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?!

[cobalt]

I'd like to revisit a couple of points that have been raised previously. The first is the fact, confirmed by police records I believe, that four senior policemen descended on Hamilton Police Station on the Sunday (?) following the Helen Puttock murder. It's assumed given the status of the officers involved that they anticipated the arrest of the killer as well as flattering news coverage. 'Senior Cops Track Down Killer to his Lair' makes for a rather good headline. (The 'Bible John' soubriquet had not been coined at that stage of the inquiry.) However they returned to Glasgow empty handed. So why were they so confident about wrapping up the case when they set off from Glasgow?

All they had, so far as we know, was an advertising card from a furniture showroom. Maybe some second hand descriptions of McInnes which were in line with what witnesses remembered. But short of McInnes confessing on the spot I cannot see how the senior officers believed they had enough to charge anyone on suspicion of murder at that stage. So why did they rush over to Hamilton when their best witnesses were all in Glasgow? Sending a car to pick up McInnes for interview at Partick Marine would surely have been the standard procedure. It's as if they had something more to work with that we do not know about.

The second point is about the weeding of police files which removed all mention of John McInnes. I've explained earlier I doubt this was done in order to save family embarrassment given that locals in Stonehouse were aware of McInnes being questioned. The link between John and Jimmy McInnes would have spread like wildfire through the Glasgow police ranks as well, so weeding the files could not prevent that. In fact it's possible to argue the opposite: if Joe Beattie was correct and Jeannie failed to identify John McInnes at a line up, then there could hardly be better evidence in the files to establish his innocence. So why remove this 'silver bullet?'

I suspect that John McInnes was not placed in an identity parade in front of Jeannie. Coupled with the failure to put McInnes on an ID parade in front of other strong witnesses this would be a good reason to remove his name entirely from the police record. It's a sackable offence, if not a criminal one, to alter the police record so if I am right then we can only guess at the level of complicity involved in the police investigation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That those four senior officers (two detective superintendents [one of whom was the chief investigation officer] and 2 chief inspectors) turned up to question McInnes’s can really only illustrate the level of confidence that this was their man. What if Sergeant Thick hadn’t turned up to arrest Pizer but Arnold, Swanson, Abberline and Reid had. How significant would we have felt that would have been? On the strength of a business card which wouldn’t have had the suspects name on it? No chance. They must have had more. As the police would have been talking to Moylan’s employees surely a possible (probable even) suggestion would be that an employee or two gave some additional information which set off the alarm bells.

On the question of why Hamilton police station. In my ‘Devil’s advocate’ post I suggested that it might just have been because it was the nearest station and that perhaps McInnes became aggressive or difficult to control but even as I wrote it I wasn’t convincing myself. I thought about it last night and I wonder if a more reasonable, possible explanation might be that when they found that McInnes’s wasn’t at Sandy’s house the local Constable’s (maybe with the help of some lower ranked officers that would have accompanied the big four) set out to find him. When they tracked him down they naturally took him to the local station, Hamilton. The four officers then thought that they would interview him there and then (perhaps to reduce the time that he’d have to compose himself?) Were they deliberately keeping McInnes’s away from the investigations headquarters? Were they being super-cautious and discrete because of McInnes family connection to the police? Everyone would have known Beattie so was this a kind of back door operation where he was sneaked in by some entrance to interview a guy who no one at the station knew had been brought in as a Bible John suspect? Speculation of course.

It’s impossible to get to the bottom of the ID parade thing. It appears that it took place at around 2pm at which time Alexander Hannah was with the police so why wasn’t he shown McInnes’s? Officer’s said that there were many parades but not only is there no record of them but Jeannie was adamant that she only attended one. So if these other parades occurred who was the witness. It certainly wasn’t Hannah, as Jim McEwan said: “In fact, at no point was a suspect ever put in front of Alexander Hannah, despite having had the man who was with Helen and Jean in his rear-view mirror for a journey across Glasgow.”


Question - why didn’t Audrey Gillan ask Jeannie when the ID parade took place and at what time?
Question - how confident were the ‘96 officers that the timeline didn’t allow for McInnes’s to have been taken from Hamilton to Partick Marine to be placed on a parade in front of Jeannie?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was looking through some old Ripperana’s when I came across this article.


Ripperana #35 January 2001


‘Bible John’ was a scripture-quoting serial killer who murdered three women in Glasgow between February 1968 and October 1969. All the victims were menstruating at the time of their deaths, and the killer placed their sanitary towels under their left armpits. He also removed personal items from each woman, none of which were ever recovered.

In 1995, a special unit of detectives was set up to reappraise old crimes in the light of new technology. The following year, they considered the case of ‘prime suspect’ John McInnes, who committed suicide in 1980, aged 41. He had been both a security guard and a Scots Guardsman. He frequented the Barrowland ballroom where the killer picked up his victims. McInnes had taken part in identity parades, and his village of Stonehouse, Lanarkshire, he was jokingly referred to as Bible John. DNA from semen stains found on the final victims clothing were “matched” to a close relative of McInnes. On 1 February 1996 McInnes body was exhumed from a Lanarkshire Cemetery. Five months later Dr. Bill Rogers, the former director of Strathclyde police forensic laboratory would say “The sample from the underskirt of Helen Puttock’s did not come from McInnes.” The case against McInnes is now, apparently, closed.

In the meantime, the real Bible John has been denounced by a relative in the USA, who passed his dossier of evidence to Prof. Ian Stephen, the inspiration for ITV’s “Cracker.” Prof. Stephen has forwarded this information to the police.

It is said that Bible John “has become Scotland’s most celebrated murderer, it’s Jack the Ripper.” Detective Superintendent Joe Beattie, who began the hunt, never truly believed that one man was responsible, which is probably why the detective, who died this year, never caught John.

There are still seasoned police officers in Glasgow who believe Bible John was a serviceman who was killed in a motorcycle accident, while in Germany.

Prof. Ian Stephen, 60, was director of psychological services at the State Hospital in Carstairs, which houses the criminally insane. He is now retired.


(THE SCOTSMAN, 14 OCTOBER 2000)

So again, despite what Mary Cassidy and Erika Hagelberg told Audrey Gillan, we get someone who works for the police stating that the DNA categorically exonerated McInnes.

And who is the USA relative and what information did he have?