Bible John (General Discussion)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good posts from Cobalt and NW.

As the police had piled over to Stonehouse two days after Helen Puttock’s murder they would obviously have known that the suspect was called McInnes as I’d find it hard to believe that they hadn’t worked out, by whatever method, that this suspect was related to Jimmy McInnes (and 2 others in the family on the Force I believe) So at that point they were clearly willing to arrest ‘a McInnes.’ They had the Moylan’s card and some other evidence which clearly gave them a level of confidence that this could have been their man.

Then…he’s innocent….and not only that his name isn’t even mentioned in the investigation. So…

1. Jeannie said that he wasn’t the man - which still doesn’t explain why his name doesn’t appear.
2. Some other evidence arises, perhaps alongside Jeannie, and he’s dropped - which doesn’t explain why his name doesn’t appear.
3. The police suddenly decide, after this dramatic exodus to Stonehouse, that they don’t want ‘a McInnes’ as Bible John - this explains why his name didn’t appear.

Not particularly convincing are they?

The kindest explanation as far as the Police are concerned would appear to be that Jeannie rejected McInnes and a decision was made to keep his name out of the investigation to protect the McInnes family from suspicion.

With the information that we have I think we’re at a brick wall on this particular point but we appear to be on safe ground in saying that it looks pretty fishy.

[New Waterloo]

I know a bit about ID parades and there are some factors that may be at play. My experience is a lot later but I would guess the general procedures and pitfalls would be similar back in 1969.

Many will be aware of how ID parades work but some wont and this is just a general piece of info which I hope helps.

There are formal and informal ID parades.

Simply put informal ID procedures could involve showing a photograph or casually asking somebody to point somebody out. say in a night club or street.

Formal ID parades normally involve putting an already suspected detainee into a line up of innocent volunteers who look similar to the detained suspect and asking a witness to point the person out. (The innocent volunteers are often paid a small amount of money as compensation for attending, they are not suspects.) The so called line up. This formal parade is evidentially stronger than any other ID as it is in a controlled environment, solicitors are in attendance, they are documented and results recorded. (I am sure this would have been the case in 1969)

The problem with informal identification is that once a person is shown a photograph or is asked to look at somebody in isolation but perhaps fails to identify the person it sort of uses up that witnesses chance of being useful on a formal parade. Why? because the police have already facilitated/shown the person to the witness. It is weak evidence because the witness has had a prior look at the suspect and the courts/defence solicitors would say any formal parade is biased. They would say the police are suggesting this person is the offender. An informal ID parade blows the chance of a formal parade. Even with a positive informal identification it remains evidentially weaker, as is open to suggestions of police interference with the witness. (Influencing the witness)

This is all organized nowadays and strict legislation applies. The legislation may have been more relaxed in 1969 but the principle of how it works would I guess have been the same.

So if you have a really good witness (perhaps like Jean, your best option is to save her/him for the formal parade where the suspect is picked out from a line up of several individuals in a strictly controlled environment WITHOUT that witness having seen any person presented by the police or any photographs at random.

Formal parades are best evidence as they have excellent value in court proceedings but are weak when rushing ahead with enquiries and with formal parades you need your firm suspect generally in custody to carry out the procedure.

I simple terms when you believe you have the right offender and a squeaky clean, uninfluenced witness with no prior photographs shown or any details descriptions etc given to that witness by the police then go ahead with the formal parade. There will always be descriptions in the press, photofits etc but the police must not lead any witness. They can of course assist a witness but untainted witnesses are the best witnesses.

ID procedures are hard to get your head round but basically that's my understanding of how it works. Perhaps with Jean there were some issues with running a formal ID procedure or a slip up where she was presented with McInnes informally and failed to ID him ( or because of the casual set up was frightened to make the ID) then the police would have spent their best witness. In other words played their Ace Card too early and failed so weakening or cancelling out any future ID.

As a foot note in a case where there are several witnesses informal ID procedures may be more commonly used keeping you best witnesses for the formal procedures.

Well something like that. It is complex

NW

[cobalt]

''I wish we knew more about exactly when and in what circumstances Jeannie viewed McInnes to give us a fighting chance of assessing the likelihood that she was correct.''

We don't know if she ever did, astonishing though that sounds. The obvious time for her to ID the suspect McInnes was when detectives converged on Hamilton police station a few days after the crime. Yet Jeannie, when shown a photo of McInnes around 1996, (?) never mentioned having been taken to Hamilton to view anyone. I know she attended many ID parades but Jeannie would surely have remembered being taken outwith the city to a parade in the aftermath of her sister's murder.

It's possible that McInnes was taken back to Glasgow for questioning and to stand on an ID parade there, but none of the Glasgow police from that time seem to recall any 'buzz' around a suspect being taken into custody for such a high profile murder. In such an event the Glasgow newspapers' crime reporters would have picked up something on the grapevine.

So I lean to the inexplicable conclusion that Jeannie was never asked to identify McInnes in a formal setting. This would be something she appears to share with at least two other significant witnesses: the taxi driver and one of the 'bouncers' at the Barrowland Ballroom. And I echo the point made in an earlier post about 'bouncers' having a very good memory for faces, especially those who have proved troublesome. It is a truly astonishing state of affairs if true.

'Find out what happened at Linz,' advised WH Auden when contemplating the life of Adolf Hitler. 'Find out what happened at Hamilton' might help us understand why the inquiry into John McInnes was swiftly dropped.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ha!

It's a long shot, but it would be interesting to know when McInnes got those dentures fitted.

It was likely years later, but I often find that dentures subtly alter a persons appearance without it being immediately apparent what has changed.

They just make a person look not quite themselves if you know what I mean?!

Now you’ve got me thinking if Dick Emery who would be before your time Ms D. Back in the dim and distant.

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=d38f0482d8f696ae&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&sxsrf=ADLYWIIcNbeJM-oP_Mb_SvgD-TyXtVlsqg:1725569361541&q=dick+emery+vicar&udm=2&fbs=AEQNm0Aa4sjWe7Rqy32pFwRj0UkWd8nbOJfsBGGB5IQQO6L3JyJJclJuzBPl12qJyPx7ESLhUrJjUTNoEvHUqShJdFAlwshfP4B_rs6ThMypPY8sWtM8ftvYu792VQ0GJquPPRTfFeggZ_FbZty7oQQk9P5illzKFy8dH4AHauJ-EiN0nZkC5AjrgT_YVij426O_9Pf4KXJD0ZO7DsEskoLdu9m7wMhn3w&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGytHm1qyIAxV2REEAHUtuIk4QtKgLegQIHRAB&biw=1024&bih=1247&dpr=2#vhid=VtIIef58JMiFHM&vssid=mosaic

[Ms Diddles]

Your right. She saw John over a length of time. In the Barrowland, whilst walking to the taxi then in the taxi. As long as she’d remained conscious she’d have recognised him unless he’d altered his appearance which can’t have happened because people would have noticed.

(I’m now imagining him walking around in one of those obviously false beards and a false nose with a pair of glasses attached)

Ha!

It's a long shot, but it would be interesting to know when McInnes got those dentures fitted.

It was likely years later, but I often find that dentures subtly alter a persons appearance without it being immediately apparent what has changed.

They just make a person look not quite themselves if you know what I mean?!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, I can't see them failing to ensure that Jeannie got a good look at McInnes in the circumstances.

To be honest, even if Jeannie had been drunk I find it hard to believe that she would have failed to recognise the guy her sister was dancing with (depending of course on how much time had elapsed since the murder before she was asked to ID him).

It sounds like he'd been dancing with Helen for most of the evening and they had formed a kind of foursome with Jeannie and Castlemilk John.

There's the incident with the cigarette machine, the walk to the taxi rank and what would have been quite a long taxi journey home right across the city.

I can't help but think that unless she was completely blitzed, she would have recognised him quite easily after all that.

Your right. She saw John over a length of time. In the Barrowland, whilst walking to the taxi then in the taxi. As long as she’d remained conscious she’d have recognised him unless he’d altered his appearance which can’t have happened because people would have noticed.

(I’m now imagining him walking around in one of those obviously false beards and a false nose with a pair of glasses attached)

[Ms Diddles]

Absolutely. I keep meaning to have another look at the podcast transcript to try and understand why those detectives in the 90’s felt that McInnes might never have been seen by Jeannie? Although we see much that’s suspicious that could lead to accusations of cover up I just can’t see how all those senior officers could have charged over to Stonehouse like a Wild West posse, eventually tracking down the man that they were looking for, and then failing to put him in front of the star witness. It’s just not credible. Unless McInnes was just incredibly lucky and Jeannie just didn’t recognise him. Maybe the story about her being drunk had some truth in it?

Yeah, I can't see them failing to ensure that Jeannie got a good look at McInnes in the circumstances.

To be honest, even if Jeannie had been drunk I find it hard to believe that she would have failed to recognise the guy her sister was dancing with (depending of course on how much time had elapsed since the murder before she was asked to ID him).

It sounds like he'd been dancing with Helen for most of the evening and they had formed a kind of foursome with Jeannie and Castlemilk John.

There's the incident with the cigarette machine, the walk to the taxi rank and what would have been quite a long taxi journey home right across the city.

I can't help but think that unless she was completely blitzed, she would have recognised him quite easily after all that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For many years Joe Beattie had been friends with Dr Robert Brittain who was the Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at the Douglas Inch Clinic in Glasgow.
Brittain was highly regarded in his field and he and Beattie often used to meet up to discusss cases informally, including that of Bible John.

Beattie suggested that Brittain might be interested in preparing a "word description" of the killer, Brittain agreed, and the result was a paper entitled "The Sadistic Murderer", which was published in "Medical Science and the Law" (October 1970, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 198 - 207).

This paper is in effect a "profile" of the type of man who committed the killings.

Click on "Get" at the top of the attached link.

It makes for interesting reading.

https://libgen.li/ads.php?md5=8a7858d2c03c9d2e7592baa0c629bc22&downl oadname=10.1177/002580247001000402

Thanks for posting that Barn. One part that stood out was this:

He may feel himself to be an inferior being except as regards his offences. The planning or contemplation of these acts can make him feel superior to other men, someone special or god-like.


Might this describe how the seemingly mild-mannered John, to the surprise of Jeannie, suddenly and forcefully stood up to the club manager over the incident with the cigarette machine?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock!

I seem to remember reading that there was a lot of opposition to the exhumation from Stonehouse residents and a local MP.

It's seems such a waste to have subjected the community to all that upheaval and controversy for a result which ultimately takes us no further forward.

To me the above statement adds to Hanna's credibility.

You would expect whoever had been in the back of the taxi to have aged slightly.

The thing is, Jeannie sounds completely credible too and she didn't ID McInnes.

I wish we knew more about exactly when and in what circumstances Jeannie viewed McInnes to give us a fighting chance of assessing the likelihood that she was correct.

Absolutely. I keep meaning to have another look at the podcast transcript to try and understand why those detectives in the 90’s felt that McInnes might never have been seen by Jeannie? Although we see much that’s suspicious that could lead to accusations of cover up I just can’t see how all those senior officers could have charged over to Stonehouse like a Wild West posse, eventually tracking down the man that they were looking for, and then failing to put him in front of the star witness. It’s just not credible. Unless McInnes was just incredibly lucky and Jeannie just didn’t recognise him. Maybe the story about her being drunk had some truth in it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I can't remember where I read or heard this, but wasn't it John Mcinnes sister they got a DNA sample off ?

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

I had almost convinced myself that I’d read somewhere that the DNA sample had come from more than one family member but it looks like I’m wrong and you are right. All that I found from a quick search of my eBooks is this, from The Face Of Bible John:

The cold case review looked again at John McInnes and his sister was persuaded to give a DNA sample to the police. The family hoped that this would finally exclude McInnes from the enquiry, but instead, it put him firmly in the frame. The sample from the sister was said to be an ‘80% match’ with DNA extracted from the semen found on Helen Puttock’s clothing, making it seem virtually certain that McInnes was the murderer.

From memory I think that she was called Etta?

I have to add that, as often happens in this case, the writer Steve MacGregor provides no source for this.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Yes, the police took family DNA samples before the exhumation but I think that I’m right in saying that it’s never been stated which family members were used. So they had to have had some serious evidence to convince the Procurator Fiscal to allow an exhumation…which is never a popular option especially when the person in question’s mother has been buried above him. So it was actually a double exhumation. These things are never done lightly.

A good point about his wife to add to some of his strange behaviour.

I agree that the double ID has to at least give weight to the case against McInnes. I think it’s also worth restating that the photograph shown to Hanna and the bouncer was taken in the mid 70’s after he’d been arrested for fraud. Hanna made a specific point about the man in the photo looking a bit older than when he’d seen him in his taxi.

Hi Herlock

I can't remember where I read or heard this, but wasn't it John Mcinnes sister they got a DNA sample off ?

Regards Darryl

[Ms Diddles]

Yes, the police took family DNA samples before the exhumation but I think that I’m right in saying that it’s never been stated which family members were used. So they had to have had some serious evidence to convince the Procurator Fiscal to allow an exhumation…which is never a popular option especially when the person in question’s mother has been buried above him. So it was actually a double exhumation. These things are never done lightly.

A good point about his wife to add to some of his strange behaviour.

I agree that the double ID has to at least give weight to the case against McInnes. I think it’s also worth restating that the photograph shown to Hanna and the bouncer was taken in the mid 70’s after he’d been arrested for fraud. Hanna made a specific point about the man in the photo looking a bit older than when he’d seen him in his taxi.

Thanks Herlock!

I seem to remember reading that there was a lot of opposition to the exhumation from Stonehouse residents and a local MP.

It's seems such a waste to have subjected the community to all that upheaval and controversy for a result which ultimately takes us no further forward.

To me the above statement adds to Hanna's credibility.

You would expect whoever had been in the back of the taxi to have aged slightly.

The thing is, Jeannie sounds completely credible too and she didn't ID McInnes.

I wish we knew more about exactly when and in what circumstances Jeannie viewed McInnes to give us a fighting chance of assessing the likelihood that she was correct.

[barnflatwyngarde]

For many years Joe Beattie had been friends with Dr Robert Brittain who was the Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at the Douglas Inch Clinic in Glasgow.
Brittain was highly regarded in his field and he and Beattie often used to meet up to discusss cases informally, including that of Bible John.

Beattie suggested that Brittain might be interested in preparing a "word description" of the killer, Brittain agreed, and the result was a paper entitled "The Sadistic Murderer", which was published in "Medical Science and the Law" (October 1970, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 198 - 207).

This paper is in effect a "profile" of the type of man who committed the killings.

Click on "Get" at the top of the attached link.

It makes for interesting reading.

https://libgen.li/ads.php?md5=8a7858d2c03c9d2e7592baa0c629bc22&downloadname=10.1177/002580247001000402

[Herlock Sholmes]

My memory is appalling, so please humour me here;

Did police take DNA samples from McInnes's family prior to the exhumation (presumably to make sure they weren't barking up the wrong tree, so to speak)?

I had thought they just dug him up and compared DNA with the sample from Helen Puttock's clothing, but I've likely forgotten the details here!

It's purely anecdotal but you could add the supposition that McInnes's wife was apparently terrified of her husband to your pro list.

I personally find it quite damning that the bouncer identified McInnes.

In my experience doormen, bar staff and security staff often have phenomenal and very accurate recollection when it comes to remembering punters who've caused trouble.

Unless the bouncer was new or agency (or just a rubbish bouncer!), I'd give their ID some weight.

Yes, the police took family DNA samples before the exhumation but I think that I’m right in saying that it’s never been stated which family members were used. So they had to have had some serious evidence to convince the Procurator Fiscal to allow an exhumation…which is never a popular option especially when the person in question’s mother has been buried above him. So it was actually a double exhumation. These things are never done lightly.

A good point about his wife to add to some of his strange behaviour.

I agree that the double ID has to at least give weight to the case against McInnes. I think it’s also worth restating that the photograph shown to Hanna and the bouncer was taken in the mid 70’s after he’d been arrested for fraud. Hanna made a specific point about the man in the photo looking a bit older than when he’d seen him in his taxi.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A curiosity that I just found online. It was in a post on a Forum called Threetowners.net and was made on November 23rd 2021.

Basically it’s a quote from the Glasgow Herald, 4th November, 1969:

BIBLE QUOTING MAN SOUGHT BY MURDER HUNT POLICE

A handbag belonging to Mrs Puttock has been found on the beach at Saltcoats. She had lost it some time before her death, however, and it does not feature in the murder case.

I just checked on the map and Saltcoats is a coastal town 53 minutes drive from Glasgow. On the same map I also noticed something interesting. Saltcoats is only 17 minutes drive from Irvine which is where Bible John told Helen his family took their holidays.