Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[Herlock Sholmes]

Calling it a 'mystery' is the objective way of putting it, Herlock, but as I remember it, the podcast was clearly implying that Hannah was deliberately put out of harm's way by sending him out on a rather pointless exercise in his taxi so he wouldn't accidently cross paths with McInnes when he was brought in for the parade.

Yes it’s difficult to see the value in a drive along the route that they had taken on the night of the murder Roger and so you do have to work really hard in trying to come up with innocent explanations for what went on. I don’t know how the 1996 team came up with a timeline though as they never mention any record of McInnes being brought from Hamilton to Partick Marine. Unless they had times, but didn’t mention them, I don’t know how they could imply that McInnes couldn’t have been at Partick Marine for that parade?

[barnflatwyngarde]

The image on the right is the 1969 Lennox Patterson portrait of Bible John.

The image on the left is the 1970 "photofit" which was made by using real photographs of people.

In episode 5 of the podcast "Bonus Episode: The Witness" Jeannie says "You walked into the Barrowland and there was this poster, and we didn’t even give it a second glance. After it happened they took me to the polis’ office in Glasgow, and I walked in and I looked.
You had no idea the sensation I got inside of me when I saw this other poster. Not the one they had in the Barrowland, there was this other one, and I went “that is definitely him, there is a resemblance there” .

Jeannie is clearly referring to a date after 31st October 1969, and she cannot be referring to either of the two portraits above.

The photofit on the left was released on August 14th 1970 (source: The Scotsman 15th August 1970)

So what portrait/drawing did Jeannie see in the police station.

Could it be one of these two drawings?

[rjpalmer]

It’s also a mystery why Alexander Hannah wasn’t shown the parade too. He was actually at Partick Marine Station that day.

Calling it a 'mystery' is the objective way of putting it, Herlock, but as I remember it, the podcast was clearly implying that Hannah was deliberately put out of harm's way by sending him out on a rather pointless exercise in his taxi so he wouldn't accidently cross paths with McInnes when he was brought in for the parade.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Herlock,

I think your point about Joe Beattie being adamant that a suspect was put in front of Jeannie really answers the problem. Jeannie recalls an ID parade. There were dozens of casual ID encounters but she only remembers one. That must be the one Beattie speaks of because he is clearly talking about an official ID parade.
Strikes me its McInnes, and Jeannie doesnt quite make the ID because of hair colour. She says this.

Beattie in his hospital bed has to concede that the ID parade took place (too much evidence that it did) but isn't prepared (or maybe doesn't remember) to give the name. For some reason. All fingers regarding this appear to point to McInnes

NW

Hi NW,

One of the problems though is that despite there being strict rules of procedure concerning ID parades there is no evidence for this particular parade. They are supposed to record, for example, who was in the parade etc but there was nothing. According to the timeline (created by the 1996 investigation team) they believe that McInnes was at Hamilton police station at the time, which also begs the question why they hadn’t taken him to Partick Marine? It’s also a mystery why Alexander Hannah wasn’t shown the parade too. He was actually at Partick Marine Station that day.

I agree that it’s difficult to get past McInnes. Joe Beattie would have been aware of the conflict of interest and yet he still allowed McInnes’s cousin to interview 2 witnesses; one of whom had without doubt seen Bible John at close hand.

So being generous - could the police have been confident that John Irvine McInnes was just perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time and they removed all trace of him in the investigation to protect the family?

Being ungenerous - was there an attempt to cover up for a guilty John Irvine McInnes?

I think that what we all agree on is that something was going on. Something wasn’t right.

[barnflatwyngarde]

There is a lot of ambiguity in both Jeannie's oral account and the article about Lennox Patterson.

I don't think Patterson was asked to do a sketch after the Pat Docker murder; when he talks about the 'first' murder I think he is referring to the killing of Jemima MacDonald, which was the first time he was approached. Thus the 'second' murder is probably a reference to the murder of Helen Puttock.

Jeannie contradicts herself regarding the poster she saw inside the police station. First of she says it is definitely him, then she says it is not him but you can see the resemblance. A bit of a muddle but what seems clear is that the Patterson sketch done in respect of the Jemima MacDonald murder was, from Jeannie's point of view, pretty accurate. What we can't know is how much Jeannie's memory of the poster influenced the description she gave to Patterson when the portrait was done.

Maybe that is what the police were trying to avoid when they told her not to pay any attention to the poster on the wall. Because as HS points out, they cannot have discounted a suspect on the basis of a generic sketch.

Hi Cobalt, once again, I think that you may well be right.

Patterson doesn't make it clear which murder he is referring to when he talks about "the first murder", but it probably makes more sense if Patterson is referring to the jemima MacDonald murder.

I am working on trying to make sense of the various artist impressions and photofits.
I may just go insane in the process.

On post #196 I suggested that Bible John was probably sitting in the taxi with his back to the taxi driver and facing Helen and Jeannie, I was wrong.
In Audrey Gillan's podcast episode "Bonus Episode: The Witness", Jeannie makes it clear that all three of them were sitting together facing the back of the taxi driver.

This case is tricky enough wqithout my factual errors muddying the water.

[New Waterloo]

I’ve just listened again to episode 8 - Revelation. I thought I’d lay out a list for clarity of some of the points raised from discussions with the 1996 detectives.


~ Action 14 - Two days after Helen Puttock’s murder why did a team of such senior officers go to Stonehouse? Detective Superintendent Beattie (senior investigation officer) Detective Superintendent Tom Valentine, Detective Inspector William Campbell and Detective Inspector Tommy Grant. This kind of thing would normally have been done by a Detective Sergeant or a Detective Constable or both.
McEwan and Hughes suggest a bit of glory-hunting maybe?

~ Why did they take their suspect to the station at Hamilton (which is a small station in Lanarkshire) when the headquarters for the case was at Partick Marine Station in Glasgow?

~ Why, when they spoke to Joe Beattie in hospital in 1996 (saying that he was perfectly lucid) could he recall the trip to Stonehouse and yet he couldn’t recall the name of the suspect. In the biggest case of his career after something so important had occurred to make him and those other three senior officers charge over to Stonehouse? Even though he was adamant that this witness was put in front of Jeannie (who failed to ID him)

~ Why could the 1996 team find not one single mention of McInnes’s name in the record?

~ Why did Jimmy McInnes try to minimise his roll in the original investigation? (Although he admitted that the Stonehouse suspect was his cousin, John Irvine McInnes.

~ When the team went to Stonehouse their first port of call was Sandy, John Irvine McInnes’s cousin and he said that it was the Moylan’s card that led them to his door and yet there’s no mention of this card in the investigation files.

~ Why did Hector McInnes try to claim that the card was false evidence?

~ Why did Jimmy McInnes follow Detective Jim McEwen and try to intimidate him during the 1996 investigation?

~ Why was it that when a Mrs Palka (?), a Barrowland dancer claimed to know who the killer was it was Jimmy McInnes’s who went to interview her?

~ Why is the interview book blank with no statement taken?

~ Why was there an attempt to rub out her name from the interview book?

~ Why were the following statements re-numbered to hide the gap in the sequence?

~ Why, when the taxi driver Alexander Hannah was called in, was it Jimmy McInnes (the man who supposedly took no part in the enquiry) who dealt with him?

~ Why when they fingerprinted his taxi were there no prints? How can you have no fingerprints in a Glasgow taxi?

~ While the taxi was being fingerprinted Hannah was taken on the route that he took on the night of Helen’s murder. On that very afternoon Jeannie saw an identity parade. Why wasn’t Hannah shown the identity parade? He’d had Bible John in his taxi after all.

~ Beattie told the 1996 detectives that John Irvine McInnes was put on the ID parade but Jeannie failed to pick him out but according to the timeline McInnes was at Hamilton police station; nowhere near to Partick Marine.

~ There are very strict rules about recording ID parades so why is there no record of the one that Jeannie saw?

~ Mickey Moylan said that his employee Thomas Murphy (who worked in his Wishaw shop) had been pulled into Partick Marine. His other employee Len Smith said that he had to show Jeannie his teeth but that this wasn’t during a formal ID parade.

~ Why was it that when detective Davy Frew had suggested to Beattie that they make some enquiry into the area where the dishevelled man on the night bus was seen Beattie refused? Was it because 5 m utes walk from where he got off the bus was where McInnes’s aunt and uncle lived. Somewhere that he had sometimes spent the night if he’d missed his last bus?

~ How come when shown a group of 12 photographs, taxi driver Alexander Hannah immediately picked out John Irvine McInnes as the man that was in his taxi? And not only that he correctly stated that McInnes was older in the photograph that he was shown?

~ How come when shown a group of 12 photographs the bouncer that was involved in the cigarette incident unhesitatingly picked out the photograph of John Irvine McInnes?


‘A bit suspicious’ doesn’t really cover it does it?

Hello Herlock,

I think your point about Joe Beattie being adamant that a suspect was put in front of Jeannie really answers the problem. Jeannie recalls an ID parade. There were dozens of casual ID encounters but she only remembers one. That must be the one Beattie speaks of because he is clearly talking about an official ID parade.
Strikes me its McInnes, and Jeannie doesnt quite make the ID because of hair colour. She says this.

Beattie in his hospital bed has to concede that the ID parade took place (too much evidence that it did) but isn't prepared (or maybe doesn't remember) to give the name. For some reason. All fingers regarding this appear to point to McInnes

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just listened again to episode 8 - Revelation. I thought I’d lay out a list for clarity of some of the points raised from discussions with the 1996 detectives.


~ Action 14 - Two days after Helen Puttock’s murder why did a team of such senior officers go to Stonehouse? Detective Superintendent Beattie (senior investigation officer) Detective Superintendent Tom Valentine, Detective Inspector William Campbell and Detective Inspector Tommy Grant. This kind of thing would normally have been done by a Detective Sergeant or a Detective Constable or both.
McEwan and Hughes suggest a bit of glory-hunting maybe?

~ Why did they take their suspect to the station at Hamilton (which is a small station in Lanarkshire) when the headquarters for the case was at Partick Marine Station in Glasgow?

~ Why, when they spoke to Joe Beattie in hospital in 1996 (saying that he was perfectly lucid) could he recall the trip to Stonehouse and yet he couldn’t recall the name of the suspect. In the biggest case of his career after something so important had occurred to make him and those other three senior officers charge over to Stonehouse? Even though he was adamant that this witness was put in front of Jeannie (who failed to ID him)

~ Why could the 1996 team find not one single mention of McInnes’s name in the record?

~ Why did Jimmy McInnes try to minimise his roll in the original investigation? (Although he admitted that the Stonehouse suspect was his cousin, John Irvine McInnes.

~ When the team went to Stonehouse their first port of call was Sandy, John Irvine McInnes’s cousin and he said that it was the Moylan’s card that led them to his door and yet there’s no mention of this card in the investigation files.

~ Why did Hector McInnes try to claim that the card was false evidence?

~ Why did Jimmy McInnes follow Detective Jim McEwen and try to intimidate him during the 1996 investigation?

~ Why was it that when a Mrs Palka (?), a Barrowland dancer claimed to know who the killer was it was Jimmy McInnes’s who went to interview her?

~ Why is the interview book blank with no statement taken?

~ Why was there an attempt to rub out her name from the interview book?

~ Why were the following statements re-numbered to hide the gap in the sequence?

~ Why, when the taxi driver Alexander Hannah was called in, was it Jimmy McInnes (the man who supposedly took no part in the enquiry) who dealt with him?

~ Why when they fingerprinted his taxi were there no prints? How can you have no fingerprints in a Glasgow taxi?

~ While the taxi was being fingerprinted Hannah was taken on the route that he took on the night of Helen’s murder. On that very afternoon Jeannie saw an identity parade. Why wasn’t Hannah shown the identity parade? He’d had Bible John in his taxi after all.

~ Beattie told the 1996 detectives that John Irvine McInnes was put on the ID parade but Jeannie failed to pick him out but according to the timeline McInnes was at Hamilton police station; nowhere near to Partick Marine.

~ There are very strict rules about recording ID parades so why is there no record of the one that Jeannie saw?

~ Mickey Moylan said that his employee Thomas Murphy (who worked in his Wishaw shop) had been pulled into Partick Marine. His other employee Len Smith said that he had to show Jeannie his teeth but that this wasn’t during a formal ID parade.

~ Why was it that when detective Davy Frew had suggested to Beattie that they make some enquiry into the area where the dishevelled man on the night bus was seen Beattie refused? Was it because 5 m utes walk from where he got off the bus was where McInnes’s aunt and uncle lived. Somewhere that he had sometimes spent the night if he’d missed his last bus?

~ How come when shown a group of 12 photographs, taxi driver Alexander Hannah immediately picked out John Irvine McInnes as the man that was in his taxi? And not only that he correctly stated that McInnes was older in the photograph that he was shown?

~ How come when shown a group of 12 photographs the bouncer that was involved in the cigarette incident unhesitatingly picked out the photograph of John Irvine McInnes?


‘A bit suspicious’ doesn’t really cover it does it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is a lot of ambiguity in both Jeannie's oral account and the article about Lennox Patterson.

I don't think Patterson was asked to do a sketch after the Pat Docker murder; when he talks about the 'first' murder I think he is referring to the killing of Jemima MacDonald, which was the first time he was approached. Thus the 'second' murder is probably a reference to the murder of Helen Puttock.

Jeannie contradicts herself regarding the poster she saw inside the police station. First of she says it is definitely him, then she says it is not him but you can see the resemblance. A bit of a muddle but what seems clear is that the Patterson sketch done in respect of the Jemima MacDonald murder was, from Jeannie's point of view, pretty accurate. What we can't know is how much Jeannie's memory of the poster influenced the description she gave to Patterson when the portrait was done.

Maybe that is what the police were trying to avoid when they told her not to pay any attention to the poster on the wall. Because as HS points out, they cannot have discounted a suspect on the basis of a generic sketch.

Agreed Cobalt. The frailty of memory has to be kept in mind here considering the lengthy passage of time. It does seem strange though that they didn’t just get someone drawing the picture with Jean sitting there so that she could suggest alterations or improvements. If they had done that then wouldn’t we have expected this version to have been the one that she favoured?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely if a poster is up on a police wall then the person in said poster must still be connected to the case in some way? Otherwise they would take the photofit/portrait down? Or am I missing something Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

There’s quite a bit in this case that we could file under ‘strange’ and this would seem to be one of them. Jeannie is saying that the person in the picture that she saw had been eliminated by the police but none of these pictures were of named individuals. And as you say Darryl, if one picture was from a description given by a witness who was later found to have been lying then why would it still have been on display? It has to be possible that after 27 years Jeannie was just mistaken about what had been said to her at the time.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Surely if a poster is up on a police wall then the person in said poster must still be connected to the case in some way? Otherwise they would take the photofit/portrait down? Or am I missing something Regards Darryl

[cobalt]

There is a lot of ambiguity in both Jeannie's oral account and the article about Lennox Patterson.

I don't think Patterson was asked to do a sketch after the Pat Docker murder; when he talks about the 'first' murder I think he is referring to the killing of Jemima MacDonald, which was the first time he was approached. Thus the 'second' murder is probably a reference to the murder of Helen Puttock.

Jeannie contradicts herself regarding the poster she saw inside the police station. First of she says it is definitely him, then she says it is not him but you can see the resemblance. A bit of a muddle but what seems clear is that the Patterson sketch done in respect of the Jemima MacDonald murder was, from Jeannie's point of view, pretty accurate. What we can't know is how much Jeannie's memory of the poster influenced the description she gave to Patterson when the portrait was done.

Maybe that is what the police were trying to avoid when they told her not to pay any attention to the poster on the wall. Because as HS points out, they cannot have discounted a suspect on the basis of a generic sketch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,
Lennox Patterson gave an interview to the Daily Record of 5th December 1969.
It is not a huge article, but the salient points are interesting.


Artist Lennox Patterson has just completed his most unusual work, commissioned by the police.

Millions of people have seen the thousands of copies which have heen made of the portrait, for it could be playing an important part in a murder hunt.

The subject of the portrait is a man the police want to interview in connection with the murder of Mrs Helen Puttock, found dead near her home in Scotstoun, Glasgow.

Mr Patterson, deputy director and registrar at Glasgow Art College, also worked on the first artist's impression ever issued by police in Scotland.

It was a drawing of a man wanted for questioning in connection with the murder of Jemima McDonald, whо was found strangled near ner home in Bridgeton earlier this year.

Mr Patterson told us: "The police contacted me and asked if I could attempt a drawing from descriptions after the first murder".

"Two witnesses gave me as much detail as they could, but people don't really remember facial features accurately unless they are very familiar with a person.
I just had to work on a general feeling of what the man was like and the witnesses seemed to think the result was accurate.
I think this was really luck".

For the second murder Mr Patterson had more detail for the painting of "Bible John" -the man the police want to question.

He said: "I'm sure I must be unpopular with a lot of innocent people who look like the man in the portrait but this is inevitable".

Mr Patterson who was a student at Glasgow Art College and has taught ther for 23 years. doesn't normally paint portraits.

He said: "I paint landscapes mainly-when I have enough free time".

"I only do portraits of people I know really well-but this latest portrait, I must emphasise, is an exception".

Patterson is saying that after the Patricia Docker murder, two witnesses helped him in compiling the first photofit.

After Jemima MacDonald's murder, Patterson had "more detail" to work with, presumably from witnesses who saw Jemima with a man, either in the Barrowland or on the short walk to MacKeith street.

What Patterson seems to be saying is that he was involved in the creation of three portraits of Bible John.
One after the murder of Patricia Docker, one after the murder of Jemima MacDonald, and another portrait created with the help of Jeannie Langford.

Jeannie seems to be saying that she was more impressed with one of the first two Patterson portraits of Bible John.

Thanks for posting that Barn. It does seem a little strange to say the least. When she says that it wasn’t the one that they had in the Barrowland I’d assumed that she meant the photo fit but surely they would have put any drawing that Patterson had done up too so why hadn’t Jeannie seen it as she was a regular visitor? Then we have the question of Jeannie saying that the police told her that it couldn’t have been the man. How could this be the case if it was just a generic face produced by Patterson? If they had rejected a certain picture doesn’t that mean that it was of a specific man?

[barnflatwyngarde]

From the podcast Bonus Episode: Jeannie:

“After it happened they took me to the police officer in Glasgow and I walked in and I looked and you have no idea the sensation I got inside me when I looked at this other poster. Not the one they had in Barrowland. It was this other one. I went like, that is definitely him. There’s a resemblance there. It was the very first photo they must have got off some of the witnesses from the other cases. It wasn’t him but the resemblance was there. It was good enough to make me feel sick. You don’t get that in your gut. But they says, no, you can’t connect it. He either disappeared or he had a good alibi and somebody covered up for him.”


The Patterson portrait was based on a description from Jeannie as she had definitely seen the man known as Bible John and at close quarters and yet here she is saying that the poster that was the one that she felt stood out out to her as resembling the real Bible John was one that the police “must have got off some of the witnesses from the other cases.” So not the Patterson portrait?

I find this curious to say the least. Why would she think that a picture of Bible John was more accurate than the one that was done with her input? And why did the police say that the man in the picture couldn’t have been the guilty man?

Hi Herlock,
Lennox Patterson gave an interview to the Daily Record of 5th December 1969.
It is not a huge article, but the salient points are interesting.


Artist Lennox Patterson has just completed his most unusual work, commissioned by the police.

Millions of people have seen the thousands of copies which have heen made of the portrait, for it could be playing an important part in a murder hunt.

The subject of the portrait is a man the police want to interview in connection with the murder of Mrs Helen Puttock, found dead near her home in Scotstoun, Glasgow.

Mr Patterson, deputy director and registrar at Glasgow Art College, also worked on the first artist's impression ever issued by police in Scotland.

It was a drawing of a man wanted for questioning in connection with the murder of Jemima McDonald, whо was found strangled near ner home in Bridgeton earlier this year.

Mr Patterson told us: "The police contacted me and asked if I could attempt a drawing from descriptions after the first murder".

"Two witnesses gave me as much detail as they could, but people don't really remember facial features accurately unless they are very familiar with a person.
I just had to work on a general feeling of what the man was like and the witnesses seemed to think the result was accurate.
I think this was really luck".

For the second murder Mr Patterson had more detail for the painting of "Bible John" -the man the police want to question.

He said: "I'm sure I must be unpopular with a lot of innocent people who look like the man in the portrait but this is inevitable".

Mr Patterson who was a student at Glasgow Art College and has taught ther for 23 years. doesn't normally paint portraits.

He said: "I paint landscapes mainly-when I have enough free time".

"I only do portraits of people I know really well-but this latest portrait, I must emphasise, is an exception".

Patterson is saying that after the Patricia Docker murder, two witnesses helped him in compiling the first photofit.

After Jemima MacDonald's murder, Patterson had "more detail" to work with, presumably from witnesses who saw Jemima with a man, either in the Barrowland or on the short walk to MacKeith street.

What Patterson seems to be saying is that he was involved in the creation of three portraits of Bible John.
One after the murder of Patricia Docker, one after the murder of Jemima MacDonald, and another portrait created with the help of Jeannie Langford.

Jeannie seems to be saying that she was more impressed with one of the first two Patterson portraits of Bible John.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From the podcast Bonus Episode: Jeannie:

“After it happened they took me to the police officer in Glasgow and I walked in and I looked and you have no idea the sensation I got inside me when I looked at this other poster. Not the one they had in Barrowland. It was this other one. I went like, that is definitely him. There’s a resemblance there. It was the very first photo they must have got off some of the witnesses from the other cases. It wasn’t him but the resemblance was there. It was good enough to make me feel sick. You don’t get that in your gut. But they says, no, you can’t connect it. He either disappeared or he had a good alibi and somebody covered up for him.”


The Patterson portrait was based on a description from Jeannie as she had definitely seen the man known as Bible John and at close quarters and yet here she is saying that the poster that was the one that she felt stood out out to her as resembling the real Bible John was one that the police “must have got off some of the witnesses from the other cases.” So not the Patterson portrait?

I find this curious to say the least. Why would she think that a picture of Bible John was more accurate than the one that was done with her input? And why did the police say that the man in the picture couldn’t have been the guilty man?

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hehe, no worries, I actually uploaded the wrong one, here is the correct version for those eagle-eye readers

Nice one!

No wonder Joe Beattie screwed it up.