Bible John (General Discussion)

[Herlock Sholmes]

IIRC isn't there an indication in one of the podcasts that there was some dispute around whether or not there were some marks on George?

Oh no! I'm going to have to listen to it again.

It was in one of the later episodes that I listened to recently.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, but I'm also inclined to agree with Barn, that I feel like I don't have a clue what's going on in this case!

I think this one just about sums everything up Ms D:

“I have wracked my brains to think of non-conspiracist scenarios that would account for all the facts (in as far as we know them) and so far have drawn a blank!“

[Ms Diddles]

Hello all. Just to clarify about Helens photo (probably many of you already know) The Daily Record, November 3rd 1969 clarifies that the photo of Helen was fabricated and that her head was superimposed on to a models body to give an impression of what she looked like on the night.

Hi NW!

That's interesting.

I didn't know that, so thanks for the update.

Good idea I think but I probably created myself another red herring now rectified.

However I do think we can accept that she purchased the new dress on the day of her going to Barrowland's (According to Jean from C and A) which in itself is slightly odd in that Jean does go to some lengths to say how money was short on that day (A Thursday before getting paid).

With that in mind Helen is making quite an effort for the dancing that night. I don't want to sound disrespectful or crude but I don't think it would be seek out a kiss and cuddle so to speak because of her period.

I'm not sure. I've met women who are pretty obsessive shoppers and seem to require a new outfit every time they go out (even if finances are stretched and the clothes cheap).

It's a bit like they're addicted to the thrill of finding a bargain shopping-wise, but they also always like to look their best even if going to a not particularly salubrious venue.

Jean does seem to suggest in the Podcast something about making George Puttock jealous (sort of proving to him that the marriage was over) something like that. I think its towards the end of the bonus track (witness) she sort of says this.

I think the only thing that convinces Jean (well in the early stage after Helens murder) that it wasn't George who killed Helen was his lack of injuries to his body.

I think its a step too far to think it was George. Too complex but still a possibility.

NW

IIRC isn't there an indication in one of the podcasts that there was some dispute around whether or not there were some marks on George?

Oh no! I'm going to have to listen to it again.

It was in one of the later episodes that I listened to recently.

[Ms Diddles]

It’s probably unlikely that we’ll all agree on every single point in this case but I get the feeling that we all agree on a fair chunk.

One point that I’ll mention is this and it would be good if you could all let me know if we are agreed on this point -

That we agree that something isn’t right.

Hi Herlock,

Absolutely!

Something is just not sitting right with this case.

I'm not sure whether it's a conspiracy or just a piece of the jigsaw missing which makes it look suspiciously like a police cover up.

I have wracked my brains to think of non-conspiracist scenarios that would account for all the facts (in as far as we know them) and so far have drawn a blank!

That there appears to have been some kind of attempt to keep John Irvine McInnes’s name out of the investigation but, and this is really my main point, we find it difficult/impossible to believe that the police would have covered for a man they felt could have been the killer of three women.

Yes, I just think that the stakes were far too high and public interest too great to risk a killer walking free (perhaps to murder again) just because he was the cousin of a senior police officer.

It’s certainly highly suspicious. Therefore it’s more likely that McInnes or his family put forward some kind of alibi (whether a genuine or valid one or not is another matter) which led to his release and an attempt to keep his name out of it followed?

Yes, I believe it must have been something more solid than just the word of his (possibly) doting mum or (allegedly) terrorised wife. Perhaps there was corroboration from an independent source?

Are we all of the same opinion on this? (It doesn’t matter if we aren’t of course.)

Yes, but I'm also inclined to agree with Barn, that I feel like I don't have a clue what's going on in this case!

[barnflatwyngarde]

Only 17,970 years out Barn.

You may need a whisky or two for purely medicinal reasons.

I know, it's ridiculous isn't it.

Oops, I feel the Nurofen calling!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Only 17,970 years out Barn.

You may need a whisky or two for purely medicinal reasons.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Oops!

Disregard!

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi Barn,

That should read 1996 I think.

Or was Beattie saying that McInnes was exonerated at the time because of his teeth?

I know what you mean about not having a clue. So many gaps in our knowledge.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, I'm afraid that I can't subscribe to this premise.

It's not that I fundamentally disagree with the points that you are making, it's simply that I don't have a damn clue what's going on in this case.
There is so much that simply doesn't make sense,especially when tied in with other "facts" regarding the case.

I remember reading something about the JFK assassination, and the very many different conspiracy theories surrounding the case.
The writer put forward the proposition that if someone, or groups of people, wanted to muddy the waters to cover up a conspiracy, the best way to go about it is not to engage in heavy handed tactics such as threatening or killing witnesses, tampering with evidence etc.

The best way to do it is to insert lots of little differing "facts" into the case which contradict or question other "facts" in the case.
This creates such a fog that researchers following different threads of the case eventually end up taking diametrically opposed views, which leaves the "truth" unknown and isolated.

To illustrate this point, I have just come across an article which carries a quote by Joe Beattie regarding the exhumation of John McInnes.

"Mr Beattie who retired about 20 years ago, said he could not comment on the current investigation and he knew nothing about DNA, but he said "If you have ten witnesses and they all say no, what do you do, haul the guy up?"
Mr Beattie added that McInnes's teeth had borne no similiarity to the description of Bible John's teeth given by Miss Puttock's sister.

(The Scotsman, 24th June 1966, page 3)

So now Joe Beattie is telling us that McInnes had his own teeth?

Hi Barn,

That should read 1996 I think.

Or was Beattie saying that McInnes was exonerated at the time because of his teeth?

I know what you mean about not having a clue. So many gaps in our knowledge.

[barnflatwyngarde]

It’s probably unlikely that we’ll all agree on every single point in this case but I get the feeling that we all agree on a fair chunk.

One point that I’ll mention is this and it would be good if you could all let me know if we are agreed on this point -

That we agree that something isn’t right. That there appears to have been some kind of attempt to keep John Irvine McInnes’s name out of the investigation but, and this is really my main point, we find it difficult/impossible to believe that the police would have covered for a man they felt could have been the killer of three women. It’s certainly highly suspicious. Therefore it’s more likely that McInnes or his family put forward some kind of alibi (whether a genuine or valid one or not is another matter) which led to his release and an attempt to keep his name out of it followed?

Are we all of the same opinion on this? (It doesn’t matter if we aren’t of course.)

Hi Herlock, I'm afraid that I can't subscribe to this premise.

It's not that I fundamentally disagree with the points that you are making, it's simply that I don't have a damn clue what's going on in this case.
There is so much that simply doesn't make sense,especially when tied in with other "facts" regarding the case.

I remember reading something about the JFK assassination, and the very many different conspiracy theories surrounding the case.
The writer put forward the proposition that if someone, or groups of people, wanted to muddy the waters to cover up a conspiracy, the best way to go about it is not to engage in heavy handed tactics such as threatening or killing witnesses, tampering with evidence etc.

The best way to do it is to insert lots of little differing "facts" into the case which contradict or question other "facts" in the case.
This creates such a fog that researchers following different threads of the case eventually end up taking diametrically opposed views, which leaves the "truth" unknown and isolated.

To illustrate this point, I have just come across an article which carries a quote by Joe Beattie regarding the exhumation of John McInnes.

"Mr Beattie who retired about 20 years ago, said he could not comment on the current investigation and he knew nothing about DNA, but he said "If you have ten witnesses and they all say no, what do you do, haul the guy up?"
Mr Beattie added that McInnes's teeth had borne no similiarity to the description of Bible John's teeth given by Miss Puttock's sister.

(The Scotsman, 24th June 1966, page 3)

So now Joe Beattie is telling us that McInnes had his own teeth?

[New Waterloo]

Hello all. Just to clarify about Helens photo (probably many of you already know) The Daily Record, November 3rd 1969 clarifies that the photo of Helen was fabricated and that her head was superimposed on to a models body to give an impression of what she looked like on the night.

Good idea I think but I probably created myself another red herring now rectified.

However I do think we can accept that she purchased the new dress on the day of her going to Barrowland's (According to Jean from C and A) which in itself is slightly odd in that Jean does go to some lengths to say how money was short on that day (A Thursday before getting paid).

With that in mind Helen is making quite an effort for the dancing that night. I don't want to sound disrespectful or crude but I don't think it would be seek out a kiss and cuddle so to speak because of her period.

Jean does seem to suggest in the Podcast something about making George Puttock jealous (sort of proving to him that the marriage was over) something like that. I think its towards the end of the bonus track (witness) she sort of says this.

I think the only thing that convinces Jean (well in the early stage after Helens murder) that it wasn't George who killed Helen was his lack of injuries to his body.

I think its a step too far to think it was George. Too complex but still a possibility.

NW

[cobalt]

Surely Beattie would have known the limited value of a family alibi. It would have to be backed up by an independent witness: a work colleague; a neighbour; a bus conductor on a late night bus back to wherever he was staying in Lanarkshire at the time. Even then, Beattie had potential forensic leads to pursue. That's before we consider the value of potential witnesses from the Barrowland Ballroom of whom Jeannie is just the most prominent.

Maybe Joe Beattie- the man who allegedly didn't really need an ID parade since he had an unerring instinct to 'clock' BJ on first sight- was just a dud detective. From what we know, that is kindest interpretation of his investigation. But he didn't act alone when he went to Hamilton. What were his colleagues saying?

[New Waterloo]

I agree. Please count me in. Someone is covering for McInnes probably family. But I also agree how far would senior officers agree with cover up/alibi I think it must have been a very good alibi which could not be disproved.

NW

[cobalt]

''That we agree that something isn’t right. That there appears to have been some kind of attempt to keep John Irvine McInnes’s name out of the investigation but, and this is really my main point, we find it difficult/impossible to believe that the police would have covered for a man they felt could have been the killer of three women. It’s certainly highly suspicious. Therefore it’s more likely that McInnes or his family put forward some kind of alibi (whether a genuine or valid one or not is another matter) which led to his release and an attempt to keep his name out of it followed?''

That is my view at present.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree with Darryl: McInnes must provided an alibi which was accepted by the police. They still had reasonable grounds to verify that alibi by seizing his clothing and searching his property, but there is no evidence this ever happened. I remain sceptical that McInnes was ever put on an ID parade to be viewed by Jeannie- the only one she could recall was held inside Partick police station, not Hamilton.*
It is all very odd.

I think ‘odd’ might be an understatement there Cobalt but you’re totally correct. If McInnes or his family came up with some kind of alibi how utterly cast-iron could it have been that they wouldn’t have detained him for an extra hour or two until they could put him in front of Jeannie? They were looking for the killer of three women after all and the Press would have been on their backs for a result.

Thought: is it possible that he put forward an alibi backed up by family so they let him go but put tabs on him then got Jeannie to get a look at him from a car as he left work for example. And she failed to ID him?