Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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]

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.

[New Waterloo]

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 Barnflat. I think the same and you that it is very unlikely that McInnes was a Police Informant however I know from personal experience that when police want to observe say a pub or club for relatively minor offending (stealing from tills, after hours drinking) people are often given some beer money to see what is happening. This is because undercover officers are not interested(too minor) and local informants not reliable (to close to offending). This is not unusual. Trading standards often use members of the public to make test purchases of cigarettes etc.
we have to find a reason McInnes was protected. Just a suggestion
MW

[cobalt]

I think it has been claimed on this site that the Castlemilk John photofit was only ever distributed to police stations: it was never made public. Since CJ was not an actual suspect this was probably the correct legal procedure and one I would accept should apply, despite modern attempts to expose everyone to public scrutiny.

The evidence for police weeding the files is a grey area. Everything tells us this happened but the sources for this information appear to be the McInnes family and Joe Beattie's memoirs. Is there anything beyond that?