Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

One of the most difficult things in this case, it seems to me, is to try and come up with some kind of ‘innocent’ explanation for the discrepancies and issues discovered by the ‘96 investigation. And ‘innocent’ might not be the best choice of words here. Quite often in cases that we look at we can say (x) is massively the likeliest thing to have occurred, but we can usually come up with a possible scenario or two to explain why (x) might not have been the case. Cobalt has suggested how a cover-up might have come from the top - and he might well be right. New Waterloo has suggested a scenario that might have given the police a reason for a cover up - and we certainly can’t prove him wrong. We might of course suggest that it was just Beattie covering for a close pal. I certainly don’t have an answer.

So I’ll play Devil’s Advocate (even though I don’t particularly promote or believe the scenario that I came up with) and try and put forward a suggestion. For this scenario I’m assuming that John Irvine McInnes was indeed Bible John and that he killed Helen Puttock’s after a night dancing at the Barrowland.

Ok…are you sitting comfortably?


After getting off the bus a dishevelled looking McInnes went to his aunt and uncles house which was 5 minutes walk from the stop. He tells them a story about getting into a fight with some jealous boyfriend at Barrowland. He realises that this is suspicious given the murder so he tells another family member of the incident after the news of the murder is out. He tells them that he’s worried that they might suspect him of being the killer because he might have spoken to the murdered girl so they, trusting that he wasn’t a murderer, agree to provide him with an alibi for the night…just in case. He then goes back to see his aunt and uncle and explains the situation and asks them to keep quiet about his visit should anyone ask. They agree because they are convinced that their nephew couldn’t be a murderer but they realise how others might view the situation.

The police find the Moylan’s card at the Puttock’s crime scene and begin talking to employees. They talk to Bishop and Smith who had actually been at Barrowland that night but they could alibi each other and perhaps they left with another friend. They are asked if they had seen any other Moylan’s employees that night or if they knew any that went to the Barrowland. One of them mentions that John Irvine McInnes told them that he went there occasionally. He tells the police something like “I don’t know why he bothers though because he hasn’t a good word to say about the kind of women that go there.” Maybe they recall a biblical quote or two being used? They also give a physical description of McInnes. To the police, alarm bells are ringing - Moylan’s employee, appears to resemble the witness description, Barrowland visitor, derogatory comments about women, Bible quotes….this must be their man at last. So the ‘Big Four,’ confident of grabbing the glory for arresting Bible John at last, all head over to McInnes’s brothers house in Stonehouse.

When they get there he’s not there but his brother Sandy suggests where they might find him which they do and McInnes gets angry so they take him to the nearby Hamilton police station and begin interviewing him. He tells them of his alibi which they find checks out but naturally they can’t just rely on an alibi provided by a close family member so they call Partick Marine and get them to bring in Jeannie and to set up an ID parade. Perhaps it was the case that, on the night of the murder, Jeannie had actually had a few more drinks than she let on? How much attention would she really have paid to Bible John when she was happy to have found such a good dancer as Castlemilk John to focus on? Yes there was the cigarette incident but that doesn’t mean that she particularly focused on his face as she would have been in the background. Then, in the taxi, John sat between Helen and Jeannie and was focused on talking to Helen. Apparently he saw Jeannie as a bit of a nuisance. So how closely did she really study his face. She spotted his teeth but time can affect memory. She begins to have serious doubts. Something is nagging at her that this man didn’t look quite right so she can’t/wont identify him. So when Beattie combines the alibi given by the family, the lack of an identification added to his trusted mate Jimmy McInnes saying “I’ve known John all my life Joe, and I’ve seen enough murderers in my time to know that he definitely isn’t one.” Beattie is now convinced of McInnes’s innocence.

Jimmy, however, who really does believe his cousin innocent, doesn’t want the family name linked in any way to the case. So he ‘tidies up.’ Ensuring that there is nothing in the case record that mentions his cousin or would lead anyone to suspect him. Luckily there are no usable prints in the back of Hannah’s taxi but it’s recorded as ‘no prints found’ which, read in that way, sounds unlikely for a Glasgow taxi. Those results came in after Beattie had become convinced of McInnes’s innocence due to his alibi and Jeannie’s failure to ID him so Beattie lets Hannah go without bothering to place him in front of Jeannie.

Mrs Palka claims to know the identity of the killer so Jimmy McInnes goes to interview her. Whatever she tells him he decides to erase her from the story. No mention of the McInnes name can be allowed in the record.


Joe Beattie appears to have been regarded as a kind of super cop. I can imagine a man who was very proud of his record and who would have regarded his failure to capture Bible John as a blot on his career. Would a man like this have knowingly allowed a triple killer to go free? How could anyone have convinced him that McInnes’s wouldn’t kill again; or make some kind of confession. No one could have watched McInnes 24/7 for the rest of his life after all. I’m certainly not saying that Beattie couldn’t have covered up for the actual killer but I can’t avoid having serious doubts. So when McEwan and Hughes said that the last time they left Beattie and they asked him about this he was crying…could this have been because he’d been fooled by McInnes, his family but worse…his close friend Jimmy? Was he crying because he’d been fooled and he could imagine his reputation crumbling?

Maybe, believing McInnes innocent, he agreed to Jimmy keeping the name out of the investigation adding to his feeling of guilt?

[New Waterloo]

I think Cobalt sums up where McInnes sits within society very well and in many ways helps us to visualise his character more clearly. I think we already know that he had a car and I think his background confirms that it is very likely to be the case and possibly having access to a car at a younger age than most in the 1960's. I had friends whos parents were marginally or greatly better off than mine and this was generally the case. (I think)

Jeannie also describes a person a bit above what we generally term working class.

I am going to have a read about the 'Brethren' and see how that fits into all of this.

NW

[cobalt]

I think there is quite a lot to suggest that John McInnes was, as we used to say, 'well connected.' So far as I can gather he had no trade or qualifications which back in 1960s Scotland usually meant mining, factory work or labouring as a means to earn a wage. McInnes never seems to have done this, instead working as a shop assistant/salesman. He didn't wear overalls: he wore a suit. Such jobs tend to be spoken for.

BJ's haughty manner at the cigarette machine speaks to this as well. He is confident that he won't be slung out like many would have been and even inquires about who is the local MP for the Barrowland area. Maybe a suggestion that he has experience of how local political influence can be used as a weapon. His allegation of previous corruption regarding the Barrowland fire (1958) hints that he has some legal/police inside information. He demands to see the manager. This presumably is why he was not given a fat lip and the bum's rush out of the dance hall. Not many stroppy, slightly drunk patrons of the Barrowland would have ever spoken like that.

We later discover that BJ plays golf, a sport synonymous with small businessmen and professional people. In Scotland golf is not a snob sport- the skilled working class have long been the bedrock of many clubs- but it is expensive to acquire a set of clubs and golf is considered a cut above socially by most. It is viewed as a relaxing way to make contacts and meet the 'right' people. Very unlike football back then which was watched by cloth capped men drinking Bovril on steep ash filled terraces; note that BJ was quite dismissive of the tribal football rivalry which is most acute in the Lanarkshire area. 'I'm an agnostic' was his dismissive response to whether he supported Rangers or Celtic.

So yes, I think BJ had a sense of entitlement or at least a confidence he had some social protection to fall back upon.

[New Waterloo]

It's an interesting suggestion. Two of the UK's most infamous murderers- John Christie of Rillington Place and Fred West- were low level police informers. This doubtless helped them avoid too much scrutiny although that conditional immunity did not spare them being brought to justice when the full horror was revealed.

Nearer to Bible John territory we had the terrible case of Thomas Hamilton who carried out the Dunblane massacre at a local primary school. Despite subsequent attempts to portray Hamilton as a 'loner' this man had a small group of friends which included at least one police officer. Rumours about his unhealthy interest in boys were well known locally to the extent that some places were reluctant to accept hires for his youth clubs. When a low ranking detective, aware of his reputation and unconvinced by his general character, recommended that Hamilton's gun licence not be renewed he was over ruled by a high ranking officer.

The reasons for this decision were never made clear even after an inquiry, although the fact Hamilton seemed to have led a charmed life in terms of his behaviour over a number of years did emerge. There is ample evidence that he was being handled with kid gloves by the local police. However the police themselves may have been under pressure to adopt this policy. The MP for Dunblane was Michael Forsyth, at that time the Conservative government's senior man in Scotland, and he was known to have written letters in support of Hamilton when local amenities were being denied. To add to the mix 'Bomber' George Robertson, later head of NATO and a senior Labour figure at the time, lived in Dunblane and had been approached by Hamilton on occasion. On the day of the massacre these two political opponents stood in front of TV cameras like Siamese twins to offer their prayers and sympathy to the victims. Perhaps they were simply sharing common decency on an issue that seemed to transcend politics. Or perhaps not.

It is widely believed that Thomas Hamilton, like his grandfather, was a Freemason. It would be remarkable if George Robertson, son of a policeman from an island community and later head of NATO, was not a Freemason. Ditto for Michael Forsyth. And the inquiry into the Dunblane massacre was chaired by Lord Cullen, himself a Freemason. George Robertson was for several years the MP for the Hamilton constituency.

Really fascinating Cobalt. Thanks for that. I was just trying to make a suggestion why McInnes seemed to be side lined in the enquiry. At the time his CV was good. Relative of police officers, been in army. Doesnt look like macho police officer. Just a maybe
Something/person is protecting him
he also seems over confident confronting the manager/bouncer over cig machine. Bit full of bravado.
problem this idea is just that. Nothing to support the idea. Just thought would throw it in!
NW

[cobalt]

It's an interesting suggestion. Two of the UK's most infamous murderers- John Christie of Rillington Place and Fred West- were low level police informers. This doubtless helped them avoid too much scrutiny although that conditional immunity did not spare them being brought to justice when the full horror was revealed.

Nearer to Bible John territory we had the terrible case of Thomas Hamilton who carried out the Dunblane massacre at a local primary school. Despite subsequent attempts to portray Hamilton as a 'loner' this man had a small group of friends which included at least one police officer. Rumours about his unhealthy interest in boys were well known locally to the extent that some places were reluctant to accept hires for his youth clubs. When a low ranking detective, aware of his reputation and unconvinced by his general character, recommended that Hamilton's gun licence not be renewed he was over ruled by a high ranking officer.

The reasons for this decision were never made clear even after an inquiry, although the fact Hamilton seemed to have led a charmed life in terms of his behaviour over a number of years did emerge. There is ample evidence that he was being handled with kid gloves by the local police. However the police themselves may have been under pressure to adopt this policy. The MP for Dunblane was Michael Forsyth, at that time the Conservative government's senior man in Scotland, and he was known to have written letters in support of Hamilton when local amenities were being denied. To add to the mix 'Bomber' George Robertson, later head of NATO and a senior Labour figure at the time, lived in Dunblane and had been approached by Hamilton on occasion. On the day of the massacre these two political opponents stood in front of TV cameras like Siamese twins to offer their prayers and sympathy to the victims. Perhaps they were simply sharing common decency on an issue that seemed to transcend politics. Or perhaps not.

It is widely believed that Thomas Hamilton, like his grandfather, was a Freemason. It would be remarkable if George Robertson, son of a policeman from an island community and later head of NATO, was not a Freemason. Ditto for Michael Forsyth. And the inquiry into the Dunblane massacre was chaired by Lord Cullen, himself a Freemason. George Robertson was for several years the MP for the Hamilton constituency.

[New Waterloo]

A thought.

Why would McInnes be protected by the police. I am going to make what on the surface may be a way out suggestion and maybe it has been suggested before. It is not unusual in policing (and I know this from personal experience) that members of the public (often relatives of an officer) would on occasions carry out casual observations in a licenced premises or shop for some types offending such as dipping into tills by bar staff or licencing matters (serving after permitted hours).

I am not sure if this continues today. I very much doubt it because of Health and Safety and other legal issues but it did certainly up until the early 1980s.

The non police observer would go into the pub as a customer and report back anything he saw. Mostly this would be carried out by police officers from other areas unknown to locals but sometimes relatives even friends would be used. Undercover officers would not be used for relatively minor crime which I guess this is why the method was used.

In fact I believe Trading Standards to this day still use underage people to make test purchases for cigarettes extra.

What if McInnes was 'employed' in such a way, free night out just watch what was going on and report back.

Can you imagine the outrage which would follow if somebody being used by the police was found to be BJ. I do believe however that the senior officers would not cover for such a murderer if he was responsible but perhaps the senior investigators didn't examine any alibi McInnes gave robustly enough. As soon as an alibi given by him seemed reasonable enough then eliminate him from the enquiry. problem gone so to speak.

Answers on a postcard please to 'does this sound daft'

NW

[cobalt]

The influence of the Labour Party has waned in recent years, but the power of the Freemasons remains formidable in local government and Police Scotland.
I know quite a few people who joined the masons simply to get ahead in local government, and it always worked!

I have known quite a number of people who joined both organisations - just to be on the safe side! Membership was seen not just as providing a helping hand with a person's career but also as a safety net if they screwed up badly at their work.

Regarding the 'Hamilton incident' I can only think that the investigating officers who descended en masse to the the police station were furnished with an alibi for McInnes by a person of high rank in either (or maybe both) of the organisations mentioned above. Rather than attempt to break the alibi- which would be normal procedure with a strong suspect- a decision was made to accept it at face value. Thus the police could later claim, if McInnes struck again, that they had been deceived; the burden of guilt would then fall not upon them but the person who supplied the alibi.

I am sure if this is what happened then the police would have pointed out the ramifications to the supplier of the alibi should it turn out to be false. Presumably this person, aware that McInnes himself now knew the game was all but up, was confident of no more Barrowland murders. He would know that McInnes was conscious of being the major suspect and fearful of bringing shame on his entire family.

This makes some kind of sense to me, but I still can't figure out why someone important would take a gamble on protecting McInnes who seems an unexceptional person.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As it stands, and is likely to continue to stand, I can see no answer to Cobalt’s main question which doesn’t leave us with huge doubts.

I just noticed a typo. It should have read “…I can see no answer to Cobalt’s main question which does leave us with huge doubts.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi Barn,

I think you have with great weariness I am sure understood the organisation I referred to. More powerful than the Freemasons or even the local Labour Party in Hamilton. I am referring to the UK government. Who else could have exerted the authority to baulk a murder investigation which saw four senior detectives converge on Hamilton for a photo opportunity to snare Bible John only to be denied. He was not far off being 'bang to rights.' Not the local Labour Party I am sure.

Peter Manuel, probably Scotland's most notorious serial killer inside the country, had a father who was a local Labour councillor and they lived pretty close to John McInnes albeit Manuel's murders were a decade earlier. On several occasions Manuel senior gave alibis to his son- who he knew was a bad piece of work- which may have stalled investigations. Manuel himself was an adept burglar with a great capacity to wriggle in and out of properties so it may be Manuel senior was offering what he thought were genuine alibis. But Manuel senior's position as a local councillor may have made the police back off a little. Which reminds me of BJ's harangue at the cigarette machine: 'Who is the MP for this area!' What a strange thing to say. Or Jimmy McInnes puling rank. Was it Jimmy McInnes who was on Jeannie's ID parade?

Stonehouse, where John McInnes grew up, was a village of around 3,000 people which it remains to this day. However from the 1950s there had been plans to make the area a 'new town' to relieve the pressure on Glasgow housing shortage. The plan was for a new town of 35,000 people in Stonehouse. It met resistance from Glasgow politicians who felt the money should be better spent on regenerating Glasgow so the scheme was up in the air in the mid 1960s. Until a seismic event occurred which resonates to this day.

The Scottish National Party were a fringe group in 1967. Their members were well intentioned, educated professionals, coupled with a few disgruntled lairds, some eccentrics and the odd poet. They had no roots what so ever in the working class of Scotland. Then Hamilton happened.

Today that is very different. The SNP are now the natural party of government in Scotland and have recently sent 50 MPs to the UK government. But back then they had nothing- not a single MP- until, in a political tsunami, they won the Hamilton by-election in 1967. It was beyond belief. Hamilton was regarded as a Labour 'fiefdom.' The bookies were offering 10/1 against on the day of the vote. The modern SNP argue on many issues, but to a man and woman they all agree that the Hamilton by election, won by Winnie Ewing in 1967, was the genesis of the modern SNP. Not just the Labour Party, who had been humiliated, but all the other parties were terrified. There was a new force in the land.

Enter the Stonehouse New Town project, kept on the back burner for many a year. This was a way to see off the SNP challenge they thought. But it never took root and only around 10,00 houses were ever built, if that. But the last thing they needed was a serial killer from Stonehouse in 1969 to put the kybosh on the whole programme. Was it a question of 'Politics dear chap.' Or did McInnes have connections to the local Labour Party that would have damaged their reputation at the ballot box? Of course I have no idea but the Labour Party in Scotland were from my personal experience terrified by the SNP surge at that time.

Would the Scottish Labour Party, part of the UK Labour government, cover up a murder? Undoubtedly yes. But only in theory as far as state power exerts itself. This was not state murder, this was an individual hell bent on killing women and if he was an embarrassment to the status quo then the obvious place for him was Carstairs. They could not know when or if he would stop.

I'm at a loss really. I've considered police incompetence, police corruption, political interference and am still struggling to make a decentargument about the Hamilton affair. All responses are welcome.

Very interesting take on the case cobalt.

There is no doubt that something made some detectives skew, twist and ignore facts relating to the case, and possibly even destroy evidence.
The question is why!

Your assessment of West of Scotland society in the later part of the twentieth century is spot on, although it may come as a bit of a shock to people unfamiliar with Glasgow and its environs.

The two major influences on Glasgow Police and Scottish local government in that period were the Freemasons and the absolute power of the Scottish Labour Party.

The influence of the Labour Party has waned in recent years, but the power of the Freemasons remains formidable in local government and Police Scotland.
I know quite a few people who joined the masons simply to get ahead in local government, and it always worked!

If I had to choose an external force which influenced the investigation of the case, I would plump for the Masonic influence.
It just seems more likely than political interference, but I rule absolutely nothing out.