Bible John (General Discussion)

[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.

[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?

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.)

[Ms Diddles]

That’s intriguing Barn. And of course according to Detecive McEwan and his team an effort had been made to change the numbers on the index to wipe out any reference to any missing report of the interview with Mrs Palka. Perhaps the police found the Moylan’s card but they couldn’t narrow it to a specific suspect. Then Mrs Palka names McInnes perhaps and they connect him to Moylan’s and the card. If that was the case then perhaps it explains why the big guns all wanted to be ‘in at the kill’ if they were thinking that it was game over for Bible John at last?

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?

[Ms Diddles]

There is a fascinating comment made in Charles Stoddart's book "Bible John: Search for a Sadist".

"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."
(Page 73) (my emphasis)

In episode 8 of Audrey Gillan's podcast the reinvestgation team mention that in "the first few days of the Helen Puttock investigation." A Mrs Palka gave the police a name of a suspect who she knew who was a regular at the Barrowland. Jimmy McInnes interviewed her, but there is no record of the interview in the case files.

Are these two incidents describing the same man?

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!

[Ms Diddles]

That Castlemilk John was a slater by profession can be found in reports from the Daily Record, BBC Scotland and STV just to name the most obvious. The source of that information must be from police speaking to the media, whether on or off the record, in light of Jeannie Langford's testimony.

CJ had no reason to lie abut this in the Barrowland back in 1969 - even if he was just a 'roofer' - and it is hardly an attempt to give a man some elevated status. A slater would simply be considered as a worthy working class man, no more, no less. I assume he was telling the truth about being a slater, and also that he was living in Castlemilk, south of Glasgow. He had no inclination that a woman would be murdered later in the evening so apart from concealing any marital status he might have had, it would have been simpler just to stick to the truth. Most liars do.

Why did CJ not come forward later? It's hard to say. His connection to BJ seems to have simply been a casual meeting on the night of Helen Puttock's death. But perhaps the police have evidence of BJ and CJ being more closely linked hence the interest in the ferry crossing. But as George Puttock, Helen's husband later said, why was no photofit of Castlemilk John ever placed before the public? He could have been flushed out surely.

You would think so, wouldn't you Cobalt.

I guess for C.J. there was probably a sense of simply not wanting to get involved.

He was likely married and didn't want it to get out that he'd been down the Barrowlands (particularly on the night where it was notorious for being a hook up joint).

Putting myself in his shoes for a moment, I would have expected that knock on my door to come at anytime, so I think I'd have taken my chances and gone to the nearest police station to spill the beans.

At least that way I could try to control the narrative to some extent and it would be better than the police turning up to question me with the wife and kids at home.

Plus if another woman was killed, I'd have been wracked with guilt that I had been so cowardly and hadn't tried to help.

Keeping out of it was quite a gamble (for all the reasons mentioned).

It seems from what we know that the gamble paid off, but it could so easily have gone the other way.

[cobalt]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is a fascinating comment made in Charles Stoddart's book "Bible John: Search for a Sadist".

"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."
(Page 73) (my emphasis)

In episode 8 of Audrey Gillan's podcast the reinvestgation team mention that in "the first few days of the Helen Puttock investigation." A Mrs Palka gave the police a name of a suspect who she knew who was a regular at the Barrowland. Jimmy McInnes interviewed her, but there is no record of the interview in the case files.
Are these two incidents describing the same man?

That’s intriguing Barn. And of course according to Detecive McEwan and his team an effort had been made to change the numbers on the index to wipe out any reference to any missing report of the interview with Mrs Palka. Perhaps the police found the Moylan’s card but they couldn’t narrow it to a specific suspect. Then Mrs Palka names McInnes perhaps and they connect him to Moylan’s and the card. If that was the case then perhaps it explains why the big guns all wanted to be ‘in at the kill’ if they were thinking that it was game over for Bible John at last?

[barnflatwyngarde]

There is a fascinating comment made in Charles Stoddart's book "Bible John: Search for a Sadist".

"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."
(Page 73) (my emphasis)

In episode 8 of Audrey Gillan's podcast the reinvestgation team mention that in "the first few days of the Helen Puttock investigation." A Mrs Palka gave the police a name of a suspect who she knew who was a regular at the Barrowland. Jimmy McInnes interviewed her, but there is no record of the interview in the case files.

Are these two incidents describing the same man?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That Castlemilk John was a slater by profession can be found in reports from the Daily Record, BBC Scotland and STV just to name the most obvious. The source of that information must be from police speaking to the media, whether on or off the record, in light of Jeannie Langford's testimony.

Cheers Cobalt. Strange isn’t it…all the stuff I’ve read on the case but that had never registered with me.