Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[New Waterloo]

Herlocks suggestion is very good because it follows pieces of evidence that are very strong. Dishevelled man on bus, used to stay with relatives close to bus stop. McInnes confident and forward in his communication. Able to convince people of his alibi.

I like it because it gives a narrative linking facts and not as in my case suggesting something without being able to substantiate it.

Herlocks suggestion (at the moment) is as good as we are going to get proving its McInnes. To me Jeannie the star witness muddies the water. I find her evidence a bit ambiguous and confused if they are the right words to use. It could be as Herlock suggested the alcohol clouding her memory which is a shame really if that was the case (although not criticising her for having a drink).

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlocks suggestion is very good because it follows pieces of evidence that are very strong. Dishevelled man on bus, used to stay with relatives close to bus stop. McInnes confident and forward in his communication. Able to convince people of his alibi.

I like it because it gives a narrative linking facts and not as in my case suggesting something without being able to substantiate it.

Herlocks suggestion (at the moment) is as good as we are going to get proving its McInnes. To me Jeannie the star witness muddies the water. I find her evidence a bit ambiguous and confused if they are the right words to use. It could be as Herlock suggested the alcohol clouding her memory which is a shame really if that was the case (although not criticising her for having a drink).

NW

Hi NW,

I certainly have no qualms about corruption or cover ups but I just can’t see Beattie covering for a man that he knew (or suspected) had killed three women. Maybe he did…I’m certainly not saying that I’m right…it’s just that I can’t help having doubts. This case appeared to obsess Beattie to some extent. Did he agree to covering up the identity of a man that he genuinely believed innocent at the time but he later came to realise that he’d been conned and that he’d been guilty all along? And a guy that he considered his close friend had basically stitched him up. Such a realisation would have had a real effect on a man who prided himself on his ability to judge people and to spot a ‘wrong ‘un’ a mile off.

[cobalt]

Congratulations to Herlock on his very coherent account of what probably happened regarding the 'Hamilton incident.' His description of the dishevelled John McInnes being able to count on family loyalty, a loyalty offered in good faith, is very persuasive. As is his portrayal of Joe Beattie, a proud and highly effective detective for most of his career, realising late in the day that he had been deceived in his most famous case of all.

If Herlock is correct Beattie had reasonable grounds for eliminating John McInnes but an experienced detective should have tested (or 'proved' in its original sense) the alibi. He must have known the limitations of alibi provided by family members. He must also have known the vagaries of identification evidence, which Herlock lays out very well in respect of Jeannie. (I have often wondered if Jeannie inadvertently merged the two dancing 'Johns' into a single composite.)

Beattie had the materials at hand to prove the alibi. He had three reliable witnesses in the persons of the bouncers and manager at the Barrowland Ballroom. He had a useful witness in the person of the taxi driver, Hannah. He used none of them. He could have eliminated McInnes on the basis of the bite mark but there is no evidence this was done. He could possibly have eliminated McInnes on the basis of his blood group but there is no evidence this was done. (Why do we not seem to know the blood group from the semen sample left on Helen Puttock?) Beattie was often quoted as bemoaning the fact that 'we missed him right at the start.' I think this is most likely what happened in respect of John Mcinnes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Congratulations to Herlock on his very coherent account of what probably happened regarding the 'Hamilton incident.' His description of the dishevelled John McInnes being able to count on family loyalty, a loyalty offered in good faith, is very persuasive. As is his portrayal of Joe Beattie, a proud and highly effective detective for most of his career, realising late in the day that he had been deceived in his most famous case of all.

If Herlock is correct Beattie had reasonable grounds for eliminating John McInnes but an experienced detective should have tested (or 'proved' in its original sense) the alibi. He must have known the limitations of alibi provided by family members. He must also have known the vagaries of identification evidence, which Herlock lays out very well in respect of Jeannie. (I have often wondered if Jeannie inadvertently merged the two dancing 'Johns' into a single composite.)

Beattie had the materials at hand to prove the alibi. He had three reliable witnesses in the persons of the bouncers and manager at the Barrowland Ballroom. He had a useful witness in the person of the taxi driver, Hannah. He used none of them. He could have eliminated McInnes on the basis of the bite mark but there is no evidence this was done. He could possibly have eliminated McInnes on the basis of his blood group but there is no evidence this was done. (Why do we not seem to know the blood group from the semen sample left on Helen Puttock?) Beattie was often quoted as bemoaning the fact that 'we missed him right at the start.' I think this is most likely what happened in respect of John Mcinnes.

Cheers Cobalt. As I said though, I’m in no way claiming that this is what happened. It’s just that while we certainly see evidence of things being covered up it’s difficult to imagine someone like Beattie letting Bible John off the hook for any reason; even a close friendship.

As you rightly say though, even if my scenario is anything like what happened we still have questions. It’s still difficult to accept how apparently easily Beattie was persuaded to accept McInnes’s innocence especially given the obvious reservations about alibi’s proffered by close family. Why wasn’t Hannah shown McInnes? Why wasn’t the Barrowland bouncer or the manager? Why wasn't the bite mark checked against McInnes teeth? Hardly a difficult process. And why was Jimmy McInnes involved in an investigation into his own cousin in the first place?

Your point about the potential for Jeannie merging the two John’s in her memory is an interesting one. In the podcast Jeannie said: “The one in the papers just there, the McInnes guy, was more like Castlemilk John.” So there must have been some physical similarities between the two men. Could this have created some doubt at the Partick ID parade?

Another question worth asking imo is - as there was the photo fit/ portrait up in the Barrowland after the MacDonald murder why would Bible John have risked being there if it looked like him? With suspicions rife and women wary of strangers?

[cobalt]

It’s still difficult to accept how apparently easily Beattie was persuaded to accept McInnes’s innocence especially given the obvious reservations about alibi’s proffered by close family. Why wasn’t Hannah shown McInnes? Why wasn’t the Barrowland bouncer or the manager? Why wasn't the bite mark checked against McInnes teeth? Hardly a difficult process.

This is, not just in hindsight I should emphasise, the crux of the matter. The McInnes alibi was never properly proved. Fact. There must have been police involved at the time who were aware of this but they were presumably silenced. Yet Beattie invited to Glasgow the medium Croisset, a charlatan from the Netherlands who had never solved a single unsolved murder, to draw psychic visions? The more I read about Beattie the less impressed I become. A fool or a knave? I am not sure.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is, not just in hindsight I should emphasise, the crux of the matter. The McInnes alibi was never properly proved. Fact. There must have been police involved at the time who were aware of this but they were presumably silenced. Yet Beattie invited to Glasgow the medium Croisset, a charlatan from the Netherlands who had never solved a single unsolved murder, to draw psychic visions? The more I read about Beattie the less impressed I become. A fool or a knave? I am not sure.

Yes, I’m always going to put a large question mark next to anyone that uses a ‘psychic.’

One obvious point that struck me again last night was the fact the apparent difference between what was said about the results of the exhumation. Didn’t the police say that it showed that McInnes’s wasn’t the man? Clearly this wasn’t true. Both Mary Cassidy (pathologist for the Crown at the exhumation) and Erika Hegelberg (the scientist who did the DNA test) said that the results were inconclusive. I don’t understand how there could have been this apparent gap in understanding. The follow on question would have to be how strong/suggestive was the fact that the results of the DNA tests on his brother Hector and his sister Janet which convinced the highest authorities to allow the exhumation in the first place.

Look at this article from The Herald, 5th July 1996.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12036852.dna-tests-clear-bible-john-suspect/

“John Irvine McInnes, was comprehensively cleared by the Crown.”

So absolutely proven not guilty.

“As the months dragged on it became apparent that the Strathclyde scientists' efforts were inconclusive, the remains having been severely damaged by 16 years' exposure underground.”

Oh…the results were merely ‘inconclusive.’

“The Cambridge scientists concluded the DNA sequence taken from Mr McInnes's thigh bone was different from that taken by the Strathclyde Police scientists from Mrs Puttock's tights and similar DNA taken from the same source.”

So the DNA was different.

“Due to the age and bad state of preservation of the biological evidence, particularly the semen stain, we concluded that there is not sufficient evidence from the current DNA information to link John McInnes to the scene of the murder of Helen Puttock. The results of these DNA analyses provide no evidence to suggest that the semen stain or hair left near the body of Helen Puttock originated from John McInnes.''

So there isn’t sufficient DNA evidence to state that McInnes was guilty.

“The scientists confirmed to the fiscal that the findings excluded Mr McInnes as the source of the stain.”

So they CAN state that the DNA wasn’t his?

“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.”

and

“The Crown concluded that the bite mark showed ``insufficient points of detail for any degree of probability to be attributed to its authorship and the evidence would indicate he was not the author of the semen stain found on the tights of Helen Puttock''.

So they did check the bite mark despite the fact that John Irvine McInnes wore dentures?!