Talk:Bible John

Untitled

As of January 2006, Glasgow police have speculated that these killings were unrelated. If so Bible John will become an urban myth. If hard facts come up I will alter the entry. badtypist—Preceding undated comment added by Badtypist (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking about Bible John to a Glaswegian friend of mine last week, he said "Bible John never existed, he was just made up to scare the kids and young women". I don't know the truth, and the story has 'disappeared'from everyday speech, maybe he is an urban myth. – — ‘’ “” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ √ ← → · § —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.58.193 (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

we have to go with what reliable sources say, if you have a source that refers to this 'speculation' then provide them and it can go into the article. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense. There is some doubt about whether the 3 killings were the work of one person, but they were certainly not made up. PatGallacher (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

i think what he meant pat was that the 'Bible John' serial killer name was made up to scare kids because the killings were not related, not that the killings were made up. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"A friend of mine" are great reference sources! Ha. It is obvious from media articles of the time, case files of hundreds of police, exhumations done, that those three girls after visiting the nightclub were murdered similarly (yet differently) and that fourth girl was missing never to be found, and either the police or the media based on the sister's description gave the killer the moniker "Bible John". Yes, the name was made up - not the killings. Definitely once the moniker came about it was used to scare children, that is obvious - "don't talk with strangers little Gilly, Bible John is out there" - that's obvious and is the case every time a serial killer or serial rapist or serial anything in a locality is given a moniker before being caught. It in no way detracts from the fact that a killer or killers murdered those women and was/is at large. It is not proven whether all killings were by one person, or three, or two. ie. The Bible John murders could have been committed by multiple individuals. The name was made up to refer to the killer(s) and then used like the boogey man to scare children as is always the case. It obviously was not an urban myth.Jonmobrien (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

peter tobin

perhaps a menshy of peter tobin being considered a suspect for the case... 86.151.114.242 17:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be a mention of a link to Peter Tobin, Peter Tobin's Modus Operandi are very similar to Bible Johns, that's for sure.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

we have to go with reliable sources, remember you are innocent until proven guilty, in that respect there perhaps should not be an inclusion about tobin on this page. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There IS expert evidence! People, see; [1] [2].--Zucchinidreams (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, you are innocent until proven guilty, whatever these experts 'believe' is pure opinion and speculation. Monkeymanman (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, didn't Tobin say, if memory served, that he had "killed 34 women" when he was in prison? surely some respect could be furnished toward that statement?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dont get me started on journalistic editorializing of statements that people have apparently said, at the moment there is no proof that tobin is bible john, and it will stay that way until he is proven guilty of the bible john murders, which is unlikely. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir/Madam, I would point out that you are mostly right. Citations are a basis are they not, if investigated, for some kind of a speculation about a major suspect, ans then pointing out that the Prime suspect is, as things stand, Peter Tobin. Of course, we should say in that section that these things are opinions yadayada as well, of course.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well... if it is so definitive then why have they not tried and convicted tobin of the bible john murders? Until that happens it is speculation, plain and simple, from so called experts. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to be updated, but maybe the footnotes do, just a thought.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

what do you propose? I only think the section regarding tobin could be tidied a touch. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Driven to it

Could we change the "driven to violence by the menstrual cycle" line? I don't care how the tabloids put it, but here it does sounds a lot like the poor man was provoked rather than having an irrational hatred for an entirely natural and sadly unavoidable event... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.119.242 (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

how should it be worded then? Monkeymanman (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"I don't care how the tabloids put it" - too bad, that is the source that was cited, and the tabloids source were the wive's statements. If you 129.67.119.242 were married to Peter Tobin, then give your own interpretation of how he treated you on your cycle, otherwise you have no right to dispute his wives statements. As for how "it sounds" to you, you are the only person I know of who has interpreted it to sound like "the poor man" - rather it seems obvious that the "driven to violence by" really does highlight the irrationality of it. Many people have irrational triggers. Rarely does it lead to murder, but it is extremely common. If you don't understand, think of Road rage, where millions of everyday rational sane people are driven irrationally to bouts of "rage" in an instant - usually lasting no longer than an instant, not usually (although sometimes) leading to murder. "driven to" and "irrational" are not mutually exclusive.Jonmobrien (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Relocate

I think that the parts in the developments section underneath the first paragraph should be transferred to either Operation Anagram or Peter Tobin.

Tobin, 61, was convicted in 2008 of the murder of 15-year-old Vicky Hamilton, who went missing in 1991.[5] Her remains were found at a house in Margate, Kent, where Tobin once lived. Essex Police had been investigating the disappearance of another missing girl, Dinah McNicol, also missing for 16 years. On 16 November 2007, a second body was discovered under the patio of the Margate home, which was later confirmed to be McNicol's. [6] Tobin was also convicted, on 16 December 2009, of the murder of Dinah McNicol in August 1991.

In an interview with a police psychiatrist, Tobin admitted that he had killed up to 48 other women. When questioned about this, he replied "Prove it."[7]

As a result of Operation Anagram (set up to locate Tobin's other victims) a woman said she had been raped by Tobin after she had met him at the Barrowland Ballroom in Glasgow in 1968 - around the time of the Bible John killings.[8]

At the start of September 2010, the only woman to have ever come face to face with Bible John, Jean McLachlan, passed away aged 74, marking the end of the hunt for the killer.[9] Jean, who shared a taxi with the mystery killer and her sister Helen Puttock, gave police the description used in the artist's impression, which remains the biggest clue to his appearance more than 40 years later. Although DNA had been used to rule out a previous suspect, detectives believe a DNA link to Tobin is unlikely due to a deterioration of the samples through poor storage.[10]

I agree that there should be an inclusion about the possible link but the rest shouldn’t be located here. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs can be transfered as they are not really relevant here but I think that the second two paragraphs are relevant to this article although there is no problem with a copy of them being used in the other articles.Wayne (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

done. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Peter Tobin really Bible John?

1. Obviously there is no absolute proof, otherwise there would be no discussion on the matter.
2. It is not conclusive whether the victims attributed to "Bible John" were done by one person, or three, or two, so even if it is "proved" that Peter Tobin did NOT kill one of those victims, it does not clear him of all the Bible John victims, and conversely, even if it is proven then Peter Tobin DID kill one of those, it does not prove he killed all 3 or 4 of them.
3. None of the reasons given by Margaret saying why Bible John is not Peter Tobin in http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3847506/Bible-Johns-either-dead-or-at-large-but-he-is-NOT-Peter-Tobin.html are really any really any reason whatsoever.
   • They were on honeymoon and returned "at least" 2 weeks later... she can't quote an exact date, how good is your memory of a time 40 years earlier? Being away for 10 days could certainly have felt like "at least 2 weeks", especially remembering back 40 years later. And even if it wasn't him, that second murder was significantly different to the first and does not prove Peter didn't kill the others.
   • Tobin was not religious - it was never really claimed that he was. That description was based solely on a very drunken girls memory the next day (no disrespect) who only spent time with him in the taxi. He had a religious upbringing. I had a religious upbringing. Katy Perry had a religious upbringing. I am not religious, but now and again in context I'll make a reference from the bible. I can imagine after leaving a decadent nightclub I might say "my god, that was like Sodom and Gomorrah back there eh?" and with a religious background could have made other such comments without "being religious", which the next day a girl with a hangover being questioned intensely could easily be remembered as "being religious" and also exaggerated by the media. Jeanie did after all specifically say that "he was not quoting the bible per se".
   • He didn't lose his temper publicly. Like my "Road rage" analogy, many people can snap unreasonably at the smallest thing but not normally be publicly angry. How many times do you hear people say "oh, he was the nicest gentlest person I ever met, I can't believe he kept a slave chained up in his den / I can't believe he bashed his wife to death / etc"? It is idiotic to suggest that someone (especially who is violent privately) who does not get angry publicly can not ever briefly lose their temper publicly. Think about yourself! No one who knows me would say I ever lose my temper publicly, but once or twice when treated with disrespect by a person in charge who was at fault I have lost my temper and yelled at them. How can anyone who knows me declare absolutely that I could never lose my temper publicly.
   • Had a prominent scar not mentioned - Ummm, it was a dark seedy night club, dark night, she was drunk, she was the sister, the witness was not the person up close kissing him.
   • The description does not match. The description does match a lot. I put it to anyone - do a survey - go ask 100 people to study a person in detail and then go to a sketch artist to draw him and describe his attributes, then compare the real person to the description and drawing. See how massively different the two are in the majority of cases. And that was knowing you were going to be tested. Now do a second survey - at times when taxi congestion is high and the law says you must share taxis with others queuing - have "actors" mix in the taxi queue outside a nightclub and get the taxi supervisor to get two actors to share the taxi with each drunk girl. Have the actors saying they just met in the bar, have him saying some innocuous "Sodom and Gomorrah" references as above. (use taxi-cam to record it). Record where she was dropped home. The next day have police go and interview the girl telling her the other girl she shared the taxi with was found murdered and the taxi told them she shared the cab and can she provide a description of the man they shared the taxi with, what he said, etc. Do this 100 times. Then compare to the real man. Now seriously, how accurate do you think the majority will be? That was the scenario Jeanie was in except Jeanie was more distraught because it was her sister and not a random girl). How different are the height comparisons? Someone you mostly only knew from sitting in a taxi with another girl (in this case, her sister), you've just learnt he's killed (or kidnapped), you were drunk, are you not going to remember him larger than life? From your drunken memory in the dark are you going to remember exact hair color and style, exact eye color? Margaret is remembering what Tobin's hair style was on a particular night 40 years earlier, and yet Jeanie's drunken memory of a man she briefly encountered matches Peter Tobin's appearance as indicated by the "best" photo of him at the time and an artists impression of him regressing his age, significantly more than the majority of 100 randomly surveyed people would if put in the above test I outlined. Further, the gap in the teeth also matches.
   • Peter Tobin liked to use a knife whereas Bible John did not. That is simply not true. Margaret said that Peter was driven to violence when she was menstruating, often beating her. She has said that he has used the knife on her once or twice. Forgive me if I am mistaken but doesn't she menstruate monthly, rather than once or twice during her whole marriage? ie. the vast majority of the time he used his fists or possibly other objects at hand (lamp? shoe?) to beat her with. Once or twice a knife was at hand and he used that. Although I can't really see where it has been specifically mentioned, it is very obvious that whoever Bible John is, he did not set out to find and locate menstruating women to pre-meditatedly murder them. ie. He did not go out clubbing with a knife looking to kill someone that night. Rather, he obviously went out clubbing looking to get laid. The Barrowland Ballroom was known to be a place for married men and women to have one-night-stands without judgement of being married. This Bible John person had likely been going to the Barrowland regularly previously, hooking up, with no issue, until that 1968 night when he went to have sex and discovered his pick-up was menstruating. It seems obvious he did the exact SAME thing he did with Margaret - got violent and started beating her, still with no intention of killing her. Then realizing she will go to the police, he realizes he has no choice but to kill her. No knife on hand, he uses her stocking to strangle her, and for whatever reason chooses to take all her clothes, accidentally leaving one show, but not wanting to take that cloth he found so disgusting.
   • Just like Peter Tobin, it seems this Bible John was not a serial killer in the sense that he went out to kill. Hence why the "mysterious" 18-month gap then the "2 month" gap, and the "started killing at 60" gap. After the first murder, Bible John or Peter Tobin obviously continued raping and beating his wife and obviously continued picking up one night stands at the Barrowland. He simply did not pick up another menstruating woman in that time until 18 months later. Again he had no intention upfront to kill her, and did not have a knife at hand to do so, so strangled her again.
   • Within those 18 months, and before and after, it is ridiculous to say "why did he just stop killing? serial killers don't work that way". Just look at the facts - Margaret has said he is not publicly angry but with her whenever she is menstruating he becomes violent and bashes her. It matches that Peter Tobin like hundreds of other single and married men and women were frequenting the Barrowland, it matches that Peter was frequenting there regularly and for the most part was probably a genuinely nice one-nighter. Only when he discovered his intended one-nighter was menstruating did he irrationally beat her, and then realize he had to kill her (maybe even regrettably, just so she could not report him for assault). However, at least one other woman did come forward and report that Peter Tobin raped her. It seems to be a given that although the Barrowlands was frequented by people looking for one night stands, there will be the times when two people leave and then one person has second thoughts about having sex that night, or one person was perhaps looking to meet someone but not necessarily have intended to have sex that night at all, (and realize also that it was the 60s and how men considered women at the time) and it is probable that many women were raped after leaving the club. But often being married and cheating on their husbands or too afraid to tell their parents, as still happens today in 2012 especially in those circumstances, many rapes go unreported, let alone that in the 60's it was practically impossible to prove, no DNA testing, and the majority of the time that it was reported the policeMEN taking the statement usually inferred that the women led the guys on so it wasn't really rape at all. It's quite probable and fitting with Peter Tobin's character that he had raped many others other than just those one or few that came forwards, as Margaret admitted he even raped her, just that he did not violently bash and then need to murder them.
   • Tobin concealed his victims, Bible John did not. Again this is simply not true!
     1. In the incident that gave Bible John his moniker in particular, Helen's body was never found, so straight off the bat that statement is completely false.
     2. Look at the MO of any repeat-killer, the first is often sloppy, mistakes made, but as you kill more, you learn from your mistakes. The killer knew a (bad) sketch if him was circulating, he knew Jeanie had witnessed him, when they dropped off Jeanie and he continued with Helen, he had no intention of killing her, just sleeping with her. As there was no report from any taxi driver of an issue in a cab, presumably he did close the deal and exited the taxi with her with no issue, only to discover, 10 weeks after his last murder, that Helen also was menstruating, so bashed and then killed her. But knowing Jeanie had a good look at him, he hid / disposed of her body well, probably hoping she'd just be a missing-persons case and distract evidence from him.
     3. To say that "Bible John" simply stopped after that, and then finding hidden bodies by "another person" is ridiculous. A very good likeness of you has been widely distributed, 100 police are questioning practically everyone, the women going clubbing are extra cautious, the women going clubbing know that menstruating women in particular are targeted. It is plainly obvious that most of the following would have happened without doubt: "Bible John" would have lain low for a while; if "Peter" continued having affairs, giving the stand-out clothing description he probably wore more casual clothing; women who were menstruating probably felt best not to go picking up that night; odds are "Peter" simply did not pick up a menstruating woman again for some time - 18+ months possibly; and if he did, as "Bible John" had already shown with Helen, he learnt how to hide the body, and he also learnt not to share a cab with another witness, so how many of those missing peoples cases can be attributed to Bible John / Peter Tobin between Helen's disappearance and Vicky?
     4. Peter Tobin was only caught out as a serial killer at age 60 because 3 of his victims were found at his place of work and in his back yard. Before the first victim was found he was never a suspect, and even then he was only a suspect of a possible second victim, until when looking for the second victim they found a different second victim! If not for his one mistake none of those would have been found, and even proving beyond reasonable doubt in court that Peter Tobin was the murderer of those three, he plead not-guilty and denies murdering them! So the fact that he denies murdering anyone else means nothing. The fact that he has shown he has transported a dead victim 500 miles to bury her shows that he would have no issue transporting other victims distances to bury them and even burying them in foundations of buildings. As has been stated "a serial killer doesn't just start killing at the age of 60" - it is obvious that probably many many of the missing girls cases are Peter Tobin's kills, well hidden. It fits perfectly with the profile of a repeat/serial killer that he started killing and leaving the bodies but quickly learnt to hide the bodies. Who is to say that "Bible John" hadn't intended to hide the third body, but because she was not as drunk as he thought she was, she nearly got away, screaming and drawing attention, and he couldn't risk dragging her body around, so if not for that, there would've only been two bodies found attributed to Bible John instead of three. Because three were found it is ridiculous to say that he did not learn he's better off disposing of the bodies rather than leaving clues behind and so it must be a different person!
     5. The 3 buried bodies were drugged and stabbed, Peter used a knife, Bible John didn't, so it has to be different people. Ridiculous. Just as I pointed out in the above paragraph, he learnt. The third victim nearly got away, nearly brought attention down on himself. He learnt so well that no body has been found since until his mistake in his 60s. Whether he changed from killing only when he uncontrollably bashed the girls to pre-meditated raping and killing is unknown, easily possible since he was so good at getting away with it that maybe he chose to become a serial killer. Maybe he still only killed irregularly when he lost control, but learnt to maybe drug his intended hook-ups first - GHB, chlorophyll, the reports did not say that I saw, so they were more amenable to rape. Also obviously being drugged he has had the leisure to guide the women where he has wanted to, used them at his leisure, and killed them more conveniently with a knife. Doesn't mean it's a different person at all. Sure, many serial killers who go out to kill a specific type of woman often keeps a very similar MO, but a person who kills out of a perceived (perhaps even regrettable) necessity, with definitely NOT. They are NOT killing to a MO, they are killing out of necessity with what's at hand.
4. To claim that killers must be stupid and can't change their MO or learn from their mistakes is just plain wishful thinking. Sure, some killers may be retarded, most serial killers are not.
5. Taking into account circumstances, profiling a killer, profiling passive-aggressive personalities, taking into account the 60's how men regarded women in general, taking into account the (men and) women frequenting the Barrowland did not want it to be known they were, given most rapes of the time were not reported, let alone by married women looking for affairs, given a drunken girls sketch and description matched Peter Tobin more closely than the majority of you could sketch and describe a person in the same circumstances, given any man brought up religiously would make bible references in passing without being religious but memory can be distorted that way when pressed, given a killer when good descriptions of you are being circulated will start hiding your victims bodies, given when a victim nearly escapes to ID you a killer will start taking extra precautions such as drugging girls first, given anyone can snap occasionally, especially someone with a profile as described by his wives at home, given the "Bible John" appears to have behaved exactly the same way as with his wives, behaving very politely and gentlemanly publicly for the most part, obviously able to pick up women with no trouble, snapping when they perceive a wrong against them, raping women like he rapes his wives, beating women when he discovers they're menstruating like Peter beats his wives. The only difference is he knows that unlike his wife, the women would report him, so he has to kill them. The difference is because how the women will react (report him vs keep quiet because its the 60s and at the time there's really no such thing as raping your wife) - the difference is not between Bible John and Peter Tobin, rather it is exactly the same behavior.
   • ie. Every single thing points to Peter Tobin being Bible John. With 3 life sentences being attributed to him despite his not-guilty plea, and he was only found guilty on those because he buried the bodies in his yard and at his workplace. If he buries those elsewhere he'd never have been found guilty of murder, let alone for the first 3 Bible John bodies, and no murder charge can be made for missing persons, so it is impossible to prove Peter Tobin murdered those 3 or 4 Bible John cases let alone all the missing girls cases he likely also murdered. Remember the first body they dug up in his back yard they never even suspected he killed, they only pinned it on him because he buried her in his backyard. How many other unknown missing girls are not suspected to be linked to him but he buried or otherwise disposed of elsewhere better? Obviously being 60 he simply got careless of disposing the bodies remotely having gotten away with it constantly over the past 40 years.
   • The difference between the body being found 10 days after Margaret's wedding registry and "we returned at least a fortnight later" is too wishy-washy. If being 60, after being through hell, raped, stabbed, divorced, etc, you can't remember the exact length of the honeymoon, then "a fortnight give or take" could really be "10 days that felt like at least 14". Other than that one wishy-washy statement, every single other claim that Peter Tobin is not Bible John either does not stand up to the simplest of scrutiny, or is simply not true.
   • Rather, every single piece of evidence taking into account facts, timing, realistic interpretation of being drunk, sketches, memories, psychological profiling of passive-aggressive personalities, narcissists, changing MOs of killing from circumstance, etc, etc, etc, there is no reasonable doubt whatsoever that Peter Tobin is the Bible John killer. Even if maybe one of the bodies was a copycat or just coincidentally similar, there's no doubt Peter Tobin killed at least some of those women and no doubt that he killed or raped many others in his life.
6. It is not convenient at all to just say Peter Tobin is Bible John. There is just no reasonable doubt that it was him. Being scientifically impossible to prove that it is Peter Tobin and that he will deny all his murders and given he already has three life sentences to serve, there simply is no point attempting to charge and prove the other murders and missing-peoples on him. For closure, the victims families know there is no doubt it was Peter and he is finally carrying out life-sentences, what difference whether it is 3 or 103 life sentences the courts impose on him?

Jonmobrien (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Image

Someone needs to add images of the supposed sketches of the killer, as well as maps of the locations of the murders.--99.197.150.72 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bible John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208143050/http://mountflorida.eveningtimes.co.uk/area/dark-days-and-dreadful-deeds-that-haunt-our-city.html to http://mountflorida.eveningtimes.co.uk/area/dark-days-and-dreadful-deeds-that-haunt-our-city.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051104053053/http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/unsolved/bible_john/index.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/unsolved/bible_john/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Citation and expansion

This article is undersourced and is missing information on the background of the area before and during the murders, and appearances/references in popular culture which needs to be added to the article with proper citations from reliable sources. The Popular culture section will need to be structured as well written paragraphs rather than bullet points. Any piece of unsourced information either needs to be given proper citations from reliable sources or removed from the article if none can be found. This article has the potential to become GA and FA if enough attention is given to it, hopefully someone comes along and gives this and other significant articles on serial kilers the attention they need to fulfill their full potential.--Paleface Jack 16:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

I notice the large number of references to the Daily Record and its sister paper the Sunday Mail. While these organs may be reliable for football scores etc, I don't think they are reliable sources for serious claims. John (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll look into this.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)