Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, yeah it was me who flagged up that there was a photofit of Castlemilk John produced and circulated to police stations.

I've had a trawl for it in newspapers, and I've found absolutely nothing.

Hi Barn,

It’s a bit strange isn’t it? You would have thought it would have been all over the Press and easy to find. The guy could still be alive.

[barnflatwyngarde]

General question - it was said on here (I think by Barn - apologies if it wasn’t) that a photofit of Castlemilk John was produced (which makes sense of course) So why haven’t we seen it? Surely it must have been in the papers?

Hi Herlock, yeah it was me who flagged up that there was a photofit of Castlemilk John produced and circulated to police stations.

I've had a trawl for it in newspapers, and I've found absolutely nothing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

General question - it was said on here (I think by Barn - apologies if it wasn’t) that a photofit of Castlemilk John was produced (which makes sense of course) So why haven’t we seen it? Surely it must have been in the papers?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd be very interested to know who these ten witnesses were and where they had witnessed the suspect. Since neither the bouncers at the Barrowland nor the taxi driver seem to have been part of this ten it's difficult to know where they came from. Did these ten witnesses include potential witnesses from the Jemima MacDonald murder two months earlier?

So would I Cobalt. Did Jeannie really see him? Why didn’t Hannah? Why didn’t the manager and the bouncers at the Barrowland? And then there’s the absolute killer points - why are none of these witnesses mentioned in the police file…..why are none of these parades mentioned in the police file….and of course there’s the small matter of….why is there absolutely no mention of John Irvine McInnes anywhere in the police files. The guy who 10 witnesses rejected and who, according to McInnes himself, attended 4 parades. This is the guy who two Detective Superintendents and two Detective Chief Inspectors all swooped over to Stonehouse to see 2 days after Helen Puttock was murdered.

I’m guessing that you’re smelling exactly the same type of rodent that I’m smelling.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Regarding the DNA, when there was advances in technology and a profile from the semen stain could be made. Where there a few tests done ? On then living suspects as well as relatives of dead ones ? Or have I speculated that wrong

I’m fairly certain that McEwan’s team were asked if there were any of his cold cases that might benefit from the advances in DNA technology and he suggested Bible John and John Irvine McInnes. No other suspects were tested. As far as we know there are no other suspects. That said, there’s now the question of Templeton of course.

[cobalt]

I'd be very interested to know who these ten witnesses were and where they had witnessed the suspect. Since neither the bouncers at the Barrowland nor the taxi driver seem to have been part of this ten it's difficult to know where they came from. Did these ten witnesses include potential witnesses from the Jemima MacDonald murder two months earlier?

"If you have ten witnesses and they all say no, what do you do, haul the guy up?"

It's a strange phrase 'haul the guy up.' Presumably you have already hauled him in for questioning and arrested him on suspicion of murder before putting him on an ID parade. Is Beattie conceding that McInnes was not even arrested? It reads that way to me.

You should have asked for a detailed account of his movements then checked this story to find witnesses to it. Ditto for the Jemima MacDonald murder. Then you should have checked his blood group to see if it matched the semen stain found on Helen Puttock's clothing. Then you should have checked his teeth (not relied on Jeannie's recollections) to see if there was a match to the bite mark on Helen Puttock's wrist. Ditto for taking a hair sample to see if it matched one found at the scene. Then tested the Moylan's card to see if there were any fingerprints. Then you should have seized the suspect's clothing and shoes for forensic examination. If all that checked out then yes, you can now release him without charge.

There was clearly conspiracy in the aftermath of the investigation given that McInnes' name had been removed from the police file. It's not much of a leap to suspect there was corruption during the investigation as well, although '**** up' may have played a part as well.

[Darryl Kenyon]

With regard to why a car full of senior detectives dashed out to see John McInnes in darkest Lanarkshire, I confess that I simply don't have a clue.

Whether it was a case of blatant nepotism, Freemasonic influence or the protecting of a police informant, once again, I simply don't know.

I have a concern however re the possibility of McInnes being a police informer.
McInnes lived and worked in Lanarkshire, which had it's own police force, so I think it unlikely that he would be in the position to pass on information re crimes committed in Glasgow.
He could have been an informant for Lanarkshire Police, but if that was the case, why would senior Glasgow detectives feel the need to protect him?

The teeth issue is a real knotty problem, and again, I'm simply not sure, although I lean towards McInnes having dentures.

Having said that, the following Scotsman article of 24th June 1996 by Alan Forbes, gives pause for thought on two issues; the ID parade(s) that McInnes may have been in, and the teeth issue.

The article is headed "Anger at Report That Exhumed Body is Not Bible John".

"The detective who led the original Bible John investigation, Joe Beattie said that McInnes had not been identified by ten witnesses and Miss Puttock's sister who had shared a taxi with the man believed to be Bible John.

Mr Beattie who retired about 20 years ago, said he could not comment on the current investigation and he knew nothing about DNA, but he said "If you have ten witnesses and they all say no, what do you do, haul the guy up?"
Mr Beattie added that McInnes's teeth had borne no similarity to the description of Bible John's teeth given by Miss Puttock's sister."

This is unequivocal, Beattie is clearly saying that ten witnesses saw John McInnes in ID parades, and all said that he was not the suspect that they had seen.

Presumably this evidence re the ID parades and the teeth would be in the official case files, so why on earth would the police seek permission from the Procurator Fiscal to exhume John McInnes when Beattie is clearly saying that on the evidence that he and his original investigation team he was clearly not the killer?

If Beattie is lying about the ten witnesses and the fact that McInnes's teeth were not a match, why would he lie?

Hi Barn

McInnes himself said he had been on four ID parades, according to this article -

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-s...Cm4h2BBjVJU4WE PGy07ZTgn49oVXqCFkA6YA0bEircmu

I don't know if the article, or it's source are embellished , [ it does read that way ]. But if true he must have been a decent suspect to be put on said ID's whatever the circumstances of them.

Regarding the DNA, when there was advances in technology and a profile from the semen stain could be made. Where there a few tests done ? On then living suspects as well as relatives of dead ones ? Or have I speculated that wrong

Regards Darryl

PS I still feel that if any of McInnes's teeth where exhumed they would have been used [ as was reasonable practice, due to the results ], instead of his thigh bone.

[barnflatwyngarde]

With regard to why a car full of senior detectives dashed out to see John McInnes in darkest Lanarkshire, I confess that I simply don't have a clue.

Whether it was a case of blatant nepotism, Freemasonic influence or the protecting of a police informant, once again, I simply don't know.

I have a concern however re the possibility of McInnes being a police informer.
McInnes lived and worked in Lanarkshire, which had it's own police force, so I think it unlikely that he would be in the position to pass on information re crimes committed in Glasgow.
He could have been an informant for Lanarkshire Police, but if that was the case, why would senior Glasgow detectives feel the need to protect him?

The teeth issue is a real knotty problem, and again, I'm simply not sure, although I lean towards McInnes having dentures.

Having said that, the following Scotsman article of 24th June 1996 by Alan Forbes, gives pause for thought on two issues; the ID parade(s) that McInnes may have been in, and the teeth issue.

The article is headed "Anger at Report That Exhumed Body is Not Bible John".

"The detective who led the original Bible John investigation, Joe Beattie said that McInnes had not been identified by ten witnesses and Miss Puttock's sister who had shared a taxi with the man believed to be Bible John.

Mr Beattie who retired about 20 years ago, said he could not comment on the current investigation and he knew nothing about DNA, but he said "If you have ten witnesses and they all say no, what do you do, haul the guy up?"
Mr Beattie added that McInnes's teeth had borne no similarity to the description of Bible John's teeth given by Miss Puttock's sister."

This is unequivocal, Beattie is clearly saying that ten witnesses saw John McInnes in ID parades, and all said that he was not the suspect that they had seen.

Presumably this evidence re the ID parades and the teeth would be in the official case files, so why on earth would the police seek permission from the Procurator Fiscal to exhume John McInnes when Beattie is clearly saying that on the evidence that he and his original investigation team he was clearly not the killer?

If Beattie is lying about the ten witnesses and the fact that McInnes's teeth were not a match, why would he lie?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Darryl you are being very helpful.

Its a case of me trying to get my head round this.

It a moot point I am trying to make. My understanding is that the scientists including Professor MacDonald at no time have stated that McInnes when exhumed had false teeth.

MacDonald states it was 'because of the limited detail' that no positive result could be obtained regarding the bite mark

and the Crown states 'the bite mark showed insufficient points of detail for any degree of probability to be attributed to its authorship'

I don't think my point gets us anywhere really. Its been covered enough but just wanted to record it.

Thanks all

NW

You’re right to mention it NW. Why didn’t he mention the issue of the dentures? I suspect that he was just making a general “no luck I’m afraid” type comment without bothering to go into detail. I think that because Audrey Gillan was being specific in saying that McInnes had dentures fitted three years after Helen Puttock’s murder then she must have got this info from someone that knew. Maybe McInnes’s wife or a family member? Perhaps they recalled him getting dentures and when but they couldn’t recall the extent (a pity that they didn’t know, or couldn’t recall, where his dentist was). So perhaps the police were hoping that he’s had limited dentures fitted and in an area of his mouth which didn’t preclude a possible match with the bite mark. This turned out not to have been the case though.

[New Waterloo]

Thanks Darryl you are being very helpful.

Its a case of me trying to get my head round this.

It a moot point I am trying to make. My understanding is that the scientists including Professor MacDonald at no time have stated that McInnes when exhumed had false teeth.

MacDonald states it was 'because of the limited detail' that no positive result could be obtained regarding the bite mark

and the Crown states 'the bite mark showed insufficient points of detail for any degree of probability to be attributed to its authorship'

I don't think my point gets us anywhere really. Its been covered enough but just wanted to record it.

Thanks all

NW

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi NW. The limited detail quote is in the Scottish Herald , link in my previous post . Darryl

[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