Were Jack's crimes fuelled by Alcohol - Yes or No ?

[Sister Hyde]

I don't think the crimes were fuelled with alcohol, i think the murderer needed all his senses if he wanted to do all that properly.

[protohistorian]

He made have had a psychopathology that did not do well with alcohol, but I do not recall any fatal psychopathology's with a singular trigger of alcohol. Alcoholism is however, highly co morbid with potentially fatal psycho pathologies. Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

No. Drunk people make a noise when they walk. Scuff their boots on the ground, brush against walls, lamps, people. He would have been heard and not a silent killer. He wouldn't have the self control under the influence.

best wishes

Phil

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

If one presumes that Stride was a Ripper victim and that Schwartz was accurate when he described the intoxicated actions of BS Man in Berner Street, then it's highly possible that the killer was under the influence of alcohol, in the way of alcohol perhaps bringing out his extremely violent side.

However, if one goes with the other modern theory that I also subscribe to, that being that Stride was a Ripper victim but it was "Pipeman" who was actually the killer, then it's something different entirely. It's hard to judge the sobriety of somebody else but aside from Schwartz's statement, none of the major witnesses mentioned the man they saw as having the appearance of being drunk.

Personally I think Jack was running by the theory that if he stayed sober, then he would have an immediate advantage over potential victims who would almost certainly be drunk or had been drinking.

Cheers,
Adam.

[YankeeSergeant]

fueled by alcohol

I'm going to make an assumption (A dangerous thing I know) we are talking about Jack using alcohol. If so, I would say no. I believe however, that the intoxication of the victims may have helped him choose them.

[Sam Flynn]

I suggested a while back that a "lodging" Ripper might have been exploiting the drunkenness of others - specifically, those back at his lodgings who'd had a skinful on the night before a weeked or bank-holiday. Under such circumstances, potential witnesses were more likely to be zonked out than usual, and thus less inclined to notice Jack's absence or return. Even if they had, they'd perhaps have been less inclined to remember it.

[The Good Michael]

Most probably.

Mike

[brummie]

can't say for sure of course, but I think the way the crimes were carried out make it unlikely. He may have had a quick shot of dutch courage of course but the nature of the crimes and his escapes suggest he was in control of the situation which actual drunks never are.Also the placing of Mary Kellys bodyparts in piles on the table suggests a calm plan not normally associated with alcohol fueled behaviour.

[swagman]

Hi everyone out there..In an attempt to profile Jack's crimes and then match to possible suspects is it believed that the '5' canonical murders were the work of someone fuelled by alcohol ? Would the victims be more or less likely to trust/go with a stranger who had been drinking ? (or not bother along as they had the ability to pay).

Does the 'cleverness' of the crimes suggest it more likely that Jack was not under the influence of drink (or drugs for that matter) at the time ?

Finally, if Jack did have a history of drinking would he be able to commit these crimes without the aid of alcohol - is there any evidence from other/later serial killers to link to this ?

Sorry, lots of questions and no real answers from me on this one ...

Paul