Bible John (General Discussion)

[New Waterloo]

Very logical thinking. Simple but good idea. I think I see what you are saying. If we knew McInnes blood group was say A and the semen stain on Helen was B then that seems a simple but effective way to eliminate McInnes.

You are correct. Someone once told me a blood group comparison doesn't prove who the blood was from, but significantly it does tell us who it wasn't from.

Can I suggest another simple way forward. Does anybody at all have any photograph of McInnes other than the army photo. Why are there no photos? Surely someone must have one.

Perhaps the family are not releasing any photo's and why doesn't someone who knew McInnes or a relative just say whether he had overlapping teeth or not. If he didn't and this could be confirmed it would be another step forward.

NW

[cobalt]

I doubt that George Puttock would have nursed his wrath to the extent that he decided to rape his wife while throttling her in a back court more than 100 yards from their house. He could have waited till she came home. What Helen's taxi companion- presumably McInnes- made of this murderous exhibition of wrath we can but guess.

But there is a DNA problem that I would welcome advice on. First of all, I believe that Jemima McDonald and Helen Puttock were raped, or sexually assaulted in some manner. That means there should be forensic information from these two crimes. So there could have been a blood group connection made between these two murders back in 1969. Since most Scots are either group O or group A this might not have helped a great deal, but it would have been able to eliminate the common attacker in these murders IF the blood groups were different; I have to assume that the blood groups were therefore the same. I would also assume that McInnes' blood group matched these two crimes otherwise the very tortuous legal and moral exercise involved in exhuming his body would not have been undertaken.
This blood group information should surely have been established in regard to the late Mr. John Templeton by the author who is now making allegations against him.

I have read that the original Helen Puttock semen sample has now been degraded to the extent that it is no longer useful. This does not make sense. I can appreciate that to be legally admissible a suspect's DNA might have to be matched against the original sample. Fair enough. But there must be a record of the semen DNA in some 'barcode' form which exists on record. Any subsequent suspects' DNA could be matched against that recorded previously. Perhaps not sufficient to be legal proof, but it could at least satisfy our curiosity.

[Ms Diddles]

Ms Diddles you make some very important observations. Many people will wait for their teenage daughter to come home from a night out, worried about them. Concerned they get home safe. Half asleep people will wake just as a care/taxi drives into the street. perhaps George was half asleep. Waiting.

But for George to be the murderer is a leap. The same leap that suggests in the confusion of Stride at the gate that a stranger appears from nowhere and kills her.

These are fanciful. Possible but fanciful.

The person last seen with Helen in all probability killed her. Without other evidence contradicting this then that must be the case.

I think

NW

Hi NW!

I think so too!

I just feel that there are reasonable grounds to include George in any suspect list in relation to Helen's murder.

[New Waterloo]

It is most strange such senior officers going over to Stonehouse. I am not sure (perhaps others can help) why the first house they go to is that of John McInnes's brother?

I think we can however put the teeth issue to bed once and for all. If the officers were half decent people and McInnes had overlapping teeth then he would have been arrested and there would have been a formal parade.

In my opinion he couldnt have had overlapping teeth. The senior officers would have seen them. Perhaps the lack of overlapping teeth was all that was required to get him off the hook. Along with some other alibi.

As suggested there is a piece of the jigsaw missing

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

In 1996 John McInnes was exhumed making him a strong suspect. That doesn't mean he was the killer though. DNA from his sister gave a familial match, but no profile could be properly obtained from him. A bouncer from the Barrowlands and the taxi driver both said a picture of Mcinnes from years later was their man. Jeannie did not, she couldn't be sure.
Don't get me wrong from what we know I believe Mcinnes to be a strong suspect. But it's what we know . Perhaps when he was looked into with Beattie etc he did have a cast iron alibi, an alibi which has gone missing from the paperwork over time along with dozens of other suspects papers . Hundreds if not thousands of people , I believe were looked into .
Maybe that is the solution why Jeannie was never asked to ID him and we are barking up the wrong tree.

Regards Darryl

You could be right Darryl but what we have is, just as a recap, a collection of very unusually high-ranking officers heading over to Stonehouse two days after Helen Puttock’s murder and the first address that they go to was John Irvine McInnes brother’s and he confirmed that it was to do with a card found at the scene and yet there’s not a single mention of this seemingly red hot suspect in the files. We have our suspect taken to Hamilton Police Station rather than Patrick Marine which was the base of the investigation. Then we have a woman claiming to know who the killer was but the police send McInness’ cousin to see her and there’s not only nothing in the records about the content of the meeting but an effort has been made to delete it from the record. Then we have Jimmy McInnes apparently finding a Glasgow taxi (Hanna’s) with no fingerprints. The same Jimmy McInnes who claimed that he played no part in the investigation apart from manning the phones once. Then we have Jimmy claiming that the card was false evidence (why would anyone want to frame John Irvine McInnes?) and following and reacting aggressively the detectives reinvestigating the case.

Bloody strange to say the least Darryl.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I don’t think that we could assume that a detective was incompetent because a case went unsolved. That said, I certainly wasn’t claiming that Beattie was any kind of genius either and he may well have had an inflated sense of his own skills, but it’s difficult to see how someone can achieve high rank if they are completely incompetent. Once promoted an officer reflects on The Force and those that promoted him so, at the very least, they would have to be confident in his aptitude for the job. Again though, I’m certainly not claiming that Beattie couldn’t have got things wrong but difficult though to imagine Beattie charging over to see McInnes with high his ranking colleagues and then letting him go before letting Jeannie see him just because a family member might have given him an alibi’

I agree Herlock, there is a piece missing from the jigsaw puzzle of Mcinnes

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

In 1996 John McInnes was exhumed making him a strong suspect. That doesn't mean he was the killer though. DNA from his sister gave a familial match, but no profile could be properly obtained from him. A bouncer from the Barrowlands and the taxi driver both said a picture of Mcinnes from years later was their man. Jeannie did not, she couldn't be sure.
Don't get me wrong from what we know I believe Mcinnes to be a strong suspect. But it's what we know . Perhaps when he was looked into with Beattie etc he did have a cast iron alibi, an alibi which has gone missing from the paperwork over time along with dozens of other suspects papers . Hundreds if not thousands of people , I believe were looked into .
Maybe that is the solution why Jeannie was never asked to ID him and we are barking up the wrong tree.

Regards Darryl

[New Waterloo]

Ms Diddles you make some very important observations. Many people will wait for their teenage daughter to come home from a night out, worried about them. Concerned they get home safe. Half asleep people will wake just as a care/taxi drives into the street. perhaps George was half asleep. Waiting.

But for George to be the murderer is a leap. The same leap that suggests in the confusion of Stride at the gate that a stranger appears from nowhere and kills her.

These are fanciful. Possible but fanciful.

The person last seen with Helen in all probability killed her. Without other evidence contradicting this then that must be the case.

I think

NW

[Ms Diddles]

Nobody's fool? Beattie turned out to be Bible John's fool - by his own definition. At the very least Beattie was fooled by the killer of Helen Puttock. I am very sceptical of these highly rated detectives: the Yorkshire Ripper case was full of them and despite their self-inflated image within their own incestuous bureaucracy, they all failed. Some of the Sutcliffe ones, as we now now, had been failing for years in other high profile cases. That did not stop their underlings or the media grovelling before their self-styled genius, for obvious reasons of self-advancement. When the truth emerged years later these cheer leaders were all struck dumb.

Agree Cobalt!

I get the distinct impression that in Beattie's case he was perhaps a little guilty of buying into his own mythology.

All of that "I knew you didn't do it, son" to George Puttock and the claims that he would know BJ immediately were he ever to encounter him sounds to me like he was very much guided by instinct rather than facts.

The idea that George Puttock killed his wife is as convenient as suggesting that all poor people are lazy. Puttock was looking after his children 200 yards from where his wife was dropped off in a taxi. He would have to have been as psychic as that Belgian fraud or Beattie himself to have anticipated his wife being in that area where she was murdered, at that time. Either that or he killed her inside their flat and cunningly dragged her body to the very place she had been dropped off. A Napoleon of crime for sure.

This site is worthy of more than that.

Personally I'm not so sure that the idea that George was guilty of Helen's murder is completely without merit.

To clarify, I do NOT believe this to be the case however:

1) Statistically it's usually the partner.
2) We have reports of domestic violence within the relationship.
3) It's a fact that the most dangerous time for a victim of DV is when they try to end the relationship and move on with their life, which seems to have been the case with Helen.
4) George may well have felt insecure / jealous about Helen going out to a notorious pick up spot to dance with other men, and it's quite plausible that he would have waited up / listened out for her return.
5) Earl St is quite a quiet residential street running parallel to the main thoroughfare (Dumbarton Rd). Black cabs have a really distinctive noise. You could certainly have heard and identified a taxi pulling up at that hour of the morning if you were keeping an ear out for it.
6) The kids were likely in bed asleep.

Again, I don't actually believe this to be what happened, but I do think it's worthy of consideration/ discussion IF there was corroboration or supporting evidence for George having scratch marks on him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nobody's fool? Beattie turned out to be Bible John's fool - by his own definition. At the very least Beattie was fooled by the killer of Helen Puttock. I am very sceptical of these highly rated detectives: the Yorkshire Ripper case was full of them and despite their self-inflated image within their own incestuous bureaucracy, they all failed. Some of the Sutcliffe ones, as we now now, had been failing for years in other high profile cases. That did not stop their underlings or the media grovelling before their self-styled genius, for obvious reasons of self-advancement. When the truth emerged years later these cheer leaders were all struck dumb.

The idea that George Puttock killed his wife is as convenient as suggesting that all poor people are lazy. Puttock was looking after his children 200 yards from where his wife was dropped off in a taxi. He would have to have been as psychic as that Belgian fraud or Beattie himself to have anticipated his wife being in that area where she was murdered, at that time. Either that or he killed her inside their flat and cunningly dragged her body to the very place she had been dropped off. A Napoleon of crime for sure.

This site is worthy of more than that.

I don’t think that we could assume that a detective was incompetent because a case went unsolved. That said, I certainly wasn’t claiming that Beattie was any kind of genius either and he may well have had an inflated sense of his own skills, but it’s difficult to see how someone can achieve high rank if they are completely incompetent. Once promoted an officer reflects on The Force and those that promoted him so, at the very least, they would have to be confident in his aptitude for the job. Again though, I’m certainly not claiming that Beattie couldn’t have got things wrong but difficult though to imagine Beattie charging over to see McInnes with high his ranking colleagues and then letting him go before letting Jeannie see him just because a family member might have given him an alibi’

Also, I wasn’t suggesting the idea of George as a killer. The point that I was trying to make is that because we often run into brick walls on this case due to an absence of information it can lead you down strange tangents where you test that something hasn’t been missed. I agree 100% that the ‘George did it’ theory holds no water.

[New Waterloo]

Hi Cobalt. I think you make a very valid point and I guess I have been creating some dead end suggestions. I suppose its sometimes by illuminating some duff stuff that we get somewhere but yes your point about Puttock being around exactly when Helen comes home with children still in the house and then all the commotion it seems very unlikely, although I have to say that nobody in the block where Helen was murdered heard a thing that night and it was a very rough encounter with Helen running up the embankment and being hit around the head.

However I think on balance you are right and its fanciful that it was George.

If we look at this from an obvious viewpoint we have three suspects. The man in the Taxi (described by Jean and called BJ) George Puttock an angry man sleeping nearby;

and the taxi driver who is the only witness to what BJ and Helen did after Jean was dropped off. His evidence is crucial. His evidence alone proves that BJ got out of the car with Helen and there was a disagreement. We have to assume that he is a sound witness. That he was the murderer is of course also fanciful.

Its BJ

Sorry for the pain of my post but you got my brain working. Who was talking about a Nurofen. Yes please

NW

[cobalt]

Nobody's fool? Beattie turned out to be Bible John's fool - by his own definition. At the very least Beattie was fooled by the killer of Helen Puttock. I am very sceptical of these highly rated detectives: the Yorkshire Ripper case was full of them and despite their self-inflated image within their own incestuous bureaucracy, they all failed. Some of the Sutcliffe ones, as we now now, had been failing for years in other high profile cases. That did not stop their underlings or the media grovelling before their self-styled genius, for obvious reasons of self-advancement. When the truth emerged years later these cheer leaders were all struck dumb.

The idea that George Puttock killed his wife is as convenient as suggesting that all poor people are lazy. Puttock was looking after his children 200 yards from where his wife was dropped off in a taxi. He would have to have been as psychic as that Belgian fraud or Beattie himself to have anticipated his wife being in that area where she was murdered, at that time. Either that or he killed her inside their flat and cunningly dragged her body to the very place she had been dropped off. A Napoleon of crime for sure.

This site is worthy of more than that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's the one, Herlock!

Many thanks for looking that out.

You've saved me from a third listen of the podcasts!

Based on what we know there is something really amiss with Beattie's policing throughout all this.

He's giving credence to "psychic" time wasters, failing to ask critical questions of important players, employing complete tunnel vision in relation to Jeannie's testimony to name just a few things.

It's almost like he's operating entirely and unequivocally on his own instincts and nothing else.

As far as I am aware he was a very well regarded detective (presumably with a proven track record and a very successful career).

What on earth is he playing at here?

Or could it be that we have a distorted impression of him because so many pieces of the jigsaw are lost yo us now?

It's downright weird!

Exactly, this is a guy with a really good reputation. Clearly nobody’s fool and no hint or rumour of corruption as far as I’m aware.

[Ms Diddles]

Doh, apologies Herlock, yes it should be 19966.
I've got a horrible cold and my brain is turning to porridge.

Ugggghh!

Hope you're feeling better soon, Barn!

[Ms Diddles]

It’s in episode 9 Ms D. George Puttock had related how Beattie had taken him into a bedroom and asked him to strip off for a body search where he found nothing. Beattie then told him that he never suspected him in the first place but he had to do it. But Audrey listened to a cassette tape recording of Stoddart interviewing Joe Beattie for his book (i’d love to hear that tape or at least get a transcript) and Beattie said that George Puttock had rake marks on his arm. These must have been older though because the in the transcript Audrey said that Beattie made no suggestion as to when they were done!

Didn’t Beattie think to ask him!? It’s unbelievable if he didn’t.

They were quite deep marks apparently and George had only been back in Glasgow for a couple of weeks and hadn’t seen Helen for 6 months prior to that. So if they were older deep scratches…who had done them? Why the hell isn’t Beattie asking these questions and why wasn’t Stoddart asking Beattie why he hadn’t asked them? Frustrating stuff.

We do know of course that there are witnesses who claim that George had been violent to Helen in the past and that maybe Helen wasn’t particularly faithful?

I’ve even been wondering…could George have gone out looking for Helen and he caught her with ‘John?’ Whichever way I cut it I just don’t find it a likely scenario.

That's the one, Herlock!

Many thanks for looking that out.

You've saved me from a third listen of the podcasts!

Based on what we know there is something really amiss with Beattie's policing throughout all this.

He's giving credence to "psychic" time wasters, failing to ask critical questions of important players, employing complete tunnel vision in relation to Jeannie's testimony to name just a few things.

It's almost like he's operating entirely and unequivocally on his own instincts and nothing else.

As far as I am aware he was a very well regarded detective (presumably with a proven track record and a very successful career).

What on earth is he playing at here?

Or could it be that we have a distorted impression of him because so many pieces of the jigsaw are lost yo us now?

It's downright weird!