their identities were confirmed, and there's not much maneuvering that's left for him. So instead of trying to steer the outcome, I think what we're seeing is more of a reaction to that outcome. He's acknowledging where this is likely heading, but at the same time, he's still not providing a full account of how it got there. And that is actually important, because in both situations, he's revealing only what serves him in that moment.

• 45:59Vanessa Richardson?

  Thinking back to Holmes's childhood experiences and remember his fascination with death, do you think it's possible that his recklessness as a criminal might have stemmed from a lack of fear of his own death? Or maybe he's just accepted his fate at this point?

• 46:15Tristin Engels?

  So those earlier experiences that we talked about, being bullied and forced to confront something frightening like skeletons and then later working with human remains in settings that were normalized, but also legally and ethically questionable, may have changed how he responded emotionally to death over time. I don't think that necessarily means that he doesn't fear his own death, but it can reduce the sense that death is something that's distant or untouchable to him. So where What becomes, I think, more relevant for him is his level of comfort with it. Because he can easily plan around death, he can stage it, he can talk about it, he can act upon it and incorporate it into his behavior without the level of internal resistance

• 46:59Tristin Engels?

  that people with a conscience would experience. But at the same time, when you look at his overall pattern, he doesn't behave like someone who is indifferent to consequences. He spends a lot of time anticipating them. He plans for them and he tries to avoid them at all costs. So it's less likely, I think, that he has a complete lack of fear and more likely that his emotional response in general and to death may be muted or diminished or limited in some way.

• 47:29Vanessa Richardson?

  Well, sure enough, in October 1895, just three months after Geyer found Alice and Nellie Peitzel, Holmes went on trial for the murder of Benjamin Peitzel. He wasn't charged with the death of the three Peitzel children, but that didn't stop the public from realizing H.H. Holmes was a monster. Not to mention the fact that all the newspapers covering this case had also realized how many people had mysteriously disappeared around him. It seemed obvious to the world that Holmes was responsible for many, many more unsolved murders. By the time he stood trial for Benjamin's death, it seemed inevitable. He was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging.

• 48:13Tristin Engels?

  So he was sentenced to death by hanging, and he said himself, "I guess they'll hang me for this." And this is just another example that H.H. Holmes anticipated that this would be the outcome when he was discovered for killing these children.

• 48:29Vanessa Richardson?

  Following his conviction, Holmes confessed to 27 murders, including the three Peitzel children, Alice, Nellie, and Howard, as well as six attempted murders. Later, those numbers would swell to somewhere around 200, but that number has been reported as being wildly inflated. It was all part of the H.H. Holmes lore. Holmes' execution day came on May 7, 1896, and he had one final wish. In a rather full-circle moment, Holmes requested that his coffin be filled with concrete before his body was placed inside, then buried 10 feet underground.

• 49:09Vanessa Richardson?

  He was concerned grave robbers would steal his body and use it for dissection. That wish was granted.

• 49:19Tristin Engels?

  All right, so psychologically, what he just requested is not uncommon, not the specifics, the request itself, but it is enraging because essentially, this is a value request. He's placing a higher value on his body than he ever did on his own victims. But that's consistent with what we know about him. Throughout his behavior, Holmes would treat people in a very instrumental way. It was based on what they would provide or how they can be used rather than as individuals with inherent worth. That extended to how he treats them after death and how he treats their bodies as well. But he doesn't apply that same standard to himself.

• 50:00Tristin Engels?

  Even after death, there's an interest in maintaining control, dignity, or protection of his own body. That's very consistent with H.H. Holmes.

• 50:09Vanessa Richardson?

  How is Holmes' selfishness reflected in his friendship and ultimate horrible betrayal and murder of Benjamin Peitzel?

• 50:16Tristin Engels?

  One of the clearest ways his selfishness has shown up across his entire life is how he appears to define his relationships. I mean, like we discussed, rather than being based on mutual trust or connection, his relationships were organized around utility. It was always about what the other person can provide and how they benefit him. In Benjamin's case specifically, he played a very specific role. He was involved in the scheme, he provided access, and he helped move things forward. But then, when they've reached the point where it's time to set it in motion, I think Holmes realizes that he has to share the gains, he has to share the risk. That's likely when the friendship no longer seems useful to him.

• 50:59Tristin Engels?

  And instead of adapting the relationship, he adapted the plan and he discarded Benjamin. That pattern extended beyond Benjamin. Benjamin's children appeared to serve a different but instrumental purpose. They helped to keep Carrie compliant. As long as Holmes had access to her children, he maintained influence over her decisions and her willingness to trust him. But at the same time, having her children involved risk. They required constant care. They likely drew attention every time they traveled. They also likely asked questions, spoke to other people, or behaved in ways that brought unwanted attention to him, especially in unfamiliar environments, where people are more likely to notice that something is off. And once the balance shifted from their usefulness to risk,

• 51:42Tristin Engels?

  they also likely became liabilities. And he more likely than not believed he could manage Carrie on his own at that point. He'd been withholding their communications from her, and nothing came of that. So my guess is, he tested the silence first, and it was successful. And so he knew he could discard the children at that point. And that's what makes this pattern so concerning. It's not just betrayal. It's a consistent way of relating to others, where his self-interest has always been the priority. And I think Benjamin was never going to see the payout of this scheme. He was always part of the plan.

• 52:20Vanessa Richardson?

  The stories of H.H. Holmes and Benjamin Peitzel are forever intertwined. To understand one, you have to understand the other. But in the end, we're left with more questions than answers. Why did Holmes turn on Benjamin? Did they fight? Did Benjamin try to walk away? The motives for the murder are unclear. And the motives are even murkier for why Holmes had to involve the Peitzel children. With both main players gone, the truth will always remain a mystery. But we must remember that the salacious story of H.H. Holmes is often exaggerated and sensationalized for papers back then and for clicks now. And the lore around him has overshadowed his victims' stories.

• 53:05Vanessa Richardson?

  But Benjamin Peitzel was a father, a husband, a son. And while he had his own sins, he didn't deserve to be relegated to a footnote in H.H. Holmes' story.

• 53:32Vanessa Richardson?

  Thanks so much for listening. Join us next time for a deep dive into the mind of another murderer.

• 53:39Tristin Engels?

  Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is a Crime House original powered by Pave Studios. Here at Crime House, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you heard today, reach out on Instagram at @CrimeHouse. Don't forget to rate, review, and follow Serial Killers and Murderous Minds wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly makes a difference.

• 54:02Vanessa Richardson?

  And to enhance your listening experience, subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts. You'll get every episode of Serial Killers and Murderous Minds ad-free, along with early access to each thrilling two-part series. Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is hosted by me, Vanessa Richardson, and forensic psychologist Dr. Tristin Engels, and is a Crime House original powered by Pave Studios. This episode was brought to life by the Serial Killers and Murderous Minds team: Max Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benedon, Lori Marinelli, Natalie Pritzowski, Alyssa Fox, Sarah Batchelor, and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening.

• 54:52Vanessa Richardson?

  Happy Halloween, Crime House listeners. I'm Vanessa Richardson. Did you know horror films like Abigail and Sinister were based on true stories? Join me every Sunday this month on Crime House 24/7 for Crime House of Horrors, where I dive into four stories behind some of our favorite scary movies. From Abigail, The Autopsy of Jane Doe, Sinister, and The Taking of Deborah Logan, you'll find one thing in common: the truth is scarier than fiction. Listen every Sunday on Crime House 24/7, or join Crime House Plus for all four right now, ad-free. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or at crimehouseplus.com.

• 55:37Vanessa Richardson?

  If you're looking for your next podcast, check out What the Fact with Connor Tomlinson from Netflix's Love on the Spectrum and Carter Roy. Every week, they take three unbelievable true facts from history and tell you the full story behind them. Follow What the Fact wherever you listen or subscribe on YouTube at What the Fact Pod.