Bible John (General Discussion)

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Ms D, today I have been wading through Charles Stoddart's book "Bible John: Search for a Sadist".
Given your post re the murders being carried out by different killers, I have just seen a comment by Stoddart re this very thing.

On page 25 Stoddart says re Joe Beattie, "Joe is reluctant the link the three". (my emphasis)

Bearing in mind that Stoddart taped his numerous conversations with Beattie, we must assume that this is an accurate statement with regard to what Joe Beattie said to Stoddart. As far as I can recollect, Beattie said on numerous occasions that the murders were committed by one man, so it is curious that he should flip flop when he was retired.

Stoddart himself heaps praise on Beattie, describing him as "a quite exceptional individual, whom it has been my privilege to meet". (my emphasis) (Preface page IX)

Stoddart tellingly disagrees with Beattie's view on different killers saying, "It is perfectly possible that the three murders are totally unconnected and are the work of three completely different individuals. Only the co-incidences detract from that viewpoint. And those coincidences are very strong indeed." (my emphasis) (page 25)

If there was a cover-up by Beattie and others, could his comments re different killers be another attempt to muddy the waters?

Good stuff Barn. Stoddart is the nearest we can get to actual events.

[Ms Diddles]

One thing I can’t understand, and I can’t recall the reasoning behind, was their belief that the man in the taxi was McInnes but he wasn’t the killer. So he drops her off in the taxi and Bible John comes along to kill a woman who just happened to have been at the Barrowland? It doesn’t seem very likely. Not impossible but but not very likely imo.

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.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms D, today I have been wading through Charles Stoddart's book "Bible John: Search for a Sadist".
Given your post re the murders being carried out by different killers, I have just seen a comment by Stoddart re this very thing.

On page 25 Stoddart says re Joe Beattie, "Joe is reluctant the link the three". (my emphasis)

Bearing in mind that Stoddart taped his numerous conversations with Beattie, we must assume that this is an accurate statement with regard to what Joe Beattie said to Stoddart. As far as I can recollect, Beattie said on numerous occasions that the murders were committed by one man, so it is curious that he should flip flop when he was retired.

Stoddart himself heaps praise on Beattie, describing him as "a quite exceptional individual, whom it has been my privilege to meet". (my emphasis) (Preface page IX)

Stoddart tellingly disagrees with Beattie's view on different killers saying, "It is perfectly possible that the three murders are totally unconnected and are the work of three completely different individuals. Only the co-incidences detract from that viewpoint. And those coincidences are very strong indeed." (my emphasis) (page 25)

If there was a cover-up by Beattie and others, could his comments re different killers be another attempt to muddy the waters?

Interesting stuff, Barn!

Thanks for posting.

Agree it could be obfuscation to detract from a cover-up.

Or could some new evidence that we're not aware of have come to light to change Beattie's perception?

It's just very strange.

I definitely feel like there are a few vital pieces of this jigsaw missing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d been having another listen too but I got distracted and hadn’t got to the last three yet. I might have a read through the transcript later though. The idea of two or three different killers doesn’t really work for me Ms D. As you say, too many similarities. I’d even suspect that it’s possible that he killed more than three but that’s no more than speculation. The fact that Pat Docker’s clothes were taken is the big question that needs an answer and of course it could mean that her killer had a car but for me that wouldn’t eliminate the same man being involved in all three. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that perhaps when Dalgleish called for information about the two cars that had been seen the killer’s was actually one of them which persuaded him not to use the car in future? Or perhaps his financial circumstances had changed by the second murder and he’d had to sell his car?

One thing I can’t understand, and I can’t recall the reasoning behind, was their belief that the man in the taxi was McInnes but he wasn’t the killer. So he drops her off in the taxi and Bible John comes along to kill a woman who just happened to have been at the Barrowland? It doesn’t seem very likely. Not impossible but but not very likely imo.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I've just spent a rainy, hungover Sunday afternoon snuggled up with the cats re-listening to some of the BJ podcasts.

I just listened to the last three where the possible conspiracy is discussed at length.

I was surprised to recall the strength of argument made for the idea that BJ never existed and the murders were committed by two or three different men.

Barn, Herlock Sholmes, cobalt, New Waterloo, what do you all think of this theory?

My instinct is that whilst not impossible, there are too many similarities, and plain odd factors in common for this to be a likely scenario.

I can't really tell whether I'm thinking objectively here though.

Once you're familiar with a generally accepted narrative, it's quite hard to rethink it so radically.

I'd be interested to know others thoughts and whether anyone feels like the multiple killers scenario is probable.

Hi Ms D, today I have been wading through Charles Stoddart's book "Bible John: Search for a Sadist".
Given your post re the murders being carried out by different killers, I have just seen a comment by Stoddart re this very thing.

On page 25 Stoddart says re Joe Beattie, "Joe is reluctant the link the three". (my emphasis)

Bearing in mind that Stoddart taped his numerous conversations with Beattie, we must assume that this is an accurate statement with regard to what Joe Beattie said to Stoddart. As far as I can recollect, Beattie said on numerous occasions that the murders were committed by one man, so it is curious that he should flip flop when he was retired.

Stoddart himself heaps praise on Beattie, describing him as "a quite exceptional individual, whom it has been my privilege to meet". (my emphasis) (Preface page IX)

Stoddart tellingly disagrees with Beattie's view on different killers saying, "It is perfectly possible that the three murders are totally unconnected and are the work of three completely different individuals. Only the co-incidences detract from that viewpoint. And those coincidences are very strong indeed." (my emphasis) (page 25)

If there was a cover-up by Beattie and others, could his comments re different killers be another attempt to muddy the waters?

[Ms Diddles]

I've just spent a rainy, hungover Sunday afternoon snuggled up with the cats re-listening to some of the BJ podcasts.

I just listened to the last three where the possible conspiracy is discussed at length.

I was surprised to recall the strength of argument made for the idea that BJ never existed and the murders were committed by two or three different men.

Barn, Herlock Sholmes, cobalt, New Waterloo, what do you all think of this theory?

My instinct is that whilst not impossible, there are too many similarities, and plain odd factors in common for this to be a likely scenario.

I can't really tell whether I'm thinking objectively here though.

Once you're familiar with a generally accepted narrative, it's quite hard to rethink it so radically.

I'd be interested to know others thoughts and whether anyone feels like the multiple killers scenario is probable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is one of the biggest issues with this case. Over the years so many things have been simply ‘stated’ without any back up given and without any assessment of the sources. You hear ‘x was seen drinking in the pub at y’ but you don’t get to know who saw x and how sure were they or did anyone else see x. Obviously we need to see the police files.

[Ms Diddles]

No, I don't think you have Ms D.

There are lots of "facts" in the Harrison book, the problem is of course that we don't know how much we can rely on these "facts".
No references are given for statements made in the book, and his bibliography runs to nine newspapers and thirty one books.

All we can do in this case is to read everything, look for convergences, and try and spot assertions that are made without proof.

I am hoping that with Stoddart's book, his legal background will have compelled him to provide sources for all his assertions.
But why do I feel nervous about this?

It's certainly worth a shot.

Here's hoping it yields something of interest.

If not, hopefully you'll have a nice time in a beautiful building reminiscing about the days when you worked there.

The cafe used to be pretty decent too.

I guess the Harrison book is of general interest, but I'm going to be pretty sceptical if any "facts" presented in there!