Bible John (General Discussion)

[Ms Diddles]

To recap on McInnes (from my own point of view)

Pro

Clearly a troubled man.
Religious upbringing.
Resembled the Patterson portrait.
ID’d by Alexander Hanna and one of the Barrowland bouncers as Helen Puttock’s ‘John.’
The Moylan’s card found at the scene of HP’s murder.
As the card didn’t immediately point specifically to McInnes it’s reasonable to assume other evidence existed (possibly witness)
A close enough familial DNA link to justify an exhumation.
A group of very senior officers headed to Stonehouse and straight to Sandy McInnes’ house.
Might we conclude that as Jeannie mentioned ‘John’s’ teeth, that the description was at least close to McInnes’(from those that knew him)?

Con

No ID from Jeannie.
No conclusive DNA match due to poor samples.

…

Its certainly not ‘throw away the key’ time but for me, as it stands, McInnes has to be a strong suspect.

My memory is appalling, so please humour me here;

Did police take DNA samples from McInnes's family prior to the exhumation (presumably to make sure they weren't barking up the wrong tree, so to speak)?

I had thought they just dug him up and compared DNA with the sample from Helen Puttock's clothing, but I've likely forgotten the details here!

It's purely anecdotal but you could add the supposition that McInnes's wife was apparently terrified of her husband to your pro list.

I personally find it quite damning that the bouncer identified McInnes.

In my experience doormen, bar staff and security staff often have phenomenal and very accurate recollection when it comes to remembering punters who've caused trouble.

Unless the bouncer was new or agency (or just a rubbish bouncer!), I'd give their ID some weight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To recap on McInnes (from my own point of view)

Pro

Clearly a troubled man.
Religious upbringing.
Resembled the Patterson portrait.
ID’d by Alexander Hanna and one of the Barrowland bouncers as Helen Puttock’s ‘John.’
The Moylan’s card found at the scene of HP’s murder.
As the card didn’t immediately point specifically to McInnes it’s reasonable to assume other evidence existed (possibly witness)
A close enough familial DNA link to justify an exhumation.
A group of very senior officers headed to Stonehouse and straight to Sandy McInnes’ house.
Might we conclude that as Jeannie mentioned ‘John’s’ teeth, that the description was at least close to McInnes’(from those that knew him)?

Con

No ID from Jeannie.
No conclusive DNA match due to poor samples.

…

Its certainly not ‘throw away the key’ time but for me, as it stands, McInnes has to be a strong suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The sentence that I quoted from page 106 is the penultimate in the chapter; the inal one being: “But it wasn’t enough to finally name Scotland’s most notorious and elusive killer.

This is concerning events in 1996 as the paragraph begins with: “The Lord Advocate issued a statement on July 4th, 1996, which concluded that forensic tests had failed to link McInnes to the semen stain found on Helen Puttock’s body. The tests on the bitemark were also inconclusive, said the Lord Advocate.”

‘Pinpointed’ means nothing if it just comes from a writer who doesn’t add sources or more detail. It would be interesting to know what they based this on though.

[cobalt]

''P106 - The police had submitted circumstantial evidence to the Procurator Fiscal claiming that McInnes could be pinpointed at key times during the night of Helen’s murder.''

When? 1969? Or 1996? Big difference.

When were these 'key points' though? And what the hell does 'pinpointed' mean?' It sounds like waffle to me. The lack of progress since confirms my suspicions.

Where the hell actually was McInnes? On a late bus back to Stonehouse? (highly unlikely) On a way to doss down at some relative in central Glasgow where he had a key for entrance? Just about possible but also unlikely.

If they could not establish where McInnes was, why on earth was he dismissed as a suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Concerning whether John Mcinnes drove a car or not , in this article it says he drove a green Ford Cortina . The article seems to be taken mainly from a book, entitled Bible John Hunt for a killer, [ which I have not read ].

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20221211/282441353130498

Hope this helps Darryl

Cheers Darryl. I got the Crow and Sansom book and read it very recently and so I have no excuse for not answering the question as to whether McInnes could drive or not as it should have been fresher in my mind. I just checked parts of my notes on the book:

P52 - McInnes owned a green Ford Cortina
P63 - Stories that McInnes skipped sales meetings to go to the Barrowland and inappropriate behaviour when they ran a care home.
P78 - Letter to DCI Brownlie from a mystery woman from the North of England
P99 - Interesting coincidence pointed out. HP’s sanitary towel was under her armpit and McInnes killed himself by slicing a main artery under his own armpit
P106 - The police had submitted circumstantial evidence to the Procurator Fiscal claiming that McInnes could be pinpointed at key times during the night of Helen’s murder….

As you can see…it’s actually the first point that I noted.

The two cars seen at the scene were a White Ford Consul and a Morris 100 Traveller so not McInnes’ Green Cortina which goes against my suggestion that he might have decided against using his car for the second and third murders if it had been seen at the scene of the first. That said, we don’t know when McInnes bought his prized Cortina?

[Ms Diddles]

Concerning whether John Mcinnes drove a car or not , in this article it says he drove a green Ford Cortina . The article seems to be taken mainly from a book, entitled Bible John Hunt for a killer, [ which I have not read ].

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20221211/282441353130498

Hope this helps Darryl

Nice find Darryl,

I feel like I have read that article at some point but missed the info about the car.

It would make sense for a young man from Stonehouse to have a car.

In my experience people from rural areas are much more likely to hold a driving licence than people from cities with abundant public transport options.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Concerning whether John Mcinnes drove a car or not , in this article it says he drove a green Ford Cortina . The article seems to be taken mainly from a book, entitled Bible John Hunt for a killer, [ which I have not read ].

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20221211/282441353130498

Hope this helps Darryl

Interesting stuff Darryl, thanks for posting.

The article has a coy, knowing air about it, the reference to an attempted suicide in the village shop is mentioned with no telling detail whatsoever.
Anything new that we can find out about the case, John McInnes and John Templeton is to be welcomed.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Concerning whether John Mcinnes drove a car or not , in this article it says he drove a green Ford Cortina . The article seems to be taken mainly from a book, entitled Bible John Hunt for a killer, [ which I have not read ].

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20221211/282441353130498

Hope this helps Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ms D is correct in that its strange nobody saw Pat on her way home. If she caught a bus i would imagine in 1969 there were still bus conductors and not just driver only buses. Conductors knew their job and were on the ball so to speak about who got on and off especially early hours of morning (good potential witness) (to be believed in Helens case)

still have a problem with walking with the clothes. If Barnflat is correct about the bridge where they were found its a bit of a walk seay and a much busier road I think which again points to a car.

perhaps the stripping of the clothes is a power thing. Helen isnt stripped but is degraded (awful word but cant think of another) with the horrible act of putting the sanitary towel under her arm.

maybe it illustrates what sort of offender this was. Terrible person for sure.

NW

Although I can’t state it as a fact (because I can’t recall if it’s been stated anywhere in the literature on the subject) it has to be likely that this wasn’t Pat’s first visit to the Barrowland so it’s perhaps surprising that no one came forward to say that they had seen her. If she had been there before there would have been people that knew her so was it the case that her acquaintances, likely to have been women, might not have wanted to come forward and admit that they were there? As this was the first murder there would have been no suggestion of a madman targeting any women so they might have felt less inclined to come forward?

[barnflatwyngarde]

I will contact Jillian Bavin-Mizzi and ask her if she knew if John Templeton had a driving licence.

Re John McInnes, perhaps Audrey gillan has this info, she interviewed some Stonehouse residents who knew John McInnes.

[New Waterloo]

Yes Cobalt we really need to find out if the two main suspects had a driving license and a car. I am not sure how we could do that but I think it is a task that we can achieve and this would be a real step forward.

The clothes remain a mystery. Somebody said that duffle coats are quite heavy and they are correct. I would think that the offender would have to use both hands to carry the clothes and would have stood out like a sore thumb walking along.

I am less keen on the idea of the clothes being thrown in the river. The police managed to find the handbag I think some of the clothing would have turned up as well perhaps caught on the bank of the river, an overhanging tree branch or something.

Perhaps the clothes were dumped very close to the murder scene but that doesn't really work because I would imagine the police would have searched around the immediate area very quickly after attending the scene.

Why keep the hand bag? Whilst writing this I have just had a thought. Have we made an important connection between Pat and Helens murder. Yes its already known has been since 1969 but it is the same MO. on both occasions the offender keeps the handbag. This is a purse in Helens case. The offender removes them from the scene. Why maybe simply that he wants to get to a safer are with more light to see if there is anything of value inside. When he has done this he dumps the bag/purse

I think this could be a strong indicator that we are dealing with the same person..Well maybe

NW

[cobalt]

It would help clear up the matter a little if we knew whether our two main suspects a) possessed a driving licence at the time and b) owned a motor vehicle. I speak more in hope than expectation: the issue of whether Lee Harvey Oswald ever had a driving licence in 1963 is still hotly disputed.

The logic of Patricia Docker's killer having a car has to be seen through. It's true nobody remembered Patricia being bussed or taxied home, but then no one saw her leaving the Barrowland and accompanying a man to a vehicle either. We don't know for sure whether she even went to the Majestic dance hall first before going on to the Barrowland; one of the witnesses who thought she had seen Patricia there later had second thoughts about which day it was. Witness testimony is absent unfortunately so we have nothing either way regarding how she arrived near to her home.

Taking the clothing away in a car sounds reasonable- less chance of being spotted walking through the streets. But having to stop on the Clarkston Bridge (?) in the early hours of the morning to chuck items down into the river is a good way to attract attention from any passing motorist or member of the public.

I don't think the killer had a car. Trying to make a sexual advance in a car was not an easy move back in the late 1960s since car heating systems were less effective. Car coats, sheepskin coats and driving gloves were fashionable accessories for a car driver in the colder, winter months.

The lock ups I knew from that period were two facing rows of single wooden garages (where we lads often played 5-a-side kick abouts.) Between each garage was a narrow space where you could slip off for a pee if necessary away from public view. I have no idea if that was the case in Carmichael Lane but if it was, then the attack on Patricia could have been carried out without anyone seeing and her clothes removed- for whatever psychological purpose- there as well. Her body could then have been dragged a few yards into the Lane to be perceived.

If the clothes were thrown into the river by the killer on foot then that suggests some working knowledge of the area I would guess. How did he carry them there and why? I have no idea to the second question- maybe some form of cleansing? But he may have used the duffle coat as an impromptu bag and stuffed the other items inside.

[New Waterloo]

Ms D is correct in that its strange nobody saw Pat on her way home. If she caught a bus i would imagine in 1969 there were still bus conductors and not just driver only buses. Conductors knew their job and were on the ball so to speak about who got on and off especially early hours of morning (good potential witness) (to be believed in Helens case)

still have a problem with walking with the clothes. If Barnflat is correct about the bridge where they were found its a bit of a walk seay and a much busier road I think which again points to a car.

perhaps the stripping of the clothes is a power thing. Helen isnt stripped but is degraded (awful word but cant think of another) with the horrible act of putting the sanitary towel under her arm.

maybe it illustrates what sort of offender this was. Terrible person for sure.

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ha! I was so pleased with my revelation about how quiet and residential the streets were between Carmichael Place and the river that I failed to really consider why BJ would have done such a thing!

He was going to take them, then realised how cumbersome and / or incriminating they were and decided to dump them?

He was destroying evidence? I know DNA was in it's infancy, but he may have been worried about fingerprints or hair.

Yeah, I'm stretching here!!

To be fair, there are many aspects of this case which appear highly illogical, so I'm not sure we're looking at someone who was completely rational during the commission of their crimes.

Absolutely right. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking “well he/she wouldn’t have done (or thought) that because it’s not what I’d have done. ” Your suggestion about him wanting to take the clothes but then realising how cumbersome they were is a possible. Or maybe he got a bit paranoid if someone walked past him and gave him a look, so he decided to dump them as he was nearing the river?

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms D,

What reason do you think the killer might have had for wanting to dump her clothes in the river? It certainly sounds physically possible.

Ha! I was so pleased with my revelation about how quiet and residential the streets were between Carmichael Place and the river that I failed to really consider why BJ would have done such a thing!

He was going to take them, then realised how cumbersome and / or incriminating they were and decided to dump them?

He was destroying evidence? I know DNA was in it's infancy, but he may have been worried about fingerprints or hair.

Yeah, I'm stretching here!!

To be fair, there are many aspects of this case which appear highly illogical, so I'm not sure we're looking at someone who was completely rational during the commission of their crimes.