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

[Versa]

Keep in mind there are various stages of inebriation and being a little 'tipsy' or having a small 'buzz' is quite different than being falling down drunk.

Yes and also its worth remembering that some people can consume much more than others. I know people that can drink 7-8 pints and be quite functional.

One bloke I know had drunk 8 pints of cider and the police saw him leaving the pub and getting in his car, the breathalysed him and he passed... Different people react differently to alcohol the same as any other toxin.

Assuming that because a person has imbued large quantities of alcohol they would be incapable of the crime is wrong IMO. I previously sited Donald Neilson, I meant Dennis Nilsen.

[GregBaron]

Two pints will suffice...

Hi all,

Some serial killers use alcohol to build courage. Keep in mind there are various stages of inebriation and being a little 'tipsy' or having a small 'buzz' is quite different than being falling down drunk. Ted Bundy liked to drink a few beers to loosen inhibitions and embolden himself before he tracked his prey. I would guess this more the norm than the exception. In a merely tipsy state one's faculties are still largely intact and again, inhibitions are lowered and the 'nerve of a burglar' can be released.................


Greg

[PhoDelight]

His Crimes aren't fueled from Alcohol since alcohol makes people clumsy and being drunk can't have the same effects killing as a non drunk person.

[Versa]

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 ?

Without reading the whole thread I've voted YES. I don't believe the crimes were 'fuelled by alcohol' in the sense that alcohol made them do it, but I do believe JtR COULD of been drinking. Its a folly to believe that a 'drunk person' couldn't of committed the crimes. Donald Neilson for example admitted to having consumed a lot of alcohol before committing each murder and several other serial killers had been consuming alcohol before they committed their crimes.

Alcohol could of provided the stimulus or enhanced the confidence of the perpetrator. I can't say for certain either way but my gut instinct tells me that they had had a drink (how much I don't know). The victims chosen wouldn't of been in a position to turn away clients that had been drinking (in my opinion it would of been normal at that time of night for their clients to of been 2 sheets to the wind) and I doubt any one of the victims would of even noticed the smell of alcohol on their client.

As to the 'cleverness of the crimes' Im yet to be convinced that the crimes were clever in any extraordinary way..... Serial killers are STILL hard to catch because of the randomness of their victims not because they are particularly clever....

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 ?

In my opinion the tendency to commit the crime would be reduced if the habitual drinker was sober but not eliminated....

Donald Neilson is one killer who's crimes were committed after imbuing alcohol (but who's intent to kill was already there prior to the drink) that springs to mind without searching.

Apologies if all this has been covered already but its late and I didnt read the whole thread

[merlyn555]

Hi Merlyn,

I think the stalking happened on the same night, and I believe due to the relatively small area that he hunted in, and the number of down at heel prostitutes at that time, he would have found victims that fitted all three of his criteria, as long as he waited long enough. Which I believe he did.

It is too much of a coincedence that he happened to find his victims all at a weekend.

As far as the safe secluded spots he would have relied on the prostitutes themselves to have led him to those.

Also, other working men at the time would have by necessity had only gone out at weekends, so more prositutes would have been out soliciting.

So, to use your analogy, the parking lot would have been crowded at the weekend. Full enough to make a choice and wait until the parking lot emptied, in order for the prey to lead him to what they unfortunately believed was a "safe" spot.

Best wishes.

Very good points Hatchett but I think you are using too much 20th century thinking. Victorian London was not like it is today for the working man.

I have heard stories from my father about the days and hours his father worked which was around the turn of the century and they were quite surprising to me.

Employers worked their people as hard and as long as they could and if the employer complained they were replaced immediately. It was not unusual for a man to work a 12 hour shift every day of the week except Sunday when he worked only 8 hours.

The job my Grandfather held delivering for a brewery required that he work until his job was complete. He would be at the stables by about 0400 hrs to feed and groom the horses and then hitch up and load up for deliveries leaving as soon as he could. He was required to deliver two cart loads a day and if he wanted to get paid he had to do two carts a day which some days took him till midnight only to be back in the livery stable by 0400. This was considered a plum of job though for you could drink all the free beer you wanted and you had the whole day Sunday off. Well Grampa liked his beer and as my dad told it to me it was a good thing the horses knew the route and the way home or some nights he would not have made it.

Unless Jack held an upper scale job it is my opinion that he would spend too much time just maintaining his employment to spend the amount of time it takes to hunt for victims. Hunting takes time and patience(sic) waiting for the exact right victim, the right place and the right time. Mind you all three of these things would be easier to obtain on a weekend but did he have the time to put into it?

[Hatchett]

Hi Merlyn,

I think the stalking happened on the same night, and I believe due to the relatively small area that he hunted in, and the number of down at heel prostitutes at that time, he would have found victims that fitted all three of his criteria, as long as he waited long enough. Which I believe he did.

It is too much of a coincedence that he happened to find his victims all at a weekend.

As far as the safe secluded spots he would have relied on the prostitutes themselves to have led him to those.

Also, other working men at the time would have by necessity had only gone out at weekends, so more prositutes would have been out soliciting.

So, to use your analogy, the parking lot would have been crowded at the weekend. Full enough to make a choice and wait until the parking lot emptied, in order for the prey to lead him to what they unfortunately believed was a "safe" spot.

Best wishes.

[merlyn555]

Hi Merlyn,

I didnt necessarily mean that he binged drank at the weekends and got blotto before he committed the murders. I meant that perhaps there could be a possibility that it was only at the weekends that he had the were with all to afford to go out, ramble around inside and outside the pubs, observe, and select.

I agree with you that the urge to kill would have been more of an obsession than the need to get drunk.

Best wishes.

Hi Hatchett;

I see what you mean so you are of the opinion that Jack was an average working man who would have to budget his finances to afford the luxury of the stalking stage leading to the killing stage. Very interesting but I don't feel it is correct in Jack's case.

The serial killer spends a whole lot of time prowling and stalking his victims. In our day and age of the eight hour work day five day work week and everyone owns a car it is much easier for the average working man to be able to put in the time to find his victims.

In Jacks case I feel that all his victims met with a certain criteria:

1 The victim must be female and very drunk or incapacitated in such a way as to not be much of a physical threat or offer much resistance.

2. She must be in a location where there are few people around and the lighting is bad and there is easy access to a quiet area where they could have some privacy.

3. She must be willing to allow a stranger into close proximity.

Now Whitechapel had all sorts of females meeting number 1 and more than likely number 3 as well but finding a woman who meets both of these and number 2 at the same time would require some hunting.

We do not know how many nights Jack went out and came back home empty handed because he did not find a situation that met all of the criteria but I would be willing to bet that the numbers would be about 30 or 40 to one. No one is lucky enough to find the perfect situation every time they go out.

Think of it as looking for a parking spot in a busy city directly in front of the door of the place you are going . What are the chances of you driving up every time you wish to visit the place and finding that exact spot open and ready for you to park? The odds must be astronomical, well I feel it is the same for a serial killer hunting for a victim, it takes time and careful planning.

In Victorian London the average workingman with a regular job worked more than 10 or 12 hours each day and usually six and a half days a week if he had a good employer. This does not allow him much time to stalk or hunt for a victim unless the victims were all met during his normal working day.

In my estimation Jack would have to be an insomniac with amazing staying power and energy to be an average working man and have his fun. Or he had an income that allowed him freedom of movement and independence this is the direction I am leaning in.

Chris

[Hatchett]

Hi Merlyn,

I didnt necessarily mean that he binged drank at the weekends and got blotto before he committed the murders. I meant that perhaps there could be a possibility that it was only at the weekends that he had the were with all to afford to go out, ramble around inside and outside the pubs, observe, and select.

I agree with you that the urge to kill would have been more of an obsession than the need to get drunk.

Best wishes.

[merlyn555]

Hi Hatchett

What an interesting idea that I had never before considered. JtR as a weekend binge drinker........... that whole concept throws a wrench into my research LOL.

Seriously though there is a following in the States for the idea that serial killing is just another form of addiction.

Personally I don't subscribe to it for I believe that the serial killer exhibits too much free will and choice about when and where and who he kills. Drink may fuel the fantasy stage of the cycle but when it comes to the actual killing I think that the suspect has to be clear of head. Serial killers don't get away with it by chance it is all part of the complete package and just like the picking of the victim it is all done very carefully and with planing and that planing does not include being drunk or high to the point of slowing down the reactions or the reflexes.

Now that does not preclude a pint after the job LOL.

Chris

[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.

[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 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]

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,

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

Best wishes.

[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.