Bible John (General Discussion)

[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!

[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.