Bible John (General Discussion)

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms D, today I have been wading through Charles Stoddart's book "Bible John: Search for a Sadist".
Given your post re the murders being carried out by different killers, I have just seen a comment by Stoddart re this very thing.

On page 25 Stoddart says re Joe Beattie, "Joe is reluctant the link the three". (my emphasis)

Bearing in mind that Stoddart taped his numerous conversations with Beattie, we must assume that this is an accurate statement with regard to what Joe Beattie said to Stoddart. As far as I can recollect, Beattie said on numerous occasions that the murders were committed by one man, so it is curious that he should flip flop when he was retired.

Stoddart himself heaps praise on Beattie, describing him as "a quite exceptional individual, whom it has been my privilege to meet". (my emphasis) (Preface page IX)

Stoddart tellingly disagrees with Beattie's view on different killers saying, "It is perfectly possible that the three murders are totally unconnected and are the work of three completely different individuals. Only the co-incidences detract from that viewpoint. And those coincidences are very strong indeed." (my emphasis) (page 25)

If there was a cover-up by Beattie and others, could his comments re different killers be another attempt to muddy the waters?

Interesting stuff, Barn!

Thanks for posting.

Agree it could be obfuscation to detract from a cover-up.

Or could some new evidence that we're not aware of have come to light to change Beattie's perception?

It's just very strange.

I definitely feel like there are a few vital pieces of this jigsaw missing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d been having another listen too but I got distracted and hadn’t got to the last three yet. I might have a read through the transcript later though. The idea of two or three different killers doesn’t really work for me Ms D. As you say, too many similarities. I’d even suspect that it’s possible that he killed more than three but that’s no more than speculation. The fact that Pat Docker’s clothes were taken is the big question that needs an answer and of course it could mean that her killer had a car but for me that wouldn’t eliminate the same man being involved in all three. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that perhaps when Dalgleish called for information about the two cars that had been seen the killer’s was actually one of them which persuaded him not to use the car in future? Or perhaps his financial circumstances had changed by the second murder and he’d had to sell his car?

One thing I can’t understand, and I can’t recall the reasoning behind, was their belief that the man in the taxi was McInnes but he wasn’t the killer. So he drops her off in the taxi and Bible John comes along to kill a woman who just happened to have been at the Barrowland? It doesn’t seem very likely. Not impossible but but not very likely imo.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I've just spent a rainy, hungover Sunday afternoon snuggled up with the cats re-listening to some of the BJ podcasts.

I just listened to the last three where the possible conspiracy is discussed at length.

I was surprised to recall the strength of argument made for the idea that BJ never existed and the murders were committed by two or three different men.

Barn, Herlock Sholmes, cobalt, New Waterloo, what do you all think of this theory?

My instinct is that whilst not impossible, there are too many similarities, and plain odd factors in common for this to be a likely scenario.

I can't really tell whether I'm thinking objectively here though.

Once you're familiar with a generally accepted narrative, it's quite hard to rethink it so radically.

I'd be interested to know others thoughts and whether anyone feels like the multiple killers scenario is probable.

Hi Ms D, today I have been wading through Charles Stoddart's book "Bible John: Search for a Sadist".
Given your post re the murders being carried out by different killers, I have just seen a comment by Stoddart re this very thing.

On page 25 Stoddart says re Joe Beattie, "Joe is reluctant the link the three". (my emphasis)

Bearing in mind that Stoddart taped his numerous conversations with Beattie, we must assume that this is an accurate statement with regard to what Joe Beattie said to Stoddart. As far as I can recollect, Beattie said on numerous occasions that the murders were committed by one man, so it is curious that he should flip flop when he was retired.

Stoddart himself heaps praise on Beattie, describing him as "a quite exceptional individual, whom it has been my privilege to meet". (my emphasis) (Preface page IX)

Stoddart tellingly disagrees with Beattie's view on different killers saying, "It is perfectly possible that the three murders are totally unconnected and are the work of three completely different individuals. Only the co-incidences detract from that viewpoint. And those coincidences are very strong indeed." (my emphasis) (page 25)

If there was a cover-up by Beattie and others, could his comments re different killers be another attempt to muddy the waters?

[Ms Diddles]

I've just spent a rainy, hungover Sunday afternoon snuggled up with the cats re-listening to some of the BJ podcasts.

I just listened to the last three where the possible conspiracy is discussed at length.

I was surprised to recall the strength of argument made for the idea that BJ never existed and the murders were committed by two or three different men.

Barn, Herlock Sholmes, cobalt, New Waterloo, what do you all think of this theory?

My instinct is that whilst not impossible, there are too many similarities, and plain odd factors in common for this to be a likely scenario.

I can't really tell whether I'm thinking objectively here though.

Once you're familiar with a generally accepted narrative, it's quite hard to rethink it so radically.

I'd be interested to know others thoughts and whether anyone feels like the multiple killers scenario is probable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is one of the biggest issues with this case. Over the years so many things have been simply ‘stated’ without any back up given and without any assessment of the sources. You hear ‘x was seen drinking in the pub at y’ but you don’t get to know who saw x and how sure were they or did anyone else see x. Obviously we need to see the police files.

[Ms Diddles]

No, I don't think you have Ms D.

There are lots of "facts" in the Harrison book, the problem is of course that we don't know how much we can rely on these "facts".
No references are given for statements made in the book, and his bibliography runs to nine newspapers and thirty one books.

All we can do in this case is to read everything, look for convergences, and try and spot assertions that are made without proof.

I am hoping that with Stoddart's book, his legal background will have compelled him to provide sources for all his assertions.
But why do I feel nervous about this?

It's certainly worth a shot.

Here's hoping it yields something of interest.

If not, hopefully you'll have a nice time in a beautiful building reminiscing about the days when you worked there.

The cafe used to be pretty decent too.

I guess the Harrison book is of general interest, but I'm going to be pretty sceptical if any "facts" presented in there!

[barnflatwyngarde]

I must admit I'd kind of written off anything authored by Harrison as I thought his credibility is shot.

Have I been throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, Barn?

No, I don't think you have Ms D.

There are lots of "facts" in the Harrison book, the problem is of course that we don't know how much we can rely on these "facts".
No references are given for statements made in the book, and his bibliography runs to nine newspapers and thirty one books.

All we can do in this case is to read everything, look for convergences, and try and spot assertions that are made without proof.

I am hoping that with Stoddart's book, his legal background will have compelled him to provide sources for all his assertions.
But why do I feel nervous about this?

[Ms Diddles]

The Mitchell Library is reference only, apart from a lending library in the building.
I've got the Paul Harrison book, which is quite good and pretty detailed, although with his record of inventing things, readers need to be careful.

I must admit I'd kind of written off anything authored by Harrison as I thought his credibility is shot.

Have I been throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, Barn?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Harrison book is available to "borrow" from the Internet Archive. (link attached)

It's just a matter of signing up and borrowing the book.
I don't really use it all that much, and I've never borrowed any books from it, but it seems quite straightforward.

https://archive.org/details/dancingw...0harr/mode/2up

Cheers Barn

[barnflatwyngarde]

I’ve been looking for a copy of the Harrison book for sale but I can’t find one anywhere. If you see one for sale Barn let me know please. Unless it’s some barking mad price of course.

The Harrison book is available to "borrow" from the Internet Archive. (link attached)

It's just a matter of signing up and borrowing the book.
I don't really use it all that much, and I've never borrowed any books from it, but it seems quite straightforward.

https://archive.org/details/dancingwithdevil0000harr/mode/2up

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Mitchell Library is reference only, apart from a lending library in the building.
I've got the Paul Harrison book, which is quite good and pretty detailed, although with his record of inventing things, readers need to be careful.

I’ve been looking for a copy of the Harrison book for sale but I can’t find one anywhere. If you see one for sale Barn let me know please. Unless it’s some barking mad price of course.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I thought that you had the book Barn. My mistake. I look forward to hearing what you find. Won’t you be able to take the book home?

The Mitchell Library is reference only, apart from a lending library in the building.
I've got the Paul Harrison book, which is quite good and pretty detailed, although with his record of inventing things, readers need to be careful.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm heading into the Mitchell Library on Saturday to read and take notes from Charles Stoddart's " Bible John: Search for a Sadist".
I'll report back when I've read it.
Stoddart was a high ranking member of the legal profession with several legal textbooks to his name, and he had on the record conversations with Joe Beattie, so hopefully there will be some "treasure".

I thought that you had the book Barn. My mistake. I look forward to hearing what you find. Won’t you be able to take the book home?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I read somewhere that McInnes admitted he had visited the Barrowland so that in itself might not mean much.

The real key point is what account McInnes gave of his movements after leaving the ballroom, particularly between the hours of 1am and 2am. Were the police really able to 'pinpoint' his movements at this time?

I’m not sure if he’d admitted it but this book mentions that when McInnes worked for a US stamp trading firm as a Sales Manager they held weekly sales meetings on Thursday nights (which seems a bit of a strange time for sales meetings) Apparently his boss discovered that the reason that McInnes had missed some meetings was because he’d been to the over 25’s night at the Barrowland. No source is given for this though…as usual.

[barnflatwyngarde]

According to Crow and Samson (page 106) 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.

So had someone seen him at the Barrowland? We’re experiencing a frustrating lack of detail again.

I'm heading into the Mitchell Library on Saturday to read and take notes from Charles Stoddart's " Bible John: Search for a Sadist".
I'll report back when I've read it.
Stoddart was a high ranking member of the legal profession with several legal textbooks to his name, and he had on the record conversations with Joe Beattie, so hopefully there will be some "treasure".