Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[New Waterloo]

From Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

“Meanwhile, Donald McDonald, Professor of Oral Pathology at Glasgow University, was asked to compare John McInnes’s teeth with the bite mark found on Helen Puttock’s wrist (preserved as it was in a plaster mould). Professor McDonald concluded that, “while Mr McInnes’s teeth might have made the marks, because of the limited detail it was not possible to make a valid judgement about probability.”262 This “limited detail” stemmed from the fact that John McInnes had been fitted with dentures some three years after Helen Puttock’s murder and so there were simply no teeth to compare.263 His dental records have not as yet been found.”

As for the info on McInnes being fitted with dentures three years after the Puttock murder she cites Audrey Gillan from her introduction to the podcast as the source of this info. We don’t know where this information comes from but I think that we can safely assume that AG got it from a solid source. I can’t be certain but it looks like the authorities either weren’t aware of his dentures before the exhumation or, if they had been told about them, then they weren’t sure of the extent of them because they clearly had hopes of a match up with the bite mark.

Hi Herlock you quoting the section from Jill Bavin-Mizzis book seems on the surface to clear the matter up but can i ask who is actually saying that the ‘limited detail’ relates to McInnes having dentures? Is that Bavin-Mizzis interpretation based on information from Audry Gillan (I think that is what you are saying) or are they the words of Professor MacDonald?

I suspect they are Bavin-Mizzis words to explain the term ‘limited detail’ a suggestion which appears to remove suspicion from McInnes (useful for anyone suggesting he was not BJ) when in fact the best we can say about the teeth based on Professor MacDonalds examination and words he used is that the matter remains confused.

NW

[cobalt]

we need to look again at where the evidence is that McInnes had false teeth I think.

That sounds like good advice.

This “limited detail” stemmed from the fact that John McInnes had been fitted with dentures some three years after Helen Puttock’s murder and so there were simply no teeth to compare.263 His dental records have not as yet been found.”

So if there were no dental records how do we know McInnes was fitted with dentures (this normally means a complete set top and bottom) some three years after the murder of Helen Puttock? Who supplied this information?

We are once again forced to return to the initial investigation. It's understandable that there would have been no dental records for John McInnes in 1995 when the case was re-examined. But as a lifelong resident of the Stonehouse area there would most certainly have been dental records available in 1969, in fact probably up until his death. So the matter of his innocence or guilt could have been resolved at that time. Darryl and New Waterloo are justified in focusing on this anomaly, which the re-investigation seemed reluctant to pursue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only other explanation is that the body of McInnes did have teeth or part dentures. It certainly could not have been substantially false dentures otherwise the professional in oral pathology would have said it. Bearing in mind there were assistants and other people all around it must be that he did not have false teeth and the teeth that were left were perhaps loose or away from the jaw and unable to confirm they matched the bite.

we need to look again at where the evidence is that McInnes had false teeth I think

NW

From Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

“Meanwhile, Donald McDonald, Professor of Oral Pathology at Glasgow University, was asked to compare John McInnes’s teeth with the bite mark found on Helen Puttock’s wrist (preserved as it was in a plaster mould). Professor McDonald concluded that, “while Mr McInnes’s teeth might have made the marks, because of the limited detail it was not possible to make a valid judgement about probability.”262 This “limited detail” stemmed from the fact that John McInnes had been fitted with dentures some three years after Helen Puttock’s murder and so there were simply no teeth to compare.263 His dental records have not as yet been found.”

As for the info on McInnes being fitted with dentures three years after the Puttock murder she cites Audrey Gillan from her introduction to the podcast as the source of this info. We don’t know where this information comes from but I think that we can safely assume that AG got it from a solid source. I can’t be certain but it looks like the authorities either weren’t aware of his dentures before the exhumation or, if they had been told about them, then they weren’t sure of the extent of them because they clearly had hopes of a match up with the bite mark.

[New Waterloo]

The only other explanation is that the body of McInnes did have teeth or part dentures. It certainly could not have been substantially false dentures otherwise the professional in oral pathology would have said it. Bearing in mind there were assistants and other people all around it must be that he did not have false teeth and the teeth that were left were perhaps loose or away from the jaw and unable to confirm they matched the bite.

we need to look again at where the evidence is that McInnes had false teeth I think

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes , I agree Herlock that is the most likely explanation but the Herald specifically says - Bite-mark comparisons were carried out by Professor Donald McDonald, professor of oral pathology at Glasgow University, who said that, while Mr McInnes's teeth might have made the marks, because of the limited detail it was not possible to make a valid judgment about probability. This evidence therefore did not point convincingly to Mr McInnes being the originator of the bite.

If a person was wearing dentures at death [ and maybe not buried with them ], how can Professor Donald McDonald make any kind of comparison with the bite marks ? Or am I missing something ?

And if the Heralds report [ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...-john-suspect/ ], gets this wrong , how can we trust the rest of the article regarding the DNA evidence ?

Regards Darryl

It’s a bit of a mystery Darryl. Why doesn’t Professor McDonald mention the problem caused by McInnes having dentures? He makes it sound as if the problem was the lack of detail in the bite mark on Helen Puttock’s arm rather than the fact of the dentures. Why the lack of clarity? We get the same lack of clarity even in the result of the DNA. Some ‘voices’ (like the police) say that DNA eliminated him but the actual scientists say that the results were inconclusive and so McInnes couldn’t be named as Bible John but nor could he be eliminated either.

Its almost as if the police allowed the criticism that they had received over the exhumation (from family and possibly others) to bounce them into wanting to put an immediate full stop over the whole saga. So they publicly ‘exonerated’ McInnes. And let’s not forget, the whole re-investigation plus the exhumation cost taxpayer’s money. Did they cave in to pressure?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Darryl,

They couldn’t check McInnes teeth after the exhumation because he wore dentures.

Yes , I agree Herlock that is the most likely explanation but the Herald specifically says - Bite-mark comparisons were carried out by Professor Donald McDonald, professor of oral pathology at Glasgow University, who said that, while Mr McInnes's teeth might have made the marks, because of the limited detail it was not possible to make a valid judgment about probability. This evidence therefore did not point convincingly to Mr McInnes being the originator of the bite.

If a person was wearing dentures at death [ and maybe not buried with them ], how can Professor Donald McDonald make any kind of comparison with the bite marks ? Or am I missing something ?

And if the Heralds report [ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...-john-suspect/ ], gets this wrong , how can we trust the rest of the article regarding the DNA evidence ?

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have to ask the question if the bite marks were compared to McInnes teeth why were the said teeth not used instead of the femur for DNA comparison. Especially since the results from the femur took months to evaluate and may have been inconclusive.
Teeth are one of the preferred options to extract DNA from, as shown in the Hanratty case which gave up results conclusively , one in a million and a half chance and [ I believe ] pretty quickly .

From the net - Case-by-Case Evaluation:
The best tooth for DNA extraction should be determined based on the specific circumstances of the exhumation and the condition of the teeth.

And -

• Presence of Fillings or Dental Work:
  Fillings can impact DNA quality and quantity, so teeth with extensive work might be avoided in favor of those with less interference.

Finally -

• Alternative DNA Sources:
  If teeth are not suitable, bone fragments can be an alternative source of DNA.

Seems to me McInnes's teeth were either too degraded or extensive work [ maybe dentures ].

And an oral pathologist can not make a judgement on either circumstance with any level of certainty given either condition .

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

They couldn’t check McInnes teeth after the exhumation because he wore dentures.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I have to ask the question if the bite marks were compared to McInnes teeth why were the said teeth not used instead of the femur for DNA comparison. Especially since the results from the femur took months to evaluate and may have been inconclusive.
Teeth are one of the preferred options to extract DNA from, as shown in the Hanratty case which gave up results conclusively , one in a million and a half chance and [ I believe ] pretty quickly .

From the net - Case-by-Case Evaluation:
The best tooth for DNA extraction should be determined based on the specific circumstances of the exhumation and the condition of the teeth.

And -

• Presence of Fillings or Dental Work:
  Fillings can impact DNA quality and quantity, so teeth with extensive work might be avoided in favor of those with less interference.

Finally -

• Alternative DNA Sources:
  If teeth are not suitable, bone fragments can be an alternative source of DNA.

Seems to me McInnes's teeth were either too degraded or extensive work [ maybe dentures ].

And an oral pathologist can not make a judgement on either circumstance with any level of certainty given either condition .

Regards Darryl

[New Waterloo]

Hi Cobalt. Yes I see what you mean but the comments and conclusions drawn after the exhumation do not appear to state that the body examined had false teeth. As Herlock points out the Crown uses the non matching of teeth marks as one factor eliminating McInnes as the killer. This appears to be being used as a factor for all to believe and adding weight to McInnes innocence when it should be mentioned. If it is not mentioned in official reports by the pathologists it is a huge mistake or a sham. It cannot be an error. It is so important that the Crown are using the findings about the bite marks to form their conclusion and then not say they were false. More than odd. Seems ridiculous to me and its been believed by the press and all.

NW

[cobalt]

It's possible that McInnes did not have false teeth in 1969 when he was around 30 years of age but had acquired them by the time of his death aged 41. As I pointed out earlier, we Scots generally do not have good teeth

[New Waterloo]

Herlocks good inclusion of the Heralds report on the bite/teeth examination is in my opinion a bomb shell. Something is very wrong with all of this. How could there be a report about Mcinnes teeth not matching the bite mark when he had false teeth. Either he didnt have false teeth or he did. If the body that was exhumed had no false teeth and we are certain McInnes had false teeth then we have a fabricated story in the Herald or they dug up the wrong body!!
something is just not right here. just so much confusion.
i am back listening to the Podcast again very carefully.



NW

[cobalt]

When DNA first emerged as a forensic tool it was dubbed 'the genetic fingerprint.' This had the (intended ) effect of convincing the general public of its scientific certainty. Juries remain convinced to this day.

But the reality is slightly different. Both fingerprint and DNA evidence has to be collected without contamination. Even when this is done it is quite likely there will be a smudged partial print or in the case of DNA a mixture with other persons. Finally, the forensic evidence has to be matched by persons expert in the field.

Most of us on this site will be aware of cases where the forensic evidence has been faulty for one of the above reasons. The Shirley McKie case in Scotland in the late 1990s was never fully investigated since it undermined the entire credibility of the fingerprint experts employed by the crown. I recall a rapist convicted by DNA who claimed, correctly as it turned out, that he had never visited the Midlands area where the crime took place. From memory, this was put down to a contamination error inside the laboratory, or perhaps his factory work left his DNA profile on objects sold across the country. Neither fingerprints nor DNA are scientifically infallible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Darryl,

I am going off tack a bit but its interesting that you mention that the McInnes family had a family pathologist. Surely a waste of money if McInnes was not BJ as they insisted. Its a defensive move. Some will not see it as that but there are no reasons that neutral scientists would doctor the evidence. Anyway a firm positive resulted can not be manufactured. Seems to me there are three outcomes in truth, Positive enough to say it was him, Completely negative and unable to be him and inconclusive.

Of course if there is doubt in the result then 'inconclusive' does not prove guilt and therefore any suspect remains innocent.

I am assuming a pathologist was employed by the family to challenge or defend any accusations. It could be suggested by some that this would indicate that there was uncertainty within the family at the time of the exhumation as to whether McInnes was responsible. Otherwise why would you prepare for a defence at I would imagine at some expense.

NW

I’m unsure about the term ‘family pathologist’ NW but I know that at the exhumation two pathologists were involved. Mary Cassidy on behalf of The Crown and Tony Bassutil on behalf of the McInnes’s family.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hello Darryl,

I am going off tack a bit but its interesting that you mention that the McInnes family had a family pathologist. Surely a waste of money if McInnes was not BJ as they insisted. Its a defensive move. Some will not see it as that but there are no reasons that neutral scientists would doctor the evidence. Anyway a firm positive resulted can not be manufactured. Seems to me there are three outcomes in truth, Positive enough to say it was him, Completely negative and unable to be him and inconclusive.

Of course if there is doubt in the result then 'inconclusive' does not prove guilt and therefore any suspect remains innocent.

I am assuming a pathologist was employed by the family to challenge or defend any accusations. It could be suggested by some that this would indicate that there was uncertainty within the family at the time of the exhumation as to whether McInnes was responsible. Otherwise why would you prepare for a defence at I would imagine at some expense.

NW

Its also interesting to note NW that in the Hanratty, A6 murder case James Hanratty's brother Michael after they took a DNA sample off him to see if there was any familial match to the DNA found on the semen stain on Valerie Storie's underwear, which there was , hence the exhumation of James. Michael still insisted that his brother was innocent and that the DNA was nothing to worry about because it was contaminated - https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n.../28276565.html.

And also after the DNA was shown to be admissible evidence in the court of appeal and The justices said the DNA evidence "made what was a strong case, even stronger", Michael fought on and for instance - In a statement released the family's solicitors said : "At the conclusion of the hearing in the Court of Appeal, the court agreed that there was a point of law of general public importance, namely the question of whether or not it is permissible for the prosecution to adduce new evidence which is not specifically related to new evidence on behalf of the defence.
It looks like the family solicitors wanted the DNA evidence to be ruled inadmissible .

Perhaps there are some parallels with the McInnes family wanting some form of assurance along the lines of, if the DNA from them or from John [ when he was exhumed ] wasn't proved to be a 100% match, he would be cleared. IE Innocent until proven guilty, or they wouldn't give a sample maybe ?

To my mind there must have been some [ at the very least ], familial match from said samples off his family for the relevant authorities to get permission to have John Mcinnes's remains to be exhumed.

Regards Darryl

[New Waterloo]

Apparently the Femur is a good place to extract DNA from in an exhumation , but not the best. Teeth, I believe are one of the preferred choices as was the case with James Hanratty in the A6 murder. We know that McInnes had dentures so . Anyway this is what i have read - Petrous bones [ base of skull ], yield the most DNA from skeletal remains. In a recent study of a mass grave found in Spain only 6% of Petrous bones yielded less than 50 pg DNA compared to 90% with the Femur and 82% with the Tibia . I don't profess to know what all this means but it seems likely that due to degradation the Femur can show a lot more inconclusive results than say the Teeth 59%.
Makes you wonder why the Skull was not used ? But back in 1996 maybe these results were not known ?

Incidentally this is on the Wiki page - Strathclyde Police and the McInnes family pathologist confirmed in 2005 that further advancements in DNA testing had now enabled a match between McInnes's DNA and the killer's to be fully disproved.
I don't know how true this is, it seems to relate to a TV program which tried to link Tobin to the murders.

Regards Darryl

Hello Darryl,

I am going off tack a bit but its interesting that you mention that the McInnes family had a family pathologist. Surely a waste of money if McInnes was not BJ as they insisted. Its a defensive move. Some will not see it as that but there are no reasons that neutral scientists would doctor the evidence. Anyway a firm positive resulted can not be manufactured. Seems to me there are three outcomes in truth, Positive enough to say it was him, Completely negative and unable to be him and inconclusive.

Of course if there is doubt in the result then 'inconclusive' does not prove guilt and therefore any suspect remains innocent.

I am assuming a pathologist was employed by the family to challenge or defend any accusations. It could be suggested by some that this would indicate that there was uncertainty within the family at the time of the exhumation as to whether McInnes was responsible. Otherwise why would you prepare for a defence at I would imagine at some expense.

NW