Bible John (General Discussion)

[Darryl Kenyon]

Two other people who worked at Moylans were interviewed as part of the police enquires [ according to the podcast ]. Apparently they both frequented the Barrowlands . But Jimmy Mcinnes evidently said that the ticket was a false clue or didn't exist or words to that effect.

What I am thinking is a ticket/card was found near Helen's body so at the time the police rightly investigated it . But Jimmy Mcinnes, in my opinion was dismissing it [ in his own mind ], as just being near the body , and anybody could have dropped it, sort of thing and nothing but a red herring. Joe Beattie may have come to the same conclusion

Pure speculation here but John Mcinnes may have been given an alibi when interviewed by the police off his wife or maybe off, say his Mother who would be Jimmy Mcinnes Auntie. Jimmy Mcinnes may have backed her up by saying words to the effect that she is an upstanding christian who wouldn't lie. That would certainly give some explanation why he wouldn't want to discuss or entertain his cousins guilt, if indeed John Mcinnes was guilty.

Its also possible John Mcinnes didn't have overlapping front teeth . Didn't Joe Beattie make great stock out of this clue ?

In the podcast I am sure Helen's sister said she only ever took part in one proper identity parade . Most of the time it was just viewing people on the street etc. Sometimes without the person even knowing. Could she have looked at John Mcinnes from an unmarked police car a few days later after the police went to Stonehouse [ she did that many, I believe that she could easily forget who was who and where it happened ], as he was going to work at Moylans say ? And dismissed him. The police had so many suspects I believe if any of the above is true they would have swiftly moved on [ manpower etc ] and any notes may have gone missing.

Just a few thoughts Darryl

[Ms Diddles]

Shades of Robert Lees. I wonder how a senior police officer would be treated today if he/she had enlisted the help of a ‘psychic’ (or to use their proper title ‘charlatan.’)?

It's quite jarring isn't it?

It sort of makes sense in the London of 1888 with the general fascination with the spiritualist movement, but 1969 Glasgow seems like a very different kettle if fish!

[Ms Diddles]

I have just found out an fascinating fact re Joe Beattie's theory that the killer got off the number 6 bus in order to get the Govan Ferry to cross the Clyde.

In 1970 Joe Beattie enlisted the help of the Dutch clairvoyant Gerard Croiset to see if he could add anything significant to the investigation.

Croiset was shown a map of Glasgow and indicated that the killer lived in the Govan area.

Beattie realised that anyone taking the ferry across the Clyde was only a short distance from Govan.

So Beattie's interviews with the ferrymen regarding the possibility that the killer used the Govan Ferry was based on nothing more than the visions of a self professed "psychic".

(Source: Bible John: Search for a Sadist by Charles Stoddart pages 104-105)

Surely there must have been more to it than the mere word of a psychic?!

I understand that by 1970 they were desperate and clutching at straws, but Beattie didn't seem to be the type to buy into psychics (or fairies at the bottom of the garden)!!

Perhaps the psychics "prediction" merely reinforced a theory that the police were following at the time.

Or maybe Beattie was losing the plot a little.

Curiouser and curiouser!

[Ms Diddles]

Good points Herlock.

Yeh it's difficult to figure out how the Moylan's ticket/card ended up next to the body.
I carried business cards as part of my job, and I always kept them in my wallet.

Can we envisage a scenario where the killer toook out his wallet during before, during or after the murder?
It is highly unlikely, but this case forces us to consider the unlikely.

Perhaps he kept condoms in his wallet.

He thought he was on to a winner then was thwarted at the last minute when it was revealed that Helen was menstruating.

Mere speculation obviously!

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms D.

Yeah, I think that you're right, it's certainly not a slam dunk.
It just struck me as surprising that a guy from Stonehouse popped up in the enquiry a matter of days after Helen Puttock's murder.

Absolutely Barn!

I just realised how little I know about Stonehouse as a place, which got me vaguely wondering about it's population size.

To be clear, I am in no way claiming this advances our knowledge, but for general interest here are some population stats for 2001:

https://stonehouseheritage.co.uk/vil...20parish%20682.

Even if it wasn't Mrs Palka's evidence that took the A team to Stonehouse, something was strongly persuasive to these 4 senior, highly experienced cops.

Agree!

Re Mrs Palka's evidence, what on earth made this particular chap from Stonehouse stand out as a possible murderer?
It was unlikely to be his problematic behaviour.

Do we know how this Mrs Palka fits into the picture?

I was just wondering whether she was for example, a Barrowlands regular or a colleague of McInnes.

It would perhaps enable us to guess at how credible her info was likely to be (credible enough to get all of the senior officers out to Stonehouse)?

On the countrary, Jeannie Langford made numerous comments about BJ's politeness and courteous behaviour.
In fact she makes more comments about his gentlemanly, polite behaviour than she does about his biblical references.

While I can't claim to to have known John Templeton very well, I did have quite a few interactions and conversations with him.
If anyone had asked me to describe him as a person, the things that come to mind are his dapper appearance and his courteousness and politeness.

Interesting Barn!

I'll bet you wish you had paid more attention now!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have just found out an fascinating fact re Joe Beattie's theory that the killer got off the number 6 bus in order to get the Govan Ferry to cross the Clyde.

In 1970 Joe Beattie enlisted the help of the Dutch clairvoyant Gerard Croiset to see if he could add anything significant to the investigation.

Croiset was shown a map of Glasgow and indicated that the killer lived in the Govan area.

Beattie realised that anyone taking the ferry across the Clyde was only a short distance from Govan.

So Beattie's interviews with the ferrymen regarding the possibility that the killer used the Govan Ferry was based on nothing more than the visions of a self professed "psychic".

(Source: Bible John: Search for a Sadist by Charles Stoddart pages 104-105)

Shades of Robert Lees. I wonder how a senior police officer would be treated today if he/she had enlisted the help of a ‘psychic’ (or to use their proper title ‘charlatan.’)?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good points Herlock.

Yeh it's difficult to figure out how the Moylan's ticket/card ended up next to the body.
I carried business cards as part of my job, and I always kept them in my wallet.

Can we envisage a scenario where the killer toook out his wallet during before, during or after the murder?
It is highly unlikely, but this case forces us to consider the unlikely.

Cheers Barn. Maybe it fell from a jacket pocket? Maybe he grabbed Helen as she ran up the embankment and in the scuffle they both fell/rolled back down to the ground with the card falling out of a picket in the process? But even as I’m considering that I’m thinking ‘how could no one have heard them with two buildings just a few feet away?

[barnflatwyngarde]

I have just found out an fascinating fact re Joe Beattie's theory that the killer got off the number 6 bus in order to get the Govan Ferry to cross the Clyde.

In 1970 Joe Beattie enlisted the help of the Dutch clairvoyant Gerard Croiset to see if he could add anything significant to the investigation.

Croiset was shown a map of Glasgow and indicated that the killer lived in the Govan area.

Beattie realised that anyone taking the ferry across the Clyde was only a short distance from Govan.

So Beattie's interviews with the ferrymen regarding the possibility that the killer used the Govan Ferry was based on nothing more than the visions of a self professed "psychic".

(Source: Bible John: Search for a Sadist by Charles Stoddart pages 104-105)

[barnflatwyngarde]

Just a thought but might the Moylan’s card be another potential pointer to the killer not setting out to kill? We know from Jeannie that ‘John’ showed Helen a card but we don’t know what it was, but as we have two mentions of a card in this case it must be at least a possibility that this was the same card. Could he have been trying to impress her by telling her that he could get her a discount on furniture (possibly not suggesting that he himself worked there as he’d already mentioned working in a laboratory) Although he did change his story from being an orphan to having a sister so maybe our John wasn’t a very good liar…could he have gone from working in a lab to being ‘manager’ of a furniture store? As the card doesn’t get a mention in the investigation we don’t know exactly where it was discovered but a man would usually keep it in a wallet or pocket so it’s perhaps difficult to see how he could have managed to accidentally drop it at the scene? Could it have been that, at some point in the evening, he gave Helen the card and that it was found on her person? Could he simply have forgotten that he’d given it to her after something had triggered him into killing her? It seems a more likely explanation to me than any suggestion that John just accidentally dropped it at the scene. Although of course it’s far from impossible that that’s just that. Just a bit of speculation on my part.

Good points Herlock.

Yeh it's difficult to figure out how the Moylan's ticket/card ended up next to the body.
I carried business cards as part of my job, and I always kept them in my wallet.

Can we envisage a scenario where the killer toook out his wallet during before, during or after the murder?
It is highly unlikely, but this case forces us to consider the unlikely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a thought but might the Moylan’s card be another potential pointer to the killer not setting out to kill? We know from Jeannie that ‘John’ showed Helen a card but we don’t know what it was, but as we have two mentions of a card in this case it must be at least a possibility that this was the same card. Could he have been trying to impress her by telling her that he could get her a discount on furniture (possibly not suggesting that he himself worked there as he’d already mentioned working in a laboratory) Although he did change his story from being an orphan to having a sister so maybe our John wasn’t a very good liar…could he have gone from working in a lab to being ‘manager’ of a furniture store? As the card doesn’t get a mention in the investigation we don’t know exactly where it was discovered but a man would usually keep it in a wallet or pocket so it’s perhaps difficult to see how he could have managed to accidentally drop it at the scene? Could it have been that, at some point in the evening, he gave Helen the card and that it was found on her person? Could he simply have forgotten that he’d given it to her after something had triggered him into killing her? It seems a more likely explanation to me than any suggestion that John just accidentally dropped it at the scene. Although of course it’s far from impossible that that’s just that. Just a bit of speculation on my part.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Interesting find, Barn!

It's hard to say if these two incidents refer to the same man.

My initial thought was yes, but on consideration I think it likely that the names of quite a few Barrowland regulars would have been brought to police attention in the early stages of the investigation, and the police would likely have worked their way through a list.

I'd say it's possible but not a slam dunk!

Hi Ms D.

Yeah, I think that you're right, it's certainly not a slam dunk.
It just struck me as surprising that a guy from Stonehouse popped up in the enquiry a matter of days after Helen Puttock's murder.

Even if it wasn't Mrs Palka's evidence that took the A team to Stonehouse, something was strongly persuasive to these 4 senior, highly experienced cops.

Re Mrs Palka's evidence, what on earth made this particular chap from Stonehouse stand out as a possible murderer?
It was unlikely to be his problematic behaviour.

On the countrary, Jeannie Langford made numerous comments about BJ's politeness and courteous behaviour.
In fact she makes more comments about his gentlemanly, polite behaviour than she does about his biblical references.

While I can't claim to to have known John Templeton very well, I did have quite a few interactions and conversations with him.
If anyone had asked me to describe him as a person, the things that come to mind are his dapper appearance and his courteousness and politeness.

[Ms Diddles]

Maybe Mrs P phoned in and told someone about her suspect and the officer didn’t quite catch the suspects name and so didn’t make the connection? Hence Jimmy gets sent with no apparent conflict of interest. Maybe the officer thought that she’d said ‘McGuinness?’

That’s only two maybe’s.

It's possible, of course!

It would be a whopping coincidence, but such things can happen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh, I had forgotten all about the numbers on the index.

It's easy to see why a cover up is suspected, isn't it?

I know police procedures were perhaps a bit more lax in 1969, but if Mrs Palka was pointing a finger at John McInnes, you would think that the last person on the force who would be conducting that interview would be...........Jimmy McInnes though, wouldn't you, or was "conflict of interests" just not a thing then?

Maybe Mrs P phoned in and told someone about her suspect and the officer didn’t quite catch the suspects name and so didn’t make the connection? Hence Jimmy gets sent with no apparent conflict of interest. Maybe the officer thought that she’d said ‘McGuinness?’

That’s only two maybe’s.

[Ms Diddles]

That’s a very good point and one that I hadn’t given any real thought to. Isn’t it strange how we sometimes miss what’s obvious until it’s pointed out to us? Why would Jimmy have been sent to find this woman when his cousin was involved? What’s also strange is that Jimmy told McEwan that he wasn’t actually involved in the BJ investigation ( I must stop using ‘BJ’ as I feel like Finbarr Saunders in Viz) apart from manning the phones once. Apparently he checked the taxi for prints too (whether he did it personally or just oversaw it we don’t know.)

Well yes!

Or an alternative scenario whereby Mrs Palka heads to Partick Police Station:

Mrs P: Hello, I'm here because I have some information relating to the recent murders. I think I know who Bible John is.

Desk Sergeant: Certainly Madame, what is this suspects name?

Mrs P: John McInnes. I believe he lives in Stonehouse.

Desk Sergeant: Hold on a minute madame, I'll just go and get his cousin Jimmy to take your statement!



It's interesting that it sounds as though Jimmy is distancing himself from the investigation.

I suppose that there's a possibility that he wasn't directly involved (or involved to any great extent) and was just draughted in for the odd task.

Maybe!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Senior detectives would not have descended on Hamilton police station on a mere hunch so yes, they seem to have been anticipating a celebratory photo opportunity. It still strikes me as odd however: all of the case notes and exhibits would have been logged at Maryhill police station in Glasgow so were the band of detectives heading to Hamilton not so much to interview McInnes but to oversee an ID parade? They were that confident?

If Jeannie failed to pick out McInnes that would certainly have burst their balloon yet they did have other eye witnesses as well. So far as we are aware none of them seemed to be called upon. In addition, there would have been some forensic evidence in terms of fibre transfer as well as teeth and blood group comparisons. McInnes' shoes and clothing should surely have been seized as well. I cannot understand why they seemed to drop all interest in him so quickly that no trace now remains of him being a suspect.

Yes, exonerated suspects don’t just get deleted from the records. Something fishy appears to have been going on but we can’t say to what extent. Was it accepted/assumed that McInness was innocent after Jeannie failed to pick him out and Jimmy just wanted the family name kept off the records and Beattie agreed to it? I need to have another look at the podcast transcript because I think that McEwan felt that Jeannie had never actually seen McInnes (unless I’m misremembering) I can’t recall what might have led them to think this though? It seems unlikely to the point of being not possible on the face of it.