Bible John (General Discussion)

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've been in it.

They have a better quality of sawdust in there!

I know the type of pub Barn. Been in more than a few. A ‘wipe your feet on the way out’ kind of place.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, I find it strange that if we assume the taxi guy was BJ (which in all probability I think he was for all the reasons previously mentioned) he couldn't have been more conspicuous if he tried.

Does this mean he didn't intend to kill Helen but was triggered by something that occurred after they left the taxi?

I think that this is highly probable.

John Prescott p!ssed in a kebab shop probable FYI!

And I can only come up with the fact that she was menstruating. A thing that’s perhaps surprising then is the absence of any other woman coming forward to claim that they had danced at the Barrowland with the same man. Then again, if they were married perhaps they didn’t trust the discretion of the Police? Or perhaps the police have a list of women who gave statements that they may have danced with him?

[barnflatwyngarde]

Just the kind of place you’d pop into for evening cocktails Barn

I've been in it.

They have a better quality of sawdust in there!

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a better photo, with better detail.

Just the kind of place you’d pop into for evening cocktails Barn

[barnflatwyngarde]

Well, it's not a theory I think is worthy of much discussion but it seems to originate from some detectives who worked on the case at the time. From what I have gleaned from this site, I think the theory that McInnes/BJ were two different people is limited to the Helen Puttock murder.

Like you, I think witness evidence clearly links Jemima McDonald and Helen Puttock to having been escorted home by the same person. For this person to have been 'hijacked' by a serial sex murderer not once, but twice, stretches credulity beyond breaking point.

Yes Cobalt, I agree.

These cases can tempt us down some very narrow illogical alleyways.

We are looking for one killer of three women, and the man in the taxi with Helen Puttock was her killer, and he was Bible John.

[barnflatwyngarde]

This is a better photo, with better detail.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I attach a photo of "Traders Tavern" in Kent Streret Glasgow, where Helen Puttock, Jeannie Langford and two friends had a few drinks before going to the Barrowland on the evening of Thursday 30th October 1969.

The Barrowland ballroom is 130 yards away, past the two red cars on the right hand side, and thirty yards right at the end of the street.

[cobalt]

Well, it's not a theory I think is worthy of much discussion but it seems to originate from some detectives who worked on the case at the time. From what I have gleaned from this site, I think the theory that McInnes/BJ were two different people is limited to the Helen Puttock murder.

Like you, I think witness evidence clearly links Jemima McDonald and Helen Puttock to having been escorted home by the same person. For this person to have been 'hijacked' by a serial sex murderer not once, but twice, stretches credulity beyond breaking point.

[Ms Diddles]

The theory that McInnes was in the taxi but that someone else murdered Helen Puttock in Earl Street was clearly not subscribed to by Joe Beattie. He spent countless man hours trying to track down the man in the taxi, including placing undercover police inside the Barrowland Ballroom where he believed the murderer and the victim made first contact. So the theory has emerged as some sort of explanation for the failure of Beattie's investigation.

This leaves us with about three explanations in total.
1. There never was a Bible John: the murders were not all committed by the same person.
2. There was some sort of police cover-up to protect the main suspect.
3. The man in the taxi was McInnes but whilst he was 'Bible John' he was not actually a murderer.

Sorry Cobalt,

I'm not quite getting your option 3 from above.

Please could you clarify?

You mean McInnes was the tall sandy haired guy who danced with all the victims, was seen walking Mima home and was in the taxi with Helen and Jeannie, but on all three occasions someone else committed the murder?

[cobalt]

The theory that McInnes was in the taxi but that someone else murdered Helen Puttock in Earl Street was clearly not subscribed to by Joe Beattie. He spent countless man hours trying to track down the man in the taxi, including placing undercover police inside the Barrowland Ballroom where he believed the murderer and the victim made first contact. So the theory has emerged as some sort of explanation for the failure of Beattie's investigation.

This leaves us with about three explanations in total.
1. There never was a Bible John: the murders were not all committed by the same person.
2. There was some sort of police cover-up to protect the main suspect.
3. The man in the taxi was McInnes but whilst he was 'Bible John' he was not actually a murderer.

None of these hold much water, although number 2 cannot be ruled out until we discover the reason for four senior detectives to visit Hamilton police station where McInnes seems to have been taken in for questioning.

Most likely the investigation failed due to a lack of direction and then a certain amount of inertia kicked in when no arrests were made. The 'Yorkshire Ripper' murders are maybe a reminder of how these investigations can stall. The first murders were only reported locally until a 16 year old girl, clearly misidentified by Sutcliffe as a prostitute, fell victim. That was, I think, when Sutcliffe was tagged by the media with his soubriquet. The story remained a national crime story for the most part thereafter, until Sutcliffe was forced to search for victims outside 'red light' districts. As a result his later victims were middle class and the 'Yorkshire Ripper' became a front page story in its own right, producing political commentary. Even then Sutcliffe was caught not by inspired detective work but by bread and butter policing, which nearly let him walk on the charge of stealing a car number plate. Maybe Bible John was missed in a similar way.

[Ms Diddles]

Then again…it does seem strange that the killer would have gone on to kill Helen knowing that Jean could ID him (likewise the Bouncers and the Club manager and the taxi driver) And that Patterson’s picture of him had been well circulated and could be seen everywhere. Might this point to the fact that ‘John’ didn’t intend to kill her? Do these circumstances favour the suggestion that Bible John also went with women just for the sex but on three occasions something triggered their murders and he just lost control? The likeliest suggestion of course is the fact that they were menstruating. I don’t know.

Yes, I find it strange that if we assume the taxi guy was BJ (which in all probability I think he was for all the reasons previously mentioned) he couldn't have been more conspicuous if he tried.

Does this mean he didn't intend to kill Helen but was triggered by something that occurred after they left the taxi?

I think that this is highly probable.

John Prescott p!ssed in a kebab shop probable FYI!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could HP have been killed by someone other than the ‘John’ that was in the taxi? Alexander Hanna dropped his two passengers off in Earl Street just a few yards from number 95 and both got out. It surely can’t have been the case that John went out of his way to drop Helen off only to part company with her and walk to wherever he lived? So what are the chances that another man (Bible John) then stepped in and persuaded Helen to go to the rear of number 95 where he killed her? About as likely as spotting Jacob Rees-Mogg drunk on a Friday night in your local kebab shop with Katie Price I’d suggest. To evaluate the likelihood of John and the actual killer (Bible John) having some kind of altercation in Helen’s presence with no one hearing, followed by her murder you would have to have Rees-Mogg dressed as Oliver Cromwell with a Panda on a lead imo. I just can’t see it under any circumstances. The ‘John’ in the taxi was surely her killer (and the taxi driver and a Bouncer identified him as McInnes)

Then again…it does seem strange that the killer would have gone on to kill Helen knowing that Jean could ID him (likewise the Bouncers and the Club manager and the taxi driver) And that Patterson’s picture of him had been well circulated and could be seen everywhere. Might this point to the fact that ‘John’ didn’t intend to kill her? Do these circumstances favour the suggestion that Bible John also went with women just for the sex but on three occasions something triggered their murders and he just lost control? The likeliest suggestion of course is the fact that they were menstruating. I don’t know.

Or…Hanna dropped off Jean, then John and Helen had a disagreement or Helen decided that nothing was going to happen between them and John left the taxi and Hanna took Helen back to Earl Street. Who would have the ideal chance of picking up victims leaving dancehalls (possibly drunk and vulnerable) in the early hours? A taxi driver.

Come on…it was only a matter of time before someone suggested someone else from the ‘cast’ as the killer. I’m not suggesting this with even the slightest conviction but it does show how much we don’t know and with absence of information comes a tendency to fill gaps which isn’t necessarily a bad thing as long as we remember that it’s still an unknown.

[cobalt]

I consider it a bad sign when an author heaps praise on a policeman who has impressed him personally. Stoddart might consider Joe Beattie to have been 'an exceptional man' but if he was so exceptional then he should really have solved the Bible John case.

I remember author Martin Dillon being highly impressed by Jimmy Nesbitt, the detective who eventually snared the notorious 'Shankill Butcher' gang. But Nesbitt failed to apprehend the three main players, one of whom walks around the Shankill to this day. Nesbitt claimed the gang was tight knit yet the identity of some of the members was known in the area before arrest and the
'Butchers' were a heavy drinking, machismo bunch of sadists with little grasp of military discipline. Remarkably, their death toll was into double figures before they were apprehended. When Nesbitt was later interviewed rather critically on a TV production, his claims about the difficulty in identifying members of the gang came over as self- serving.

Self-serving may be the reason that Joe Beattie preferred in later years to deny the existence of one man being responsible for three highly similar killings. He couldn't catch Bible John because he didn't exist is a useful excuse: although Beattie would then have to explain why he failed- on three separate occasions- to make a single arrest for a series of murders in his area of Glasgow.

The theory that McInnes was the man in the taxi but was scared away in a back alley by the real BJ strikes me as preposterous for a number of reasons, a couple of which have been mentioned in other posts. On this theory, McInnes should really have been an even better ID witness than Jeannie since he had tangled with the murderer. Jeannie attended over 200 (?) ID parades but McInnes, so far as we know, never attended any as a witness. He doesn't seem to have mentioned this dramatic brush with a murderer whilst engaged in his heavy drinking sessions and never approached a newspaper to sell his highly marketable story. It's a load of moonshine I think.

[Ms Diddles]

Yes we wonder why no neighbours heard BJ and Helen so how less likely does it seem that they didn’t hear a set-to between two blokes with Helen present? I think you summed it up with ‘highly improbable.’

Hope the hangover has gone btw.

Ha! Well, yes it has thanks, but I fear I may need to listen to those podcasts a THIRD time as I'm not sure how much I actually absorbed!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for your thoughts Herlock!

What comes across from the podcast is that everyone seemed pretty confident that McInnes was the man in the taxi.

The working theory seems to be that McInnes accompanied Helen into the back court for a bit of a winch, and then was interrupted and scared off by BJ.

I THINK the idea is that McInnes realised he was in trouble and would be the prime suspect, so sought help from his senior police officer cousin Jimmy.

To me personally this all seems a bit of a stretch, but I suppose it could explain all of the senior officers descending on Stonehouse if they thought McInnes had encountered the killer, but they wanted to keep his involvement out of the press.

I suppose if we follow this train of thought, the dishevelled, sandy haired guy seen on the bus is McInnes following a scuffle, not with Helen but with BJ.

If that's the case though, I find it really hard to believe that a scuffle featuring two guys and a woman wasn't overheard by any of the residents of Earl St or why Helen didn't just head for home when things kicked off.

Plus the sheer size of this coincidence strikes me as highly improbable.

I'm in agreement that none of this seems very likely.

Yes we wonder why no neighbours heard BJ and Helen so how less likely does it seem that they didn’t hear a set-to between two blokes with Helen present? I think you summed it up with ‘highly improbable.’

Hope the hangover has gone btw.