Bible John (General Discussion)

[barnflatwyngarde]

I’m wondering how close Stoddart was to what actually happened as he was writing close the actual events and spoke to those involved. Barn quoted this:

"These early enquiries produced a suspect immediately: he fitted the description given by Jeannie, he had been at the Barrowland on the Thursday, he was married but was known to frequent the dancing. Someone told the police of his identity and that he was believed to live in Stonehouse.

On the Sunday preparations were made for an identitification parade to be held at 11.00am but wasn't held until 5.00pm: the subject had moved from Stonehouse and the police chased around Lanarkshire all day until he was finally traced at Newarthill near Airdrie. But when he was paraded, Jeannie failed to identify anyone on the parade."

The fact that he says that preparations were made on Sunday for an ID parade fit in with the officers swooping in on Stonehouse two days after the murder. It also says that someone had supplied information on McInnes (in addition to the Moylan’s card I assume) That they had planned a parade for 11.00 ties in with an early visit by the police. McInnes clearly wasn’t found straight away but they tracked him down and Jeannie failed to pick him out.

Possibly Jeannie was right and that they ad the wrong man.

or,

Possibly the evidence was good and he was guilty but Jeannie just got it wrong.

Another question….what was at Newarthill, Airdrie and can McInnes be connected to it?

Hi Herlock,
We know that Stoddart was close enough to Joe Beattie to allow him to take recordings of their conversations on the case, although how many conversations took place, and how many were recorded, we simply do not know.

We know this because Audrey Gillan includes a clip of a recording where Joe Beattie makes inappropriate comments about Helen Puttock, calling her "quite a good looking dish" and saying that she was a "very bad tempered girl." (My emphasis)

Stoddart graduated in law in 1969, at the age of 21, so he was certainly aware of the murders as they happened.
His book on the case was published in 1980, so he certainly approached the case as a youngish man.

With regard to the relevance of Newarthill and Airdrie to the case, my first thought was that perhaps Moylan's had other furniture stores in Lanarkshire.
I couldn't find anything that suggested that Moylan's had stores in those two places.

A tribute to Mickey Moylan published in the Daily Record of 2nd November 2011 makes the comment "He was best-known in Wishaw for running the Bairds furniture store and the Horse and Anchor pub." (My emphasis)

The Daily Record is a popular paper throughout Lanarkshire, and I think that if Moylan's had any connection with Newarthill or Airdrie, it would have been mentioned in the Daily Record article.

[cobalt]

''The fact that he says that preparations were made on Sunday for an ID parade fit in with the officers swooping in on Stonehouse two days after the murder. It also says that someone had supplied information on McInnes (in addition to the Moylan’s card I assume) That they had planned a parade for 11.00 ties in with an early visit by the police. McInnes clearly wasn’t found straight away but they tracked him down and Jeannie failed to pick him out.''

That's a logical way to read what little we know. But it still leaves quite a few unanswered questions.

When Jeannie was shown the McInnes photo years later she must have been told who he was and where he lived: yet she did not recall being taken through to Hamilton to attend what was probably her first ID parade? (I am assuming the ID parade was held in Hamilton police station since the officers had all gone there.)

Why did the investigating officers- aware of Jeannie having taken a fair bit to drink- not ask for a second and third ID opinion from other significant witnesses? Her emotional state can hardly have been helpful either since she must have harboured some sense of guilt over her sister's death.

Did police confirm McInnes' alibi, seize his clothing and obtain a search warrant for his place of residence? We don't even know if he was arrested or was simply helping police with their enquiries.

Why did Joe Beattie have no memory of this eventual day years later when questioned? The McInnes theory was out in the public domain by then so he had no need to protect the family name at that stage.

[Ms Diddles]

I know a bit about ID parades and there are some factors that may be at play. My experience is a lot later but I would guess the general procedures and pitfalls would be similar back in 1969.

Many will be aware of how ID parades work but some wont and this is just a general piece of info which I hope helps.

There are formal and informal ID parades.

Simply put informal ID procedures could involve showing a photograph or casually asking somebody to point somebody out. say in a night club or street.

Formal ID parades normally involve putting an already suspected detainee into a line up of innocent volunteers who look similar to the detained suspect and asking a witness to point the person out. (The innocent volunteers are often paid a small amount of money as compensation for attending, they are not suspects.) The so called line up. This formal parade is evidentially stronger than any other ID as it is in a controlled environment, solicitors are in attendance, they are documented and results recorded. (I am sure this would have been the case in 1969)

The problem with informal identification is that once a person is shown a photograph or is asked to look at somebody in isolation but perhaps fails to identify the person it sort of uses up that witnesses chance of being useful on a formal parade. Why? because the police have already facilitated/shown the person to the witness. It is weak evidence because the witness has had a prior look at the suspect and the courts/defence solicitors would say any formal parade is biased. They would say the police are suggesting this person is the offender. An informal ID parade blows the chance of a formal parade. Even with a positive informal identification it remains evidentially weaker, as is open to suggestions of police interference with the witness. (Influencing the witness)

This is all organized nowadays and strict legislation applies. The legislation may have been more relaxed in 1969 but the principle of how it works would I guess have been the same.

So if you have a really good witness (perhaps like Jean, your best option is to save her/him for the formal parade where the suspect is picked out from a line up of several individuals in a strictly controlled environment WITHOUT that witness having seen any person presented by the police or any photographs at random.

Formal parades are best evidence as they have excellent value in court proceedings but are weak when rushing ahead with enquiries and with formal parades you need your firm suspect generally in custody to carry out the procedure.

I simple terms when you believe you have the right offender and a squeaky clean, uninfluenced witness with no prior photographs shown or any details descriptions etc given to that witness by the police then go ahead with the formal parade. There will always be descriptions in the press, photofits etc but the police must not lead any witness. They can of course assist a witness but untainted witnesses are the best witnesses.

ID procedures are hard to get your head round but basically that's my understanding of how it works. Perhaps with Jean there were some issues with running a formal ID procedure or a slip up where she was presented with McInnes informally and failed to ID him ( or because of the casual set up was frightened to make the ID) then the police would have spent their best witness. In other words played their Ace Card too early and failed so weakening or cancelling out any future ID.

As a foot note in a case where there are several witnesses informal ID procedures may be more commonly used keeping you best witnesses for the formal procedures.

Well something like that. It is complex

NW

Thanks NW!

That's a really informative post.

I knew nothing about ID parades, so this is extremely helpful.

[Herlock Sholmes]

NW,

Your thoughts on formal and informal ID procedures are in line with my own. I wonder if Jeannie was asked to sit in an unmarked police car outside McInnes' place of work and pick him out from there. That would explain why there is no apparent record of an ID parade but it still has us scratching our heads as to why a formal ID parade was not organised. And not just for Jeannie but also for other significant witnesses.

It could be that Jeannie failed to ID McInnes in that scenario in which case either she was wrong- or maybe she was correct and McInnes was not Bible John.

I’m wondering how close Stoddart was to what actually happened as he was writing close the actual events and spoke to those involved. Barn quoted this:

"These early enquiries produced a suspect immediately: he fitted the description given by Jeannie, he had been at the Barrowland on the Thursday, he was married but was known to frequent the dancing. Someone told the police of his identity and that he was believed to live in Stonehouse.

On the Sunday preparations were made for an identitification parade to be held at 11.00am but wasn't held until 5.00pm: the subject had moved from Stonehouse and the police chased around Lanarkshire all day until he was finally traced at Newarthill near Airdrie. But when he was paraded, Jeannie failed to identify anyone on the parade."

The fact that he says that preparations were made on Sunday for an ID parade fit in with the officers swooping in on Stonehouse two days after the murder. It also says that someone had supplied information on McInnes (in addition to the Moylan’s card I assume) That they had planned a parade for 11.00 ties in with an early visit by the police. McInnes clearly wasn’t found straight away but they tracked him down and Jeannie failed to pick him out.

Possibly Jeannie was right and that they ad the wrong man.

or,

Possibly the evidence was good and he was guilty but Jeannie just got it wrong.

Another question….what was at Newarthill, Airdrie and can McInnes be connected to it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,

I can well understand the desire to save the McInnes family some social embarrassment, but that must have been AFTER the police were satisfied he was not their man. He must have supplied some sort of alibi and that alibi must have been checked and accepted by the police. (If they did not ask for his clothing and shoes to help settle the matter then that seems negligent.)

The problem is that if McInnes' account satisfied the police back in 1969 then why was it deemed pretty much worthless years later when the authorities went to the great trouble of exhuming his body? They were clearly confident he was the culprit and the media were alerted to this fact beforehand. By shredding any evidence of the McInnes alibi back in 1969 did the police actually do McInnes a great disservice?

That just about sums up the mystery Cobalt. McInnes goes from ‘red hot suspect’ to ‘innocent man’ and then back to ‘red hot suspect’ again and now a ‘possible.’

Answers on a postcard to….

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock. I nearly overlooked you post about a handbag belonging to Helen being found on the beach at Saltcoats shortly after the murder. Hang on a minute I think I am hearing alarm bells.

Lost some time before the murder? Where and says who? This has to be one of the strangest things to come to light (well amongst many other strange things)

I seem to recall from the Podcast that Jean said that Helen did not take a handbag when she went out, which is strange in itself. Helen was menstruating and surely a handbag gives some privacy to her situation. Where would she carry a spare sanitary towel? Surely not in her pocket. In fact I think Jean says that they both went to the toilet together and she mentions Helens period and I think she says changing herself (maybe not but I think that is implied).

Was Jean mistaken about Helen not having a handbag on that night out?

I don't know where this takes us but great find Herlock

NW

It struck me when I looked on the map for Saltcoats as I hadn’t a clue where it was. I saw Irvine just 9½ miles away where, according to BJ, his family took their holidays. My initial thought was ‘could John have seen Helen at Saltcoats?’

Im not going down that road though. Just one of life’s coincidences.

Id like to know if this was Helen’s bag though.

[cobalt]

NW,

Your thoughts on formal and informal ID procedures are in line with my own. I wonder if Jeannie was asked to sit in an unmarked police car outside McInnes' place of work and pick him out from there. That would explain why there is no apparent record of an ID parade but it still has us scratching our heads as to why a formal ID parade was not organised. And not just for Jeannie but also for other significant witnesses.

It could be that Jeannie failed to ID McInnes in that scenario in which case either she was wrong- or maybe she was correct and McInnes was not Bible John.


HS,

I can well understand the desire to save the McInnes family some social embarrassment, but that must have been AFTER the police were satisfied he was not their man. He must have supplied some sort of alibi and that alibi must have been checked and accepted by the police. (If they did not ask for his clothing and shoes to help settle the matter then that seems negligent.)

The problem is that if McInnes' account satisfied the police back in 1969 then why was it deemed pretty much worthless years later when the authorities went to the great trouble of exhuming his body? They were clearly confident he was the culprit and the media were alerted to this fact beforehand. By shredding any evidence of the McInnes alibi back in 1969 did the police actually do McInnes a great disservice?

[New Waterloo]

Thanks Herlock. I nearly overlooked you post about a handbag belonging to Helen being found on the beach at Saltcoats shortly after the murder. Hang on a minute I think I am hearing alarm bells.

Lost some time before the murder? Where and says who? This has to be one of the strangest things to come to light (well amongst many other strange things)

I seem to recall from the Podcast that Jean said that Helen did not take a handbag when she went out, which is strange in itself. Helen was menstruating and surely a handbag gives some privacy to her situation. Where would she carry a spare sanitary towel? Surely not in her pocket. In fact I think Jean says that they both went to the toilet together and she mentions Helens period and I think she says changing herself (maybe not but I think that is implied).

Was Jean mistaken about Helen not having a handbag on that night out?

I don't know where this takes us but great find Herlock

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good posts from Cobalt and NW.

As the police had piled over to Stonehouse two days after Helen Puttock’s murder they would obviously have known that the suspect was called McInnes as I’d find it hard to believe that they hadn’t worked out, by whatever method, that this suspect was related to Jimmy McInnes (and 2 others in the family on the Force I believe) So at that point they were clearly willing to arrest ‘a McInnes.’ They had the Moylan’s card and some other evidence which clearly gave them a level of confidence that this could have been their man.

Then…he’s innocent….and not only that his name isn’t even mentioned in the investigation. So…

1. Jeannie said that he wasn’t the man - which still doesn’t explain why his name doesn’t appear.
2. Some other evidence arises, perhaps alongside Jeannie, and he’s dropped - which doesn’t explain why his name doesn’t appear.
3. The police suddenly decide, after this dramatic exodus to Stonehouse, that they don’t want ‘a McInnes’ as Bible John - this explains why his name didn’t appear.

Not particularly convincing are they?

The kindest explanation as far as the Police are concerned would appear to be that Jeannie rejected McInnes and a decision was made to keep his name out of the investigation to protect the McInnes family from suspicion.

With the information that we have I think we’re at a brick wall on this particular point but we appear to be on safe ground in saying that it looks pretty fishy.

[New Waterloo]

I know a bit about ID parades and there are some factors that may be at play. My experience is a lot later but I would guess the general procedures and pitfalls would be similar back in 1969.

Many will be aware of how ID parades work but some wont and this is just a general piece of info which I hope helps.

There are formal and informal ID parades.

Simply put informal ID procedures could involve showing a photograph or casually asking somebody to point somebody out. say in a night club or street.

Formal ID parades normally involve putting an already suspected detainee into a line up of innocent volunteers who look similar to the detained suspect and asking a witness to point the person out. (The innocent volunteers are often paid a small amount of money as compensation for attending, they are not suspects.) The so called line up. This formal parade is evidentially stronger than any other ID as it is in a controlled environment, solicitors are in attendance, they are documented and results recorded. (I am sure this would have been the case in 1969)

The problem with informal identification is that once a person is shown a photograph or is asked to look at somebody in isolation but perhaps fails to identify the person it sort of uses up that witnesses chance of being useful on a formal parade. Why? because the police have already facilitated/shown the person to the witness. It is weak evidence because the witness has had a prior look at the suspect and the courts/defence solicitors would say any formal parade is biased. They would say the police are suggesting this person is the offender. An informal ID parade blows the chance of a formal parade. Even with a positive informal identification it remains evidentially weaker, as is open to suggestions of police interference with the witness. (Influencing the witness)

This is all organized nowadays and strict legislation applies. The legislation may have been more relaxed in 1969 but the principle of how it works would I guess have been the same.

So if you have a really good witness (perhaps like Jean, your best option is to save her/him for the formal parade where the suspect is picked out from a line up of several individuals in a strictly controlled environment WITHOUT that witness having seen any person presented by the police or any photographs at random.

Formal parades are best evidence as they have excellent value in court proceedings but are weak when rushing ahead with enquiries and with formal parades you need your firm suspect generally in custody to carry out the procedure.

I simple terms when you believe you have the right offender and a squeaky clean, uninfluenced witness with no prior photographs shown or any details descriptions etc given to that witness by the police then go ahead with the formal parade. There will always be descriptions in the press, photofits etc but the police must not lead any witness. They can of course assist a witness but untainted witnesses are the best witnesses.

ID procedures are hard to get your head round but basically that's my understanding of how it works. Perhaps with Jean there were some issues with running a formal ID procedure or a slip up where she was presented with McInnes informally and failed to ID him ( or because of the casual set up was frightened to make the ID) then the police would have spent their best witness. In other words played their Ace Card too early and failed so weakening or cancelling out any future ID.

As a foot note in a case where there are several witnesses informal ID procedures may be more commonly used keeping you best witnesses for the formal procedures.

Well something like that. It is complex

NW

[cobalt]

''I wish we knew more about exactly when and in what circumstances Jeannie viewed McInnes to give us a fighting chance of assessing the likelihood that she was correct.''

We don't know if she ever did, astonishing though that sounds. The obvious time for her to ID the suspect McInnes was when detectives converged on Hamilton police station a few days after the crime. Yet Jeannie, when shown a photo of McInnes around 1996, (?) never mentioned having been taken to Hamilton to view anyone. I know she attended many ID parades but Jeannie would surely have remembered being taken outwith the city to a parade in the aftermath of her sister's murder.

It's possible that McInnes was taken back to Glasgow for questioning and to stand on an ID parade there, but none of the Glasgow police from that time seem to recall any 'buzz' around a suspect being taken into custody for such a high profile murder. In such an event the Glasgow newspapers' crime reporters would have picked up something on the grapevine.

So I lean to the inexplicable conclusion that Jeannie was never asked to identify McInnes in a formal setting. This would be something she appears to share with at least two other significant witnesses: the taxi driver and one of the 'bouncers' at the Barrowland Ballroom. And I echo the point made in an earlier post about 'bouncers' having a very good memory for faces, especially those who have proved troublesome. It is a truly astonishing state of affairs if true.

'Find out what happened at Linz,' advised WH Auden when contemplating the life of Adolf Hitler. 'Find out what happened at Hamilton' might help us understand why the inquiry into John McInnes was swiftly dropped.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ha!

It's a long shot, but it would be interesting to know when McInnes got those dentures fitted.

It was likely years later, but I often find that dentures subtly alter a persons appearance without it being immediately apparent what has changed.

They just make a person look not quite themselves if you know what I mean?!

Now you’ve got me thinking if Dick Emery who would be before your time Ms D. Back in the dim and distant.

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=d38f0482d8f696ae&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&sxsrf=ADLYWIIcNbeJM-oP_Mb_SvgD-TyXtVlsqg:1725569361541&q=dick+emery+vicar&udm=2&fbs=AEQNm0Aa4sjWe7Rqy32pFwRj0UkWd8nbOJfsBGGB5IQQO6L3JyJJclJuzBPl12qJyPx7ESLhUrJjUTNoEvHUqShJdFAlwshfP4B_rs6ThMypPY8sWtM8ftvYu792VQ0GJquPPRTfFeggZ_FbZty7oQQk9P5illzKFy8dH4AHauJ-EiN0nZkC5AjrgT_YVij426O_9Pf4KXJD0ZO7DsEskoLdu9m7wMhn3w&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGytHm1qyIAxV2REEAHUtuIk4QtKgLegQIHRAB&biw=1024&bih=1247&dpr=2#vhid=VtIIef58JMiFHM&vssid=mosaic

[Ms Diddles]

Your right. She saw John over a length of time. In the Barrowland, whilst walking to the taxi then in the taxi. As long as she’d remained conscious she’d have recognised him unless he’d altered his appearance which can’t have happened because people would have noticed.

(I’m now imagining him walking around in one of those obviously false beards and a false nose with a pair of glasses attached)

Ha!

It's a long shot, but it would be interesting to know when McInnes got those dentures fitted.

It was likely years later, but I often find that dentures subtly alter a persons appearance without it being immediately apparent what has changed.

They just make a person look not quite themselves if you know what I mean?!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, I can't see them failing to ensure that Jeannie got a good look at McInnes in the circumstances.

To be honest, even if Jeannie had been drunk I find it hard to believe that she would have failed to recognise the guy her sister was dancing with (depending of course on how much time had elapsed since the murder before she was asked to ID him).

It sounds like he'd been dancing with Helen for most of the evening and they had formed a kind of foursome with Jeannie and Castlemilk John.

There's the incident with the cigarette machine, the walk to the taxi rank and what would have been quite a long taxi journey home right across the city.

I can't help but think that unless she was completely blitzed, she would have recognised him quite easily after all that.

Your right. She saw John over a length of time. In the Barrowland, whilst walking to the taxi then in the taxi. As long as she’d remained conscious she’d have recognised him unless he’d altered his appearance which can’t have happened because people would have noticed.

(I’m now imagining him walking around in one of those obviously false beards and a false nose with a pair of glasses attached)

[Ms Diddles]

Absolutely. I keep meaning to have another look at the podcast transcript to try and understand why those detectives in the 90’s felt that McInnes might never have been seen by Jeannie? Although we see much that’s suspicious that could lead to accusations of cover up I just can’t see how all those senior officers could have charged over to Stonehouse like a Wild West posse, eventually tracking down the man that they were looking for, and then failing to put him in front of the star witness. It’s just not credible. Unless McInnes was just incredibly lucky and Jeannie just didn’t recognise him. Maybe the story about her being drunk had some truth in it?

Yeah, I can't see them failing to ensure that Jeannie got a good look at McInnes in the circumstances.

To be honest, even if Jeannie had been drunk I find it hard to believe that she would have failed to recognise the guy her sister was dancing with (depending of course on how much time had elapsed since the murder before she was asked to ID him).

It sounds like he'd been dancing with Helen for most of the evening and they had formed a kind of foursome with Jeannie and Castlemilk John.

There's the incident with the cigarette machine, the walk to the taxi rank and what would have been quite a long taxi journey home right across the city.

I can't help but think that unless she was completely blitzed, she would have recognised him quite easily after all that.