They called him ‘Dillinger’ and his name meant danger
Crimes that Rocked the Nation
Sybil E Hibbert
Sunday, May 06, 2012

IT was a name no one in western Jamaica dared utter in public, unless you were a friend or part of the gang. People only had to say “Dillinger” in the West, and women, especially, would reportedly pee their pants, a Circuit Court jury was told during Glenford Pusey’s trial for murder.
The late 60s, 70s and early 80s were years in Jamaica when crime was rife, but little did we know then that our small country would, by the year 2000, find itself on the world stage, sharing honours in criminality with the likes of the Italian Mafia and the conmen of Nigeria.
Graphic: Gorgette Beckford
1/3
Pusey’s case, which came before Mr Justice Lopez and a jury in the No 2 Home Circuit Court in June 1970, was my first introduction to the Witness Protection Programme at work in Jamaica.
The murder for which Pusey was charged was alleged to have been committed on the evening of November 26, 1968. It was the prosecution’s case that Pusey and three of his cohorts -— Skiba, Copper and another man known as Sonah-Sonah — held up, robbed and shot dead Anthony George Lowe o/c “Frenchie”, a Chinese businessman well-known in Western Kingston and its environs.
Lowe, who carried on business at the corner of Duff and Hamilton streets in Kingston’s west end, was actually checking off the day’s sales when Pusey entered the shop, armed with a revolver, and shot him in the groin and lower back. Lowe died from injuries to the liver and right lung.
Pusey and Skiba made off with the cash register from Lowe’s shop, the court was told.
Lowe’s assistant, Maisie McLaren, who had been sweeping rubbish from the shop when the incident took place, testified that she was just re-entering the establishment when she saw Pusey, gun in hand, pointing it in Lowe’s direction. Another man was climbing into the cashier’s cage. She heard an explosion. Lowe fell to the ground inside the cage. She saw Skiba and Pusey making off with the cash register.
Pauline Evans, who told the court she resided on Duff Street, recalled that she was returning from the Bustamante Hospital for Children where she had gone to visit her sick child. She was walking along a lane near Duff Street when she saw Skiba, a little boy and two others known to her as Sonah-Sonah and Copper walking together.
Skiba had been her boyfriend at one time and she came to know Sonah-Sonah and Copper as friends of his. As she was afraid of Skiba, she ran into a nearby yard and concealed herself. From that vantage point, she was able to see and hear what the men were saying.
She told the court she heard Pusey and Skiba planning “to hold up the chineyman outta Duff and Nathan streets corner”. She heard Skiba ask Pusey if his gun was good and Pusey replied that his gun “was kinda sticking”. At that point, Skiba offered the use of his gun to Pusey but the offer was not accepted.
I’m afraid his friends might shoot me
The little boy was sent by Pusey to see if the shop had yet closed. He returned to report that a woman was inside still sweeping. According to the witness, Pusey left to get a car, returning to inform the others that he had arranged for the car to go to the White Street bridge. He then announced they would “make a slide now”. Pusey and the others left.
Evans testified further that after the men left, she ran towards the corner of Duff and Hamilton streets. She heard one gunshot, followed by another. She saw Sonah-Sonah and Copper standing outside Bailey’s shop at the corner of Duff and Nathan streets. The little boy was standing nearby. She also saw Pusey and Skiba carrying a cash register away from Lowe’s shop.
She gave a statement to the police. Later, at an identification parade, she failed to point out Pusey as she was afraid “he would cause his friends to shoot me”.
The court heard from Detective Superintendent Jezz Marston (now deceased) that he led a police party to the premises on Spanish Town Road on December 30, 1968. There, he saw Pusey sitting on a box. On the approach of the police, Pusey sprang up and ran off. He then turned, pulled a revolver from his waist and fired at the police party.
The police returned fire. Pusey was wounded and fell to the ground. The weapon turned out to be a .38 Smith and Wesson revolver. It was later examined by ballistic expert Jack Morris.
Morris gave evidence of having examined and compared the markings on a bullet recovered by the police from inside the cashier’s cage at Lowe’s shop, with test bullets fired from the Smith and Wesson revolver, and he said he came to the conclusion that the .38 bullet had been fired from that weapon.
Pusey’s defence was an alibi. He claimed that a Detective Corporal Simpson had told him that since Evans and McLaren failed to identify him in connection with Lowe’s murder, he would be charged with the murder of another man known as “Beefman”, who had been killed on Duff Street. He denied ever being in possession of a .38 revolver or that he had shot at the police party at the time alleged.
Dillinger defends himself in court
An interesting twist to the case was that Pusey had been assigned legal aid under the Poor Prisoner’s Defence Law of 1961.
The counsel assigned Heslop Harris (now deceased) who had seen and interviewed the accused at the General Penitentiary several times before the trial, after which friends of Pusey had sought to retain lawyer Churchill Neita to defend him, offering a small retainer of £10.
On the date of trial, Pusey informed the trial judge that he wished to have a lawyer of his choice to defend him and no longer wished to have Harris’s services. The judge advised Pusey that that course was fraught with danger and an adjournment was taken. Neita, who was engaged in a preliminary enquiry at the Half-Way-Tree Resident Magistrate’s Court, was contacted by phone by counsel for the Crown.
In the meantime, Harris, who declared that he was never advised by Pusey that he wished to have anyone else defend him, asked to be recused from the case.
Counsel for the Crown related his conversation by telephone with Neita during the adjournment. Neita, he said, had related what had taken place between Pusey’s friends and himself, and disclosed that under the circumstances, he was prepared to return the £10 retainer he had received the previous Thursday. He conveyed Neita’s apology to the court for not being present.
The luncheon adjournment was taken after the trial judge requested Mr Harris to reconsider his request. On the resumption, the trial judge, in addressing Pusey, said: “Well, Pusey, the position is this, that Mr Harris has been assigned as your counsel to defend you from November 22, 1969. During the period between that date and now, he has on several occasions interviewed you at the General Penitentiary to take instructions. (At) no time have you objected to his retainer or assignment and the case is now ready to proceed. And as the matter now stands, he is the counsel on record to defend you in this matter. Do you wish to have him defend you?”
Pusey: “I have already told my Lord.”
Judge: “You will answer the question I ask. [Do] you wish to have him defend you?”
Pusey: “No, my Lord.”
Judge: “Well, you will have to defend yourself. Mr Harris, you are released. Thank you very much; you may consult the registrar in due course.”
Pusey then proceeded to defend himself.
The accused, a young, articulate Rastafarian, gave a good account of himself. He asked some very pertinent questions of prosecution witnesses, especially the main witness — Pauline Evans — whom he cross-examined for one hour and 45 minutes. Not being too familiar with the Rules of Evidence, however, any gains in his favour were quickly destroyed by his inexperience. Repeated warnings by His Lordship went unheeded. His efforts, in the end, further cemented the prosecution’s case.
In spite of his valiant effort, the five-foot three-inch defendant from the west was found guilty of Lowe’s murder.
Those were the days when Supreme Court judges donned the “Black Caps” and the whole court would rise as the Court Crier, as it were, sermonised the “OYEs”, prior to sentencing.
Thus it was on that day: “All rise!”
“Oye! Oye! Oye! All manner of persons, having anything to do or say at this, Her Majesty’s Court of Assize, let them draw near and give their attention and they shall be heard. While His Lordship, Her Majesty’s Justice, passes the Sentence of Death upon the Prisoner — Oye! Oye! Oye! God Save the Queen.”
‘Woman, behold thy son!’
With the packed courtroom of witnesses and observers having taken their seats, His Lordship passed the sentence of death upon the prisoner, who had the Allocutus put to him — that is, if he had anything to say why such a sentence should not be so passed.
Pusey’s response was: “I am innocent!”
It was one of those solemn moments that makes a person realise how vulnerable we all are as human beings; how, in one stroke of the pen, a life can be virtually taken away — no more freedom — from henceforth, every move you make until the day of reckoning, determined by the laws of the land, was to be choreographed, directed and edited by authority.
It is and always has been a piteous and pitiful moment, a moment in time when the heart almost stops beating; when time stands still; when the earth under one’s feet seems to take a mighty somersault, vanishes then returns to settle, you think, underfoot once more, but you don’t believe it’s really there. Someone, please wake me, you pray. But it’s not about to happen.
This was what it seemed Pusey may have thought as he stood in the dock that afternoon. He seemed not to hear, not to understand what had really taken place. The two uniformed policemen behind him tapped him on his shoulder, indicating it was time to go. He sighed, looked all around him and moved slowly from the dock. Handcuffs were put on.
As he neared the door, his mother stood there, holding her belly, in true Jamaican fashion, rocking from side to side and wailing — loud and heart-breaking sounds coming from deep down in the bowels of a mother. Only mothers can describe what she might have been feeling.
Pusey paused when he reached his mother’s side. With head held high, he said in a loud, distinctive voice:”Woman! Behold thy son!”
Following futile appeals, he was later hanged on the gallows at the St Catherine District Prison.
There are no winners in crime, only tragedy all around.
Post script:
Two things are noteworthy.
The chief witness for the prosecution, Pauline Evans, attended court daily under heavy police protection. She was kept in a room next to the Chambers of Justice Ronald Small, which, in those days, was reserved for jurors when they retired to consider their verdicts. It was also used to keep prosecution witnesses; and the police at that time would go over their witness statements with them before they gave evidence.
I have noticed that that practice no longer exists. No wonder so many cases slip through the cracks.
As soon as the Dillinger trial was concluded, the witness being protected was quietly whisked from the building into a waiting police vehicle, transported to the Norman Manley International Airport and was bound for countries unknown.
The second point is that Pusey’s appeal was argued by eminent Queen’s Counsel Frank Phipps and with him, attorney Richard Small.
ROC White, QC, deputy director of public prosecutions, and attorney C Patterson appeared for the prosecution. Both prosecutors became Judges of Appeal in later years. (White has since passed away).
The main contention on appeal, taken by counsel for the appellant, Pusey, was that his constitutional right was contravened in that he was denied the right to counsel of his own choice; and that the trial ought to have been adjourned to enable the Appellant to engage the services of counsel other than Neita, if Neita no longer wished to defend him.
But the Court of Appeal held that while each person who is charged with a criminal offence must be permitted to defend himself by a legal representative of his own choice, if he so desires, the trial of an accused person cannot be delayed indefinitely in the hope that he will, by himself, or otherwise, be able to raise at some indeterminate time in the future, money sufficient to retain the services of counsel. For those and other reasons, the court dismissed the appeal.
Next week: Aston ‘Whoppy King’ Jolly — a savage rape and a brutal murder
Sybil Hibbert is a veteran journalist and retired court reporting specialist. She is also the wife of Retired ACP Isadore Hibbert. Send your comments to [email protected]

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/They-called-him–Dillinger–and-his-name-meant-danger_11358028#ixzz1yUaypyJb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6TdUZe72DI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-SvZMPRRrE

– A man well known for his illicit affairs with married women has been admitted to a Busia County hospital in a serious condition following the swelling of his private parts and doctors at the hospital had to device a way of helping the man discharge urine after the urethra blocked.

“His private parts have an abnormal swelling. It is five times more than the normal size,” said a doctor who examined him.

“At the moment, he is in a stable condition and out of danger unlike when he was brought in,” he added.

Residents of Matayos said the married man was known for seducing other people’s wives and speculated a transgressed husband could have sought services of witchdoctor to teach him a lesson. The rogue man has been ordered to pay Sh60, 000 in compensation to the husband of the wife or be subjected to more suffering.

According to the residents, the family man was a bodaboda operator and was known to seduce his female passengers.

“He was seen entering a local lodging in the company of a woman only to hear that he is admitted in hospital with an abnormal swelling on his private parts,” said James Osinya, a resident of Matayos.

The man denied the residents’ accusations saying he was a farmer who earns a living by supplying vegetables to schools and not a bodaboda operator as claimed and was happily married man.

Medical Superintendent Dr Rose Atieno Omollo evaded questions from us on the uncomfortable issue promising to do so later.

“I will comment on the matter later. Right now I am going to the theatre for an operation,” said Dr Atieno.

Jayne Augoye examines a World Health Organisation’s report classifying Nigerians as major users of skin lightening products

A World Health Organisation report on the danger of mercury in skin lightening soaps and creams has revealed that over 77 per cent of Nigerians use such products on a regular basis.

The report, published this month by the organisation on its website, further shows that it is followed by Togo with 59 per cent; South Africa, 35 per cent; and Mali, 25 per cent.

In a similar vein, the organisation has issued a warning against skin lightening soaps, creams and cosmetics like eye makeup, cleansing products and mascara, saying they could be containing mercury.

It cites the adverse effects of inorganic mercury — a common ingredient found in skin lightening soaps and creams. The effects include kidney damage, reduction in the skin resistance to bacterial and fungal infections, anxiety, depression, psychosis and peripheral neuropathy.

Others are skin rashes, swelling of the skin, irritation, seizures, numbness, pain tremors and memory loss. According to WHO, once the chemicals get absorbed into the skin and enter the blood stream, the complications are worse.

Carolyn Vickers of WHO Chemical Safety Department says, “Mercury in soaps and creams eventually enters waste water and then enters the food chain as highly toxic methyl mercury.

“The mercury enters environment, where it becomes methylated, and enters the food chain as highly toxic methylmercury in fish. Pregnant women who consume fish containing methylmercury transfer the mercury to their foetuses that can later result in neurological deficits in children,” the report states.

It adds that lightening soaps and creams are commonly used in some African and Asian nations and dark-skinned populations in Europe and North America. Mercury salts work by inhibiting the formation of melanin, resulting in a lighter skin tone.

It is also reported that some women use these products for as long as 20 years. The number is growing by the day. Ehowhow.com says “ It is generally believed that this practice is influenced by deep racial inferiority, ignorance of identity or a crisis of identity but it is important to note that there is more to it than this. For some of the women, skin lightening satisfies their need for attention, their desire for beauty as seen in magazines where models and celebrities have light colored skin. It can be seen as perpetuating the colonial belief that being lighter is better.”

In many countries, this deadly substance has been banned.

“Some manufacturers are no longer using mercury as a preservative in mascara and eye makeup cleansing products as a result of consumer pressure. However, most jurisdictions still allow the sale of makeup products containing mercury compounds. The soaps contain approximately one to three per cent mercury iodide, and the creams are composed of one to 10 per cent mercury ammonium. It is imperative to check for mercury content on the packaging of the soaps, creams or other cosmetics before getting hooked to them,” the report says.

Part of the consolation, however, is that despite a deliberate ploy by some manufacturers to conceal the presence of mercury in their products, there are a few ways by which consumers can confirm when in doubt.

According to WHO, the amount or concentration of mercury in a product may be labelled on the packaging or in the ingredient list. Names to look for include mercury, Hg, mercuric iodide, mercurous chloride, ammoniated mercury, amide chloride of mercury, quicksilver, cinnabaris, hydrargyri oxydum rubrum (mercury oxide) and mercury iodide.

Skin lightening products are manufactured in many countries like China, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and the USA.

These products come in different forms, including soaps and creams; the soap is often sold as “antiseptic soap”. These products are supposed to be applied to the skin to dry overnight. Women use the soap to wash their hair, arms or face or their entire body. Products with very high levels of mercury contamination look grey or cream coloured.

When the product manual reads, “Directions to avoid contact with silver, gold, rubber, aluminum and jewellery’’, this may indicate the presence of mercury. However, it is important to note that companies selling products that contain mercury do not always list it as an ingredient.

http://www.punchng.com/feature/nigerians-top-users-of-bleaching-creams-who/

Water and the Holy Spirit

Throughout the Word of God, water is a symbol, a “type,” of the spirit of God, and is often used analogously to represent holy spirit, that is, the divine nature and power of God. In Scripture, God is also known as “the Holy Spirit.” [1] In Jeremiah 2:13, for example, God refers to Himself as a “spring of living water” (see also Isa. 44:3 and 4). Think about water and what it means to you. Water is essential to life—we die without it. The average person can go about 60 days without food before he starves to death, but one can go only about three days without water, because it is so vital. In fact, the human body is mostly water. Whenever someone forsakes God, the spring of living water, he has no choice but to do what Jeremiah 2:13 says, to hew out his own broken cistern, which is always one that simply “won’t hold water.” We see that just as actual water gives life physically and is integral to one’s physical life, so spiritual water (the gift of holy spirit) gives life spiritually.

Consider this same parallel between water and the spirit of God in the following verses, where Jesus is speaking to a woman he met at a local well:

John 4:13 and 14
(13) Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again,
(14) but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

In John 6, we find another pertinent record illustrating the analogous relationship between water and the holy spirit. I have taken a bit of literary license in summarizing verses 1-34: Jesus had been invited to a company picnic, only to discover that all 5,000 employees had forgotten their lunches. So he put up a big banner that read, “Free Food – All You Can Eat!” He then fed them delicious fish sandwiches. Later, when they got hungry again, they followed him to the other side of the lake for more free food. So Jesus, as his manner was, then began to teach them an abstract, spiritual truth that he figuratively connected to the concrete, physical acts of eating and drinking. John 6:35 is a key verse in the record, and it reads: “Then Jesus declared, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.’” Clearly, he is equating eating and drinking with believing his words. That kind of figurative language is still used today when we say that someone is “eating up” what another is saying or “drinking in” the words of a speaker.

Like his Father, Jesus is also a fountain of living waters, and he stated just that in the next chapter of John.

John 7:37-39 [Author’s translation, with punctuation and capitalization corrected]
(37) On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink,
(38) whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him [the Messiah].”
(39) By this he meant the spirit, whom [which] those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time, the spirit had not been given, since [because] Jesus had not yet been glorified.

Did Jesus stand up and mutter? No, he wanted everyone to hear his earthshaking pronouncement, so he shouted over the din of the merry revelers: “Yo! Excuse me! I am the eternal drinking fountain. If you’re thirsty, come to me and drink, by believing in me.” That is exactly the point he made in John 6 when he equated drinking with believing his words. In John 7, he proved it by referring to the Old Testament, of which he himself is the subject. The promised Messiah was the one who God, the eternal fountain, the spring of living water, sent to give drink to a dying world. And what is that “liquid” refreshment? As verse 39 emphasizes, it is the holy spirit of God, again analogously referred to as water.

The holy spirit would be given to all who believe in Jesus as Lord, but Jesus could not do this “pouring out” until after he was glorified, that is, raised from the dead and exalted to the right hand of God. At his exaltation, Jesus was given the holy spirit of God “without measure” (John 3:34 – NASB) so that he could give it to others who believed in him. For the Church, Jesus first “poured out” the holy spirit of God on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. In this classic verse, Peter is speaking to the amazed crowd assembled in the Temple on that historic day, and it is most significant that he also compares the gift of holy spirit to liquid:

Acts 2:33
“Exalted to the right hand of God, he [Jesus] has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit [holy spirit] and has poured out [like water] what you now see and hear.”

When John the Baptist came as a forerunner to the Messiah, many people asked him if he were the Christ. Look closely at his reply:

Luke 3:16
John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But [in contrast] one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit [no article “the”: holy spirit, the gift] and with fire.”

While John was baptizing people in the river Jordan, Jesus himself showed up, and John baptized him. Why was Jesus baptized in water? First, because he was a Jew living under the Mosaic Law, and water baptism was still pertinent to him. As Jesus said in Matthew 3:15 when John was humbly reluctant to baptize him, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” That is, all of God’s requirements for the Messiah were fulfilled in Jesus, who by his baptism symbolically identified with all men’s sin and need for cleansing, and became our substitute. [2]

It is also significant that at the same moment when John baptized Jesus with water, God “baptized” His Son with holy spirit in the form of a dove that descended upon him. Thus, in Jesus Christ, both baptisms interfaced, showing the transition between the old and the new that would take effect on the Day of Pentecost when the Church began. Accompanied by God’s no doubt “reverb-ial” voice from heaven affirming Jesus’ identity and His love for His Son, this event marked the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry.

Many believe that John the Baptist was the first to baptize in water, but this is clearly not the case. If so, John would have been pretty lonely standing in the Jordan River waiting on the Israelites to come and be baptized. If the Israelites had not already known about water baptism, they would have walked away after hearing him preach and said, “What the heck was that John guy talking about, anyway? I know what ‘repent’ means, but what is this ‘baptism’ stuff?” No, as Jews, they were very familiar with water baptism, and that is why they flocked to the river. That is also why, when the priests and Levites questioned John, they did not act surprised, as if baptism were a new ritual.

Hebrews 9:10 mentions “various ceremonial washings” in the Law, and the Greek word for “washings” there is “baptisms.” God could have easily used one of several other Greek words, such as pluno, which is used of washing inanimate things; nipto, used of washing a part of the body; or louo, which means “to bathe” or “to wash the entire body.” Instead, He chose “baptisms” to refer to the Old Testament washings.

A careful reading of the Old Testament reveals various types of washings for both Israelites and proselytes to Judaism. Exodus 30:17-21 mentions the bronze basin that was placed between the door of the Tabernacle and the altar so the priests could wash their hands and feet, thus ceremonially purifying themselves so they would not die in the presence of God. Water baptism under the Law was also representative of the one baptized going down into the grave and then being re-born unto life.

According to Exodus 40:12, Aaron and his sons were brought to the Tabernacle and washed with water. When Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem, he had a basin cast of bronze that was so large the Bible calls it “the Sea.” Scholars estimate that it held about 12,000 gallons of water and was a source of water for bathing, which was sometimes done by pouring the water over the man, and sometimes by putting it in a different container (2 Chron. 4:6).

The Mosaic Law was full of regulations about washing. There were many different things that a person could do that would make him unclean, and often the Law said that he then had to wash in water in order to re-enter the congregation. Compare Leviticus 14:9; 15:7,8,11,13,21,22,27; 16:26,28, and note the following similar verses:

Leviticus 17:15 and 16
(15) “‘Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
(16) But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself, he will be held responsible.’”

In the sense of getting rid of uncleanness, bathing in water, besides being a sanitary regulation, had some typological significance. The same was true of John’s baptism – the water was symbolic of the rinsing off of sin and of showing one’s desire to enter the Kingdom of God. Also, the Levites were sprinkled with water before they started ministering in the Tabernacle (Num. 8:6 and 7). The Law even had a special water of purification that was used in certain cases of uncleanness (e.g., Num. 19).

By the time of John the Baptist, there were ritual washing pools all over Israel. Today many of these pools can be seen in the archeological excavations throughout Israel, with good examples at Qumran, New Testament Jericho, and Jerusalem itself. It is believed that the Jews of the time of Christ required a new convert to be water baptized. Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible says, “A stranger who desired to become a Proselyte of the Covenant, or of Righteousness, i.e., in the fullest sense an Israelite, must be circumcised and baptized, and then offer a sacrifice.” It goes on to say that the person was taken “to a pool, in which he stood up to his neck in water, while the great commandments of the Law were recited to him. These he promised to keep. Then a benediction was pronounced and he plunged beneath the water, taking care to be entirely submerged.” [3]

Here is another telling quote regarding the prominence of ritual washings in Judaism:

Ritual immersion was important enough to the Jews that the Mishnah, which is the first section of the Talmud and collected from early oral interpretations of the Scripture, devotes an entire tractate to mikva’ot [the plural of mikveh], which were ritual immersion pools. Among other things, it describes how much water a mikveh should contain, how to stop a leak, and even places the “living water” that the mikveh contained into six grades of excellence or acceptability. The water in the mikveh was to come “by the hand of heaven” and not “by the hand of man,” so it had to be rainwater (gravity fed from rooftops was fine), springs, etc. Drawing water from cisterns to fill the mikveh was not acceptable, but in an interesting twist, since the Rabbis declared that mikveh water had the power to purify, small amounts of cistern water could be added to the “living water” to keep the mikveh full, and it was declared purified by the water already in the mikveh. The beauty of baptizing, as John did, in the Jordan River, was that there would never be any disputes about whether or not the water was Levitically acceptable. [4