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

[Steven_Rex]

Has anyone considered that the Ripper might have affected the guise of a drunken punter in order to encourage his victims' trust? I imagine that if he appeared as something of a drunken sot who was merely seeking what I'm sure the majority of men staggering around Whitechapel straight from the pubs were seeking, they would have been that much more trusting. Once he'd accompanied them to a suitably hidden area and gotten into position, he could have shed the 'harmless drunk' act and taken them completely unawares.

[Hatchett]

Hi all,

I do not believe that the Ripper murders were alcohol fuelled.

The killer and mutilator of 5 ( or 4 or 6 or 7 ) women could have been an alcholic or he could have just been a moderate or occasionaly drinker, but I dont think it would have made any difference.

Human beings adapt very quickly to the circumstances they are in, both inside and out, physically, mentally, and environmentally.

Take the case of an alcoholic writer. He or she believes that they can only write when they have a drink. Yet he or she were writers before they became alcoholics.

What is forgotten is that alcoholics cannot function at all without a drink.

If the writer was to go into rehab then they would return to being a writer who doesnt need a drink to write.

The same as an ex alcohlic can return to normal functioning without alcohol.

So, I believe that whether Jack was an alcoholic, or a drunk it would have made no difference.

His mind was messed up and his complusion to fullfill his fantasies would have still driven him.

Best wishes.

[Bridewell]

I think he was a drinker, but by no means drunk when committing his offences. All the victims either were, or gave the impression of being, alcoholic, and several, by their actions, clearly saw their next drink as a higher priority than a bed for the night. It seems to me quite likely that one of the attractions the Ripper might have held for his victims, could have been the possession of alcohol. The sort of individual who could stoop to committing such offences might have a treasured hip flask from which his victims took a swig before he dispatched them. Just hypothesis though, nothing more.

[Abby Normal]

no
his crimes were fuelled by the desire to mutilate and kill
alcohol facilitated his victims

[Barnaby]

I don't think his crimes were "fueled by" alcohol. Nonetheless, statistics indicate that alcohol is a contributer to many murders. Moreover, alcoholism is high in persons with both antisocial personality disorder and paranoid schizophrenia. Add to this the fact that Whitechapel was a hard-drinking area, and I believe it is more likely than not that Jack was intoxicated during the murders. But this does not mean that alcohol was the primary reason for the murders.

[kerrypn]

I think that alcohol may have been a facilitator rather than determiner-I think JTR probably fantasised about these crimes whilst sober but only when under some influence-not necessarily drunk-of alcohol was he able to shake off the morality that governs his otherwise typical behaviour. So I think JTR was immoral, not amoral, and alcohol was probably the substance hwich allowed him to break from his own morality and social restrictions. I also think it very likely he did frequent some of the public houses in the area, but not necessarily as a "stand out" drunk, possibly only had 2 or 3 drinks, I do not think a heavily intoxicated person would have had the poise, co ordination or mental agility to carry out these attacks.

[Canopy]

I would say "no" to any influence. We've all been drunk at some point in life, we pay for it for a few days and then we vow "never again"!!! This person continued to make drunken/other influenced mistakes over quite some time (not that any of us (I hope!!!! ) go out and murder under the influence!) I frankly think his mind-set pure evil! I would also agree with kerrypn's point: "I do not think a heavily intoxicated person would have had the poise, co ordination or mental agility to carry out these attacks."...Neither do I. I think him one "screwed-up" individual that planned not who or where but certainly how! This person wasn't drunk and neither was he taking anything else in excess to allow him an excuse for his actions in my mind...if he had any excuse at all I would support something mental - a condition that didn't allow him to view the world in the same way as the majority. Certainly he had enough wits about him to kill and remain uncaught, not (in my mind) anyone under the influence of anything.

As a reason for my thinking I will say that I've worked with people that have "mental issues" in the past (though I don't like that title) for 4 years. SOME can be very aggressive as their mind does not work in the same manner as the majority, however, IF they become aggressive they have their wits about them...they can hurt you and will have no remorse if they do. I think Jack, if he was under the influence of anything, was under the influence of his mind's own demons and not anything that would affect him physically. Nothing hampered his ability to go cut people up!

That would be my guess.
All the best,

C.

[JtRMordke]

Yeah - I would agree that alcohol played a part in the murders to an extent, but in my opinion could certainly not be blamed for it. Mentioned before, alcohol does tend to make mental illnesses, and highlighted especially, paranoid schizophrenia a lot worse. Therefore the likelihood that Jack's consumption of alcohol helped to fuel the murders is very high.

[Canopy]

MAYBE he drank (who knows?) but I would suggest attacks were not fuelled by alcohol but rather some mental illness that kept Jack alert and ready/able to flee/escape the police. Also, taking the possibility that Jack was a hardened alcoholic that could hold down a job and appear "normal", I doubt anybody able to cope with drink to that degree (and with a will to kill!) would go and select a public place (many times!) to do it. Their 'semi-alert' brain would surely scream "danger!"???

My thinking anyway,
All the best,

C.

[merlyn555]

Alcohol as a Contributing factor

If one considers Jack to be a Serial Killer (which he certainly was) then substance abuse should be taken into account.

The substance whether alcohol or drugs is not the fuel that drives the killing it drives the fantasy part of the cycle and allows the subject a temporary release from the inner pressures he feels and helps him create his fantasy world that makes him feel secure.

Almost all serial killers studied in the United States since the early 50's have admitted excussive use of substances in fact there is a theory somewhere that serial killing is another form of addictive behavior because it is driven by inner feelings and emotions and is not generally controllable for the subject.

Was Jack inebriated while committing the murders? It's possible.

Was he under the influence of an intoxicating substance at the time? Almost certainly.

Would he be aware of what he was doing? Again this is positive for one of the strange things about serial killers is that they have freewill and when they kill it is because they decide to kill.

There are three things we know about serial killers that are sheer fact in nature.

1. They know what they are doing.

2. They know it is wrong and have absolutely no guilt.

3. They consciously and with great make every effort to avoid capture to continue what they like to do.

4. Every single one of them is different, there is no "average serial killer" and no set rules to decide who will be and who will not be a serial killer.

When it comes to the case of Jack being an alcoholic I have to say absolutely with great conviction that alcohol played a great role in his life at the time.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

You seem very certain about that merlyn 555. A very interesting post. Thanks.

Best wishes.

[merlyn555]

Alcohol Abuse

Thank you Hachett, yes I am very certain.

I have been lucky (cough) enough to have spent 30 years of my life dealing with all sorts of criminals, receiving training in criminal psychology and deviant behaviour and being fortunate enough to step out of the class room at the end of the day and into a situation where I was shoulder to shoulder with everything from pick pockets to serial killers and see what i was just taught in real life.

I can honestly say that every one I came into contact with who had killed more than one person had a substance abuse problem of one sort or another. I would even go so far as to say that most career criminals I met also had addiction problems, it seems to be part of the culture and lifestyle. Within the network of the criminal element it is fully acceptable and the behavior that comes with it is also tolerated.

And just for the record substance abuse does not stop when they enter prison. Drugs are as easy to get inside as they are on the outside. Alcohol? well anyone with a couple of oranges and a loaf of bread can and will make "brew" and drink it with relish every chance they get. I have wrestled enough drunk inmates into seclusion to verify that an alcoholic in prison with find a way to get "tanked".

Chris

[Hatchett]

Hi Merlyn,

I do find your posts interesting. But something that I think has to be considered is perhaps the difference in time and in country. No doubt serial killers are reflective of their time as well as their location. I am not too sure that criminals in general in England are either alcoholics or drug abusers in our history.

Also exceptions have to be considered before proving the rule. Christie would appear to be to one. A serial killer of women. A man who certainly wasnt an alcoholic and certainly did not take drugs.

So, much as your view might be right on the experiance you have had, time and location could be an adjusting factor.

Certainly Christie (and no doubt others) would appear to signify that.

Best wishes.

[merlyn555]

Hi Merlyn,

I do find your posts interesting. But something that I think has to be considered is perhaps the difference in time and in country. No doubt serial killers are reflective of their time as well as their location. I am not too sure that criminals in general in England are either alcoholics or drug abusers in our history.

Also exceptions have to be considered before proving the rule. Christie would appear to be to one. A serial killer of women. A man who certainly wasnt an alcoholic and certainly did not take drugs.

So, much as your view might be right on the experiance you have had, time and location could be an adjusting factor.

Certainly Christie (and no doubt others) would appear to signify that.

Best wishes.

Thank you for your comments Hatchett and you make a very good point, Christie is an excellent example.

There is no such thing as your average serial killer, each one is a unique individual and driven by a unique set of emotional factors.

I do think that Victorian London though did offer the kind of surroundings that breed the addictive personality. I mean when you can go to a bar at 0730 Hrs to get a drink and people are also just leaving bars at 0230Hrs then the availability is there and if the bars are open that is because they are being used.

I can not say for certain that JtR indulged in intoxicants but the research shows it is a very good posibility and experience also tells me it is more than likely to be true.

[Hatchett]

Hi Merlyn,

I quite agree that it is a possibility. But I wonder whether the murders were conducted at weekends because the killer did not indulge for reasons of financial nesessity during the week.

Another possibility.

Best wishes.