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

[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

[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.

[The Good Michael]

Most probably.

Mike

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[AP Criminologist]

Over half of all homicides in the UK involve alcohol or drugs in some way, and that figure is far higher for other cases of violence, such as those involving GBH, ABH, domestic violence etc...Based on this it is possible to argue that Jack was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the murders. However, we are talking about a serial killer here, and not some drunken bar fight resulting in an unfortunate young male hitting his head on a curb and dying as a result of the injuries, which subscribes to a majority of the aforementioned. With regard to serial killers, it is not unheard of for them to drink prior to committing their murders, or even being alcoholics. Although it should be noted that serial killers usually have some other deep-rooted motive or psychotic desire to kill, which can better account for their actions, than that of alcoholic consumption. If Jack was indeed intoxicated at the time of the murders, this is unlikely to have been the core reasoning/fuel for his actions, rather a 'luke-warm' catalyst at best in my opinion.
Having stated my disregard for alcohol being the fluid which unleashed the murderous beast within Jack the Ripper, I do believe that Jack is quite likely to have been drinking not long before the murders however (perhaps not excessively, but none the less still with alcohol in his system). This is based on the fact that drinking was such a common pass-time in Whitechapel in 1888, and many of the murders occurred at times in the evening or night when pubs were closing, or at their peak times of business. In addition to this, several of the murders are reported to have occurred only metres away from a pub. Lastly, a number of Jack's victims are reported to have been intoxicated themselves not long before being murdered, which suggests that if Jack had been in their company whilst they were drinking, he too may have been drinking. All of these points give strength to the argument that Jack may well have been drinking prior to committing his murders.
To answer your second question, prostitutes both now and in 1888, are and were in dire need of income support, to such extremities that even though they admit to being in great fear of their safety (and even their lives) at times, they will/would most often have sex with a client regardless of their state or appearance. Levels of poverty were far worse in 1888 Whitechapel than they are today, and I believe that there was little that would deter a prostitute from sleeping with a client (i.e. if the client was drunk) when money was at stake.
My comments above have pretty much indirectly answered your last two questions, although I will say in conclusion that Jack the Ripper was unlikely to have been 'fuelled' by alcohol, even though it is likely that he had been drinking not long before committing his murders. If Jack was indeed intoxicated at the time of the murders, it is again unlikely that this would have deterred his victims from accompanying with him. The 'cleverness' of the murders could encapsulate an entire book's worth of discussion in itself. Although based on the evidence of previous serial killers, I once again doubt that the influence of alcohol would have prevented Jack from carrying out these acts, as it was some other motive of internal desire driving him to commit them, which were unlikely to have been sedated by the effects of alcohol. But was Jack the Ripper a raving alcoholic, or a T total man? We will probably never know!

[DVV]

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.

Tu n'imagines pas le nombre de serial killers alcoolisés.... Dahmer et tant d'autres.
Moi, par contre, j'écoute les Pogues quand je suis empégué.

[Natalie Severn]

Fairy Tales in New York David?

[DVV]

Oh, that one is splendid ! Have you seen the clip ?

[Natalie Severn]

Yes--isn"t it just!

[DVV]

Ah, Norma, you promised me Broadway was waiting for me....!