Bible John (General Discussion)

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Mitchell Library is reference only, apart from a lending library in the building.
I've got the Paul Harrison book, which is quite good and pretty detailed, although with his record of inventing things, readers need to be careful.

I’ve been looking for a copy of the Harrison book for sale but I can’t find one anywhere. If you see one for sale Barn let me know please. Unless it’s some barking mad price of course.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I’ve been looking for a copy of the Harrison book for sale but I can’t find one anywhere. If you see one for sale Barn let me know please. Unless it’s some barking mad price of course.

The Harrison book is available to "borrow" from the Internet Archive. (link attached)

It's just a matter of signing up and borrowing the book.
I don't really use it all that much, and I've never borrowed any books from it, but it seems quite straightforward.

https://archive.org/details/dancingwithdevil0000harr/mode/2up

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Harrison book is available to "borrow" from the Internet Archive. (link attached)

It's just a matter of signing up and borrowing the book.
I don't really use it all that much, and I've never borrowed any books from it, but it seems quite straightforward.

https://archive.org/details/dancingw...0harr/mode/2up

Cheers Barn

[Ms Diddles]

The Mitchell Library is reference only, apart from a lending library in the building.
I've got the Paul Harrison book, which is quite good and pretty detailed, although with his record of inventing things, readers need to be careful.

I must admit I'd kind of written off anything authored by Harrison as I thought his credibility is shot.

Have I been throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, Barn?

[barnflatwyngarde]

I must admit I'd kind of written off anything authored by Harrison as I thought his credibility is shot.

Have I been throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, Barn?

No, I don't think you have Ms D.

There are lots of "facts" in the Harrison book, the problem is of course that we don't know how much we can rely on these "facts".
No references are given for statements made in the book, and his bibliography runs to nine newspapers and thirty one books.

All we can do in this case is to read everything, look for convergences, and try and spot assertions that are made without proof.

I am hoping that with Stoddart's book, his legal background will have compelled him to provide sources for all his assertions.
But why do I feel nervous about this?

[Ms Diddles]

No, I don't think you have Ms D.

There are lots of "facts" in the Harrison book, the problem is of course that we don't know how much we can rely on these "facts".
No references are given for statements made in the book, and his bibliography runs to nine newspapers and thirty one books.

All we can do in this case is to read everything, look for convergences, and try and spot assertions that are made without proof.

I am hoping that with Stoddart's book, his legal background will have compelled him to provide sources for all his assertions.
But why do I feel nervous about this?

It's certainly worth a shot.

Here's hoping it yields something of interest.

If not, hopefully you'll have a nice time in a beautiful building reminiscing about the days when you worked there.

The cafe used to be pretty decent too.

I guess the Harrison book is of general interest, but I'm going to be pretty sceptical if any "facts" presented in there!

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is one of the biggest issues with this case. Over the years so many things have been simply ‘stated’ without any back up given and without any assessment of the sources. You hear ‘x was seen drinking in the pub at y’ but you don’t get to know who saw x and how sure were they or did anyone else see x. Obviously we need to see the police files.

[Ms Diddles]

I've just spent a rainy, hungover Sunday afternoon snuggled up with the cats re-listening to some of the BJ podcasts.

I just listened to the last three where the possible conspiracy is discussed at length.

I was surprised to recall the strength of argument made for the idea that BJ never existed and the murders were committed by two or three different men.

Barn, Herlock Sholmes, cobalt, New Waterloo, what do you all think of this theory?

My instinct is that whilst not impossible, there are too many similarities, and plain odd factors in common for this to be a likely scenario.

I can't really tell whether I'm thinking objectively here though.

Once you're familiar with a generally accepted narrative, it's quite hard to rethink it so radically.

I'd be interested to know others thoughts and whether anyone feels like the multiple killers scenario is probable.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I've just spent a rainy, hungover Sunday afternoon snuggled up with the cats re-listening to some of the BJ podcasts.

I just listened to the last three where the possible conspiracy is discussed at length.

I was surprised to recall the strength of argument made for the idea that BJ never existed and the murders were committed by two or three different men.

Barn, Herlock Sholmes, cobalt, New Waterloo, what do you all think of this theory?

My instinct is that whilst not impossible, there are too many similarities, and plain odd factors in common for this to be a likely scenario.

I can't really tell whether I'm thinking objectively here though.

Once you're familiar with a generally accepted narrative, it's quite hard to rethink it so radically.

I'd be interested to know others thoughts and whether anyone feels like the multiple killers scenario is probable.

Hi Ms D, today I have been wading through Charles Stoddart's book "Bible John: Search for a Sadist".
Given your post re the murders being carried out by different killers, I have just seen a comment by Stoddart re this very thing.

On page 25 Stoddart says re Joe Beattie, "Joe is reluctant the link the three". (my emphasis)

Bearing in mind that Stoddart taped his numerous conversations with Beattie, we must assume that this is an accurate statement with regard to what Joe Beattie said to Stoddart. As far as I can recollect, Beattie said on numerous occasions that the murders were committed by one man, so it is curious that he should flip flop when he was retired.

Stoddart himself heaps praise on Beattie, describing him as "a quite exceptional individual, whom it has been my privilege to meet". (my emphasis) (Preface page IX)

Stoddart tellingly disagrees with Beattie's view on different killers saying, "It is perfectly possible that the three murders are totally unconnected and are the work of three completely different individuals. Only the co-incidences detract from that viewpoint. And those coincidences are very strong indeed." (my emphasis) (page 25)

If there was a cover-up by Beattie and others, could his comments re different killers be another attempt to muddy the waters?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d been having another listen too but I got distracted and hadn’t got to the last three yet. I might have a read through the transcript later though. The idea of two or three different killers doesn’t really work for me Ms D. As you say, too many similarities. I’d even suspect that it’s possible that he killed more than three but that’s no more than speculation. The fact that Pat Docker’s clothes were taken is the big question that needs an answer and of course it could mean that her killer had a car but for me that wouldn’t eliminate the same man being involved in all three. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that perhaps when Dalgleish called for information about the two cars that had been seen the killer’s was actually one of them which persuaded him not to use the car in future? Or perhaps his financial circumstances had changed by the second murder and he’d had to sell his car?

One thing I can’t understand, and I can’t recall the reasoning behind, was their belief that the man in the taxi was McInnes but he wasn’t the killer. So he drops her off in the taxi and Bible John comes along to kill a woman who just happened to have been at the Barrowland? It doesn’t seem very likely. Not impossible but but not very likely imo.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms D, today I have been wading through Charles Stoddart's book "Bible John: Search for a Sadist".
Given your post re the murders being carried out by different killers, I have just seen a comment by Stoddart re this very thing.

On page 25 Stoddart says re Joe Beattie, "Joe is reluctant the link the three". (my emphasis)

Bearing in mind that Stoddart taped his numerous conversations with Beattie, we must assume that this is an accurate statement with regard to what Joe Beattie said to Stoddart. As far as I can recollect, Beattie said on numerous occasions that the murders were committed by one man, so it is curious that he should flip flop when he was retired.

Stoddart himself heaps praise on Beattie, describing him as "a quite exceptional individual, whom it has been my privilege to meet". (my emphasis) (Preface page IX)

Stoddart tellingly disagrees with Beattie's view on different killers saying, "It is perfectly possible that the three murders are totally unconnected and are the work of three completely different individuals. Only the co-incidences detract from that viewpoint. And those coincidences are very strong indeed." (my emphasis) (page 25)

If there was a cover-up by Beattie and others, could his comments re different killers be another attempt to muddy the waters?

Interesting stuff, Barn!

Thanks for posting.

Agree it could be obfuscation to detract from a cover-up.

Or could some new evidence that we're not aware of have come to light to change Beattie's perception?

It's just very strange.

I definitely feel like there are a few vital pieces of this jigsaw missing.

[Ms Diddles]

One thing I can’t understand, and I can’t recall the reasoning behind, was their belief that the man in the taxi was McInnes but he wasn’t the killer. So he drops her off in the taxi and Bible John comes along to kill a woman who just happened to have been at the Barrowland? It doesn’t seem very likely. Not impossible but but not very likely imo.

Thanks for your thoughts Herlock!

What comes across from the podcast is that everyone seemed pretty confident that McInnes was the man in the taxi.

The working theory seems to be that McInnes accompanied Helen into the back court for a bit of a winch, and then was interrupted and scared off by BJ.

I THINK the idea is that McInnes realised he was in trouble and would be the prime suspect, so sought help from his senior police officer cousin Jimmy.

To me personally this all seems a bit of a stretch, but I suppose it could explain all of the senior officers descending on Stonehouse if they thought McInnes had encountered the killer, but they wanted to keep his involvement out of the press.

I suppose if we follow this train of thought, the dishevelled, sandy haired guy seen on the bus is McInnes following a scuffle, not with Helen but with BJ.

If that's the case though, I find it really hard to believe that a scuffle featuring two guys and a woman wasn't overheard by any of the residents of Earl St or why Helen didn't just head for home when things kicked off.

Plus the sheer size of this coincidence strikes me as highly improbable.

I'm in agreement that none of this seems very likely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Ms D, today I have been wading through Charles Stoddart's book "Bible John: Search for a Sadist".
Given your post re the murders being carried out by different killers, I have just seen a comment by Stoddart re this very thing.

On page 25 Stoddart says re Joe Beattie, "Joe is reluctant the link the three". (my emphasis)

Bearing in mind that Stoddart taped his numerous conversations with Beattie, we must assume that this is an accurate statement with regard to what Joe Beattie said to Stoddart. As far as I can recollect, Beattie said on numerous occasions that the murders were committed by one man, so it is curious that he should flip flop when he was retired.

Stoddart himself heaps praise on Beattie, describing him as "a quite exceptional individual, whom it has been my privilege to meet". (my emphasis) (Preface page IX)

Stoddart tellingly disagrees with Beattie's view on different killers saying, "It is perfectly possible that the three murders are totally unconnected and are the work of three completely different individuals. Only the co-incidences detract from that viewpoint. And those coincidences are very strong indeed." (my emphasis) (page 25)

If there was a cover-up by Beattie and others, could his comments re different killers be another attempt to muddy the waters?

Good stuff Barn. Stoddart is the nearest we can get to actual events.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for your thoughts Herlock!

What comes across from the podcast is that everyone seemed pretty confident that McInnes was the man in the taxi.

The working theory seems to be that McInnes accompanied Helen into the back court for a bit of a winch, and then was interrupted and scared off by BJ.

I THINK the idea is that McInnes realised he was in trouble and would be the prime suspect, so sought help from his senior police officer cousin Jimmy.

To me personally this all seems a bit of a stretch, but I suppose it could explain all of the senior officers descending on Stonehouse if they thought McInnes had encountered the killer, but they wanted to keep his involvement out of the press.

I suppose if we follow this train of thought, the dishevelled, sandy haired guy seen on the bus is McInnes following a scuffle, not with Helen but with BJ.

If that's the case though, I find it really hard to believe that a scuffle featuring two guys and a woman wasn't overheard by any of the residents of Earl St or why Helen didn't just head for home when things kicked off.

Plus the sheer size of this coincidence strikes me as highly improbable.

I'm in agreement that none of this seems very likely.

Yes we wonder why no neighbours heard BJ and Helen so how less likely does it seem that they didn’t hear a set-to between two blokes with Helen present? I think you summed it up with ‘highly improbable.’

Hope the hangover has gone btw.

[Ms Diddles]

Yes we wonder why no neighbours heard BJ and Helen so how less likely does it seem that they didn’t hear a set-to between two blokes with Helen present? I think you summed it up with ‘highly improbable.’

Hope the hangover has gone btw.

Ha! Well, yes it has thanks, but I fear I may need to listen to those podcasts a THIRD time as I'm not sure how much I actually absorbed!