Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[cobalt]

The car theory answers a fair few problems associated with the case. There is no taxi/bus evidence to show how Pat Docker made her way (almost) home. A car also provides a means for the killer to remove the majority of her clothing from the scene and dump some of it over the nearest bridge as he drove from the scene. The body was found on a steep incline where a car could have freewheeled down without the engine on, thus attracting little attention. And of course it would be safer to strip a body after death inside a vehicle then dump it, rather than sweat around in public to do the same.

But the available evidence points to Pat Docker being murdered at the scene. Her facial and head injuries indicate a fair degree of leverage, something difficult to inflict inside a car. Her shoes and a few other items were found near the scene, so why would a driver chuck out some and not the lot? Before chucking a few more items into the nearby river from a bridge then heading back home with a few selected trophies? Parking on a bridge to throw items into the river sounds a good way to be remembered by passing motorists in the early hours of the morning.

I suspect the police ballsed up the crime scene big time, failing to find blood spray or the like. Strangulation normally results in urine/faecal deposit. If they could not determine whether Pat Docker died at the scene or not they were probably seriously incompetent. Police divers did manage to retrieve a few items from the river, including the handbag interestingly which was not found in the other murders. (So much for the trophy theory.) But I suspect the clothes were dumped in the river as well and were simply not retrieved.

Why was Pat Docker stripped? Presumably as part of some notion that women should be exposed for what they are? I'll hand over the rest of that to FBI profilers, psychobabblers and frauds like David Wilson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One thing that constantly bugs me about this case….why was Patricia Docker naked? I keep getting the same niggling suggestion that the killer might have had a car at the time. Again, I would express anything like certainty though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the taxi fare problem may have come from a miscalculation on BJ's part. After all it was hardly in his interests to welch on the arrangement once Helen reached her destination.

Most passengers like Jeannie and Helen know the cost of a direct taxi home and I assume BJ would have had been able to estimate the fare direct to his home as well. However in my experience customers often underestimate how fast the meter will start to rack up once you start dropping individuals off at different locations, especially when a bit of back tracking takes place. It's not the first time I've seen the last 'drop off' rooting about to cover the fare, despite friends having contributed what seemed a fair amount when they got off. I think that is what happened here and that BJ was forced to ask Helen to chip in to help cover the fare which, due to his circuitous route, he had underestimated.

I think you’re more than likely right there Cobalt. If he was trying to impress (as he appeared to be) suddenly declaring that you have no money isn’t going to help. More likely an error on his part and he needed a bit of cash from Helen to make up the shortfall; which probably wouldn’t have impressed her. Maybe she told him what she thought about him on no uncertain terms.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve wondered if it could have been as simple as John picked up women regularly and saw them as little more than prostitutes - but not actually prostitutes. But the ones that refused him sex (due to their periods) he saw as rejecting him. This kind of attitude - “I’m better than these **** so they should be grateful for my attention…how dare they refuse me?” So they had to be punished. I think that some kind of twisted religiosity came into it to. Maybe.

[cobalt]

I think the taxi fare problem may have come from a miscalculation on BJ's part. After all it was hardly in his interests to welch on the arrangement once Helen reached her destination.

Most passengers like Jeannie and Helen know the cost of a direct taxi home and I assume BJ would have had been able to estimate the fare direct to his home as well. However in my experience customers often underestimate how fast the meter will start to rack up once you start dropping individuals off at different locations, especially when a bit of back tracking takes place. It's not the first time I've seen the last 'drop off' rooting about to cover the fare, despite friends having contributed what seemed a fair amount when they got off. I think that is what happened here and that BJ was forced to ask Helen to chip in to help cover the fare which, due to his circuitous route, he had underestimated.

The problem I have with this is the implication that women in the late sixties were very amenable to casual sex with strangers on a one night stand.
I am not sure that I buy that scenario.

I think that is my position as well, for all that I floated the opposing point of view yesterday. Younger writers often impose a concept of female liberation on to what they believe were the 'swinging sixties' whereas those of us around at the time know that there was precious little of that available in most of our lives. To take one example, women in full time work could still be denied Hire Purchase agreements on the basis that they were women and therefore a bad risk. They needed a father or husband to sign as a guarantor.

Was the killer of the view that it was full sex or nothing?
I just do not know!

It rather looks that way despite the obvious problems of being outdoors, in the Docker case during a frosty February night. BJ was no rapist leaping from the shadows upon a solitary woman on her way home, so it seems he was anticipating consensual sexual activity. Yet he must have known that even a woman willing to engage with him would at the very least have expected some degree of comfort- like a place to lie down- and some privacy. None of that was on offer in a row of garages or a tenement back court. The abandoned tenement where Jemima MacDonald was killed barely meets these basic needs either. So irrespective of the women all menstruating at the time and presumably declining sexual activity with BJ, it's hard to imagine they could have been seduced given the highly unromantic locations.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Apologies I am jumping around a bit but spotting more stuff on my third listen to the Podcast. In the Bonus episode, Jeannie (actress) clearly says there was only one ID parade. She clearly means a parade of several individuals and not just looking at a particular individual as she explains earlier. She states that it was in Partick and that she 'went up to this guy and just welled up' (tears were forming) she said 'He's the only one that fits the description' she then goes on to say that she thought that he would be the one that they 'dug up' (the exhumation) she seems surprised that he was eliminated and goes on to say that in the dark it was different to seeing him in the light.

I think she means in the ID parade or she must mean Barrowlands but I have been in a few nightclubs/Discos in the past and to be honest I wouldn't describe them as being light places. Perhaps that why its not seen as a positive ID. What I am saying is that the man fitted the description but the light in the ID room makes him look a little different. Is that what she is saying. Its a bit confusing

The important question is who was this man who she saw on the ID parade? Clearly Jeannie thought that his was the body being exhumed so she must have thought he was a strong possible. Cant recall if its addressed in the Podcast but must be some police documentation maybe.

Just an idea

NW

Hi NW, on Thursday nights the Barrowland was for ballroom dancing.
The jive and early disco dancing was for Friday and Saturday night.

The lights would be quite low on weekends, but on a Thursday night the lights would be quite bright.

I attach a photo of the Barrowlands in the 60's which shows this.

[New Waterloo]

Apologies I am jumping around a bit but spotting more stuff on my third listen to the Podcast. In the Bonus episode, Jeannie (actress) clearly says there was only one ID parade. She clearly means a parade of several individuals and not just looking at a particular individual as she explains earlier. She states that it was in Partick and that she 'went up to this guy and just welled up' (tears were forming) she said 'He's the only one that fits the description' she then goes on to say that she thought that he would be the one that they 'dug up' (the exhumation) she seems surprised that he was eliminated and goes on to say that in the dark it was different to seeing him in the light.

I think she means in the ID parade or she must mean Barrowlands but I have been in a few nightclubs/Discos in the past and to be honest I wouldn't describe them as being light places. Perhaps that why its not seen as a positive ID. What I am saying is that the man fitted the description but the light in the ID room makes him look a little different. Is that what she is saying. Its a bit confusing

The important question is who was this man who she saw on the ID parade? Clearly Jeannie thought that his was the body being exhumed so she must have thought he was a strong possible. Cant recall if its addressed in the Podcast but must be some police documentation maybe.

Just an idea

NW

[Darryl Kenyon]

Bible John may have been polite and said he would drop Helen off before himself, and he would pay for the taxi. Said taxi pulls up near [ i believe ] and not outside Helen's home, [ she doesn't want her husband to see another man in the cab ]. Bible John then uses the ruse that he has lost his wallet, thus Helen pays . He doesn't want her to pay anymore money than she already has so refuses any more cash for the rest of the fare [ if offered ] , and says he will get out with Helen and walk the rest of the way home [ another ruse ]. Perhaps Helen got annoyed at his , perceived lack of money and that was the cause of the words outside the cab. He may have used this ruse regularly, [ especially if he said he lived a distance away ], hoping, under false pretences and their good nature that the lady would invite him in for a coffee and the couch for the night and he can catch the bus home in the morning. " You can't walk all that distance in this weather " . When he finds out that Helen has a partner [ off the top my head I can't remember if the other girls were living with other partners or not ] , or just gets flat out refused , that's when his rage overtakes [ maybe chasing them ], and the poor girls get murdered.

Just a thought Darryl

[barnflatwyngarde]

I asked in a previous post who exactly who BJ thought he was. I'm now going to venture into territory I find uncomfortable but it may help shed some light.

I have always assumed that BJ's attacks were a response to being thwarted from sexual activity by women who were menstruating at the the time. There is some of sort of crude logic to support that theory from a male perspective. But what if the opposite was the case? That BJ's murderous rage was sparked by women prepared to have sex with him while they were still menstruating?

The Jemima MacDonald case is the strongest support for this. She, but not BJ, knew about the abandoned tenement a few blocks from her own apartment. She was quite relaxed in his company and even waved to a neighbour while speaking to him. She might not have wanted him in her flat but it's hard to think a big raw boned woman like her could have been easily forced into an abandoned tenement against her will. She may have gone there willingly.

The Helen Puttock case is more problematic. She had a husband waiting at home and she had directed the taxi to her address. It' s hard to see that BJ's chat up lines would have persuaded her to abandon all morality. Yet Ms Diddles has suggested she may have been open to some romantic overtures after BJ's taxi route became clear to Helen and her sister. It's hard to argue against the hard reality of that. So despite the taxi driver's evidence of a dispute, was Helen open to some sort of carnal activity a few doors down from her flat, activity that sparked the fury of BJ when he discovered she was menstruating?

I haven't wished to be prurient and hope I have not offended anyone, especially the family of the victims. I still think a key element is not the medical situation of the women but the fact they were all murdered so close to, but not inside, their homes. In serial killing this might be unique.

Hi cobalt, I think that you are probably right that the killer, was certainly angling for some form of sexual contact with all three women.

None of the women were raped, and any sexual element seems to have been limited to the removal of their sanitary towels, and in the case of Patricia Docker a tampon.
It is notable that Helen Puttock's bra was used to strangle her.

Logically it might appear that the killer's fury was triggered by the fact that as all three women were menstruating they were not willing to engage in intercourse.
But this would seem to imply that the killer had been in this situation before, and hade engaged in sexual intercourse with other women.
The problem I have with this is the implication that women in the late sixties were very amenable to casual sex with strangers on a one night stand.
I am not sure that I buy that scenario.

Was the killer of the view that it was full sex or nothing?
I just do not know!

The many complexities of this case are confusing and astonishing in equal measure.

But I think that we are all asking the right questions.

[New Waterloo]

Wait a minute. A thought has just smacked me in the face which really effects what I have just said. Why oh why would Helen or anybody have considered fumbling around or having sex with somebody they had just met at a night club when having their period. This thought really is significant because it appears that Helen maybe was uncomfortable with a personal encounter with her new found male friend. So why get a taxi with him. Doesn't add up unless the primary reason for her being with BJ was the free taxi ride home and not a later intimate encounter. Jeannie and Helen were not well off and getting home was important and costly.

When she left the taxi Jeannie must have been thinking Helen can defend herself if BJ comes on strong but couldn't have thought her sister was considering too much sexual activity because of the circumstances.

This may explain why Hannah the Taxi driver states later that Helen and BJ were 'having words' when left left the taxi. Maybe he suggested a kiss and cuddle. But I think we have to assume that any idea of anything too intimate was a non starter in Helens mind all that evening and she was making it clear.

BJ didnt realise this until they left the taxi and were walking in Earl Street. He becomes angry and agitated but manages to persuade Helen into the back yard for a 'good night kiss' but loses control.

The taxi ride was a free ride home in Jeannie and Helens eyes, maybe a good night kiss, nothing else.

And for BJ a free taxi ride home was the bait to lure his victims. Maybe this had happened before but ended in sex and not murder. Possibly it is BJs MO using a taxi ride or even a bus ride. Escorting a girl home. (These were times when this would have been seen as gentlemanly and kind) and that is presumably why the murders take place close to the victims home because that is at the end of the journey.

BJ then has to make his way back to where his car is parked or where he lives some distance away.

NW

[barnflatwyngarde]

Just listened to the Podcast again. In particular the Bonus Episode where Jeannie (an actor) talks of the taxi journey and Episode 5. I did believe that BJ uses the taxi to remove himself away from the area he lives or where he has left his car. But I am somewhat troubled by this.

According to the taxi driver he says that there is a discussion regarding BJ not having the money and that Helen finds some money in her purse for the fare. She gives this to BJ who according to the taxi driver then leans into the drivers window and pays the fare.

Leaning into the window seems reckless to the extreme. He could have said to Helen on leaving the taxi 'pay the man' and walked away. Leaning in himself gives the taxi driver a clear view of him (BJ). Very odd for someone planning to kill somebody. Surely he would have got out of the taxi and ensured his back was facing the cab not exposing his face too much. He was also by my calculation sitting one side of the cab (Helen in the middle I think) so the taxi driver would not have a clear view of him in his mirror.

I am going to listen again see if I have that right

NW

We know that Bible John was a noticably polite individual.
He pulled out chairs for Helen and Jeannie to sit on in the Barrowland.

I think it is safe to assume that when they got in the taxi, BJ held open the back door for the two women to get in.
Most cabs at that time were black Hackneys, with a long seat at the back, and two fold down seats facing the rear of the vehicle, so BJ was probably facing Helen and Jeannie, with his back to the driver.

So if Helen gave BJ the money to pay the taxi driver, he woul probably have to slightly adjust his position to pay the driver.
He wouldn't neceassarily be in a position where he was facing the driver.

Before they left the dance hall Helen told Jeannie that BJ was paying for the taxi, also in the Taxi BJ confirmed that he would pay for the taxi.

However the taxi driver, Alex Hannah, stated that Helen gave BJ the money to the taxi.

I think that we probably have to accept the evidence of Alex Hannah that BJ paid the fare with money supplied by Helen.
But this version of events raises the problem of why the killer twice said that he would pay the fare, and then didn't.

[New Waterloo]

Hi all. Cobalt raises a good point about the menstruating factor in these murders. I am inclined to believe that this could be a trigger for his behavior and could explain BJs relaxed attitude to concealing his identity when at the Barrowlands and in the taxi.

I mean lets be honest here. if BJ was planning to murder somebody he would hardly make himself so visible at the club (the disagreement at the cigarette machine) and then get a taxi. He was in the company of Jeannie and remember Castlemilk John. BJ would have not have known that Castlemilk would stay silent. He was there for everybody to see. In fact so many did see him that it beggars belief that even now we cant determine who BJ was. (I am of course talking of BJ being the person in the taxi and at the club with Helen)

Anyway yes agree with Cobalts suggestion that its at the point he becomes aware that the victim is menstruating that he turns and he becomes the awful person that he was.

NW

[cobalt]

I asked in a previous post who exactly who BJ thought he was. I'm now going to venture into territory I find uncomfortable but it may help shed some light.

I have always assumed that BJ's attacks were a response to being thwarted from sexual activity by women who were menstruating at the the time. There is some of sort of crude logic to support that theory from a male perspective. But what if the opposite was the case? That BJ's murderous rage was sparked by women prepared to have sex with him while they were still menstruating?

The Jemima MacDonald case is the strongest support for this. She, but not BJ, knew about the abandoned tenement a few blocks from her own apartment. She was quite relaxed in his company and even waved to a neighbour while speaking to him. She might not have wanted him in her flat but it's hard to think a big raw boned woman like her could have been easily forced into an abandoned tenement against her will. She may have gone there willingly.

The Helen Puttock case is more problematic. She had a husband waiting at home and she had directed the taxi to her address. It' s hard to see that BJ's chat up lines would have persuaded her to abandon all morality. Yet Ms Diddles has suggested she may have been open to some romantic overtures after BJ's taxi route became clear to Helen and her sister. It's hard to argue against the hard reality of that. So despite the taxi driver's evidence of a dispute, was Helen open to some sort of carnal activity a few doors down from her flat, activity that sparked the fury of BJ when he discovered she was menstruating?

I haven't wished to be prurient and hope I have not offended anyone, especially the family of the victims. I still think a key element is not the medical situation of the women but the fact they were all murdered so close to, but not inside, their homes. In serial killing this might be unique.

[cobalt]

Following up on the point made by NW about relative positions inside the taxi, do we know what the seating arrangements were inside the Barrowland Ballroom? Given Jeannie's quite detailed description I have always assumed that there were small tables at the edge of the dance floor where dancers could have a seat between dances. That would have allowed Jeannie to look across and observe both BJ and CJ.

But maybe I am wrong. A witness in the Jemima MacDonald case remembered seeing her sitting next to a man (similar to the later BJ description) on a settee inside the dancehall. Having to turn and look sideways at a person sat close is not ideal in getting a full picture I don't think, for you lose a bit of perspective. This would have certainly have been the situation inside the taxi as NW noted.

[New Waterloo]

Just listened to the Podcast again. In particular the Bonus Episode where Jeannie (an actor) talks of the taxi journey and Episode 5. I did believe that BJ uses the taxi to remove himself away from the area he lives or where he has left his car. But I am somewhat troubled by this.

According to the taxi driver he says that there is a discussion regarding BJ not having the money and that Helen finds some money in her purse for the fare. She gives this to BJ who according to the taxi driver then leans into the drivers window and pays the fare.

Leaning into the window seems reckless to the extreme. He could have said to Helen on leaving the taxi 'pay the man' and walked away. Leaning in himself gives the taxi driver a clear view of him (BJ). Very odd for someone planning to kill somebody. Surely he would have got out of the taxi and ensured his back was facing the cab not exposing his face too much. He was also by my calculation sitting one side of the cab (Helen in the middle I think) so the taxi driver would not have a clear view of him in his mirror.

I am going to listen again see if I have that right

NW