Another Piece of Evidence Linking John McInnes to the Bible John Murders

[barnflatwyngarde]

I took notes to but thanks to the mysteries of tech (or my own stupidity) some have disappeared. I’ll have another listen at some point.

Hi Herlock, I am listening to the Audrey Gillan BBC Bible John Podcast, taking notes this time!

Episode 2 "Patricia Docker" deals with the first murder, and between 5.40 - 6.40 minutes in, official notes taken by senior detectives at the time are read out.
The relevant quote is:

"A soiled Tampax sanitary towel was found near the body".

Audrey Gillan then goes on to say that:

"This tampon, perhaps pulled from Patricia's vagina will come to be seen as crucial evidence that links this murder to the two murders that follow."

While the police report says "Tampax sanitary towel" I think that it was probably a tampon they were referring to.

The reason that this was important, is that Patricia Docker's clothes were all missing, except for her shoes.
So it may well be that the killer had no idea that she was menstruating until she was naked.

One of the striking things that comes through various episodes of the podcast is the casual misogyny the police displayed towards the three victims.
So the police use of the term "sanitary towel" could just be a lazy generalisation of all women's sanitary products.

I am doing some research to find out if Tampax made sanitary towels in the 1960's.

This case takes you down some strange roads.

[New Waterloo]

Yes barnflat another good point re the clothes being removed and yes these are somewhat strange roads. I am 64 years old and seem to recall that sanitary towels years ago were somewhat bulky. I think someone mentioned this earlier. I think the suggestion is that whilst dancing close to each other it may have been possible to detect (trying to make sure I am not offending anyone) whether a person was using a sanItary towel. Now if I am talking nonsense or offending I apologise but I think its something that needs exploring. I think the suggestion is that if Patricia was using a tampon this would be undetectable and would mean that she was not singled out earlier in the club because she was menstruating. It does leave the really outside chance that the man worked in a chemist shop and saw the victims earlier (in the same shop) purchasing sanitary items but that would seem really far fetched I guess, although he mentions working in a lab but not sure really if there is anything in that.

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, I am listening to the Audrey Gillan BBC Bible John Podcast, taking notes this time!

Episode 2 "Patricia Docker" deals with the first murder, and between 5.40 - 6.40 minutes in, official notes taken by senior detectives at the time are read out.
The relevant quote is:

"A soiled Tampax sanitary towel was found near the body".

Audrey Gillan then goes on to say that:

"This tampon, perhaps pulled from Patricia's vagina will come to be seen as crucial evidence that links this murder to the two murders that follow."

While the police report says "Tampax sanitary towel" I think that it was probably a tampon they were referring to.

The reason that this was important, is that Patricia Docker's clothes were all missing, except for her shoes.
So it may well be that the killer had no idea that she was menstruating until she was naked.

One of the striking things that comes through various episodes of the podcast is the casual misogyny the police displayed towards the three victims.
So the police use of the term "sanitary towel" could just be a lazy generalisation of all women's sanitary products.

I am doing some research to find out if Tampax made sanitary towels in the 1960's.

This case takes you down some strange roads.

Hi Barn,

Her handbag was found later in the river but the lack of clothing is interesting. Why did the killer take them? Souvenirs I assume? But Jemima MacDonald was fully clothed and Helen Puttock was partially clothed. Strange.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi Barn,

Her handbag was found later in the river but the lack of clothing is interesting. Why did the killer take them? Souvenirs I assume? But Jemima MacDonald was fully clothed and Helen Puttock was partially clothed. Strange.

Re the clothing being taken away.

It was a cold February and Patricia Docker was wearing a duffle coat.
This is a substantial item of clothing for the killer to be carrying under his arm, and he also took away all her other items of clothing.

Langside, where the body was found is a densely populated area of Glasgow and a busy neighbourhood, even in the early hours.

Why take the risk of being seen carrying bulky items of women's clothing through the streets of Glasgow?

[cobalt]

Regarding the man Templeton being nicknamed 'Bible John' at work: I worked in Fife and later Edinburgh in the 1970s and two of my colleagues, tradesmen, earned this unfortunate moniker by dint of their first name. Both were law abiding and reliable workers, so the term was probably quite widely employed across Scotland as part of some rough humour.

Then again, a policeman nicknamed 'The Rapist' at work was convicted of rape and murder a couple of years back. And Peter Sutcliffe was sometimes jokingly referred to as 'The Ripper' due to the number of times he was questioned by detectives at his transport depot in Yorkshire.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Re the clothing being taken away.

It was a cold February and Patricia Docker was wearing a duffle coat.
This is a substantial item of clothing for the killer to be carrying under his arm, and he also took away all her other items of clothing.

Langside, where the body was found is a densely populated area of Glasgow and a busy neighbourhood, even in the early hours.

Why take the risk of being seen carrying bulky items of women's clothing through the streets of Glasgow?

Exactly. Did the killer have transport?

[New Waterloo]

I always find this removing all of the clothes the strangest of things. Didn't the Ipswich chap Stephen Wright leave his victims naked. Also there was an unsolved murder in Norwich of a young prostitute called Natalie Pearman, still unsolved. As far as I recall she was found naked and I think she was strangled. It would be early 1990 sort of time.

The reason I mention this is to ask is there any research into why offenders do this. Yes I know its suggested as trophyism, or something like that. I just don't understand as I would think it adds some time to the event. Perhaps if the clothing is difficult to remove and the murderer fears being caught he stops halfway or doesn't bother.

Then as Herlock says perhaps a vehicle would be needed and as barnflat says would be very risky carrying items around busy streets.

We can actually use our knowledge and known evidence regarding JTR to apply in this case. He removes items, lifts skirts etc but (well apart from Kates apron) leaves clothes in situ. I would suggest for that very reason. To risky carrying them.

There must be some research or suggestions regarding leaving victims naked. Something about the type of person who would do this.

NW