Bible John (General Discussion)

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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]

Thanks Herlock. I nearly overlooked you post about a handbag belonging to Helen being found on the beach at Saltcoats shortly after the murder. Hang on a minute I think I am hearing alarm bells.

Lost some time before the murder? Where and says who? This has to be one of the strangest things to come to light (well amongst many other strange things)

I seem to recall from the Podcast that Jean said that Helen did not take a handbag when she went out, which is strange in itself. Helen was menstruating and surely a handbag gives some privacy to her situation. Where would she carry a spare sanitary towel? Surely not in her pocket. In fact I think Jean says that they both went to the toilet together and she mentions Helens period and I think she says changing herself (maybe not but I think that is implied).

Was Jean mistaken about Helen not having a handbag on that night out?

I don't know where this takes us but great find Herlock

NW

[cobalt]

NW,

Your thoughts on formal and informal ID procedures are in line with my own. I wonder if Jeannie was asked to sit in an unmarked police car outside McInnes' place of work and pick him out from there. That would explain why there is no apparent record of an ID parade but it still has us scratching our heads as to why a formal ID parade was not organised. And not just for Jeannie but also for other significant witnesses.

It could be that Jeannie failed to ID McInnes in that scenario in which case either she was wrong- or maybe she was correct and McInnes was not Bible John.


HS,

I can well understand the desire to save the McInnes family some social embarrassment, but that must have been AFTER the police were satisfied he was not their man. He must have supplied some sort of alibi and that alibi must have been checked and accepted by the police. (If they did not ask for his clothing and shoes to help settle the matter then that seems negligent.)

The problem is that if McInnes' account satisfied the police back in 1969 then why was it deemed pretty much worthless years later when the authorities went to the great trouble of exhuming his body? They were clearly confident he was the culprit and the media were alerted to this fact beforehand. By shredding any evidence of the McInnes alibi back in 1969 did the police actually do McInnes a great disservice?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock. I nearly overlooked you post about a handbag belonging to Helen being found on the beach at Saltcoats shortly after the murder. Hang on a minute I think I am hearing alarm bells.

Lost some time before the murder? Where and says who? This has to be one of the strangest things to come to light (well amongst many other strange things)

I seem to recall from the Podcast that Jean said that Helen did not take a handbag when she went out, which is strange in itself. Helen was menstruating and surely a handbag gives some privacy to her situation. Where would she carry a spare sanitary towel? Surely not in her pocket. In fact I think Jean says that they both went to the toilet together and she mentions Helens period and I think she says changing herself (maybe not but I think that is implied).

Was Jean mistaken about Helen not having a handbag on that night out?

I don't know where this takes us but great find Herlock

NW

It struck me when I looked on the map for Saltcoats as I hadn’t a clue where it was. I saw Irvine just 9½ miles away where, according to BJ, his family took their holidays. My initial thought was ‘could John have seen Helen at Saltcoats?’

Im not going down that road though. Just one of life’s coincidences.

Id like to know if this was Helen’s bag though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,

I can well understand the desire to save the McInnes family some social embarrassment, but that must have been AFTER the police were satisfied he was not their man. He must have supplied some sort of alibi and that alibi must have been checked and accepted by the police. (If they did not ask for his clothing and shoes to help settle the matter then that seems negligent.)

The problem is that if McInnes' account satisfied the police back in 1969 then why was it deemed pretty much worthless years later when the authorities went to the great trouble of exhuming his body? They were clearly confident he was the culprit and the media were alerted to this fact beforehand. By shredding any evidence of the McInnes alibi back in 1969 did the police actually do McInnes a great disservice?

That just about sums up the mystery Cobalt. McInnes goes from ‘red hot suspect’ to ‘innocent man’ and then back to ‘red hot suspect’ again and now a ‘possible.’

Answers on a postcard to….

[Herlock Sholmes]

NW,

Your thoughts on formal and informal ID procedures are in line with my own. I wonder if Jeannie was asked to sit in an unmarked police car outside McInnes' place of work and pick him out from there. That would explain why there is no apparent record of an ID parade but it still has us scratching our heads as to why a formal ID parade was not organised. And not just for Jeannie but also for other significant witnesses.

It could be that Jeannie failed to ID McInnes in that scenario in which case either she was wrong- or maybe she was correct and McInnes was not Bible John.

I’m wondering how close Stoddart was to what actually happened as he was writing close the actual events and spoke to those involved. Barn quoted this:

"These early enquiries produced a suspect immediately: he fitted the description given by Jeannie, he had been at the Barrowland on the Thursday, he was married but was known to frequent the dancing. Someone told the police of his identity and that he was believed to live in Stonehouse.

On the Sunday preparations were made for an identitification parade to be held at 11.00am but wasn't held until 5.00pm: the subject had moved from Stonehouse and the police chased around Lanarkshire all day until he was finally traced at Newarthill near Airdrie. But when he was paraded, Jeannie failed to identify anyone on the parade."

The fact that he says that preparations were made on Sunday for an ID parade fit in with the officers swooping in on Stonehouse two days after the murder. It also says that someone had supplied information on McInnes (in addition to the Moylan’s card I assume) That they had planned a parade for 11.00 ties in with an early visit by the police. McInnes clearly wasn’t found straight away but they tracked him down and Jeannie failed to pick him out.

Possibly Jeannie was right and that they ad the wrong man.

or,

Possibly the evidence was good and he was guilty but Jeannie just got it wrong.

Another question….what was at Newarthill, Airdrie and can McInnes be connected to it?

[Ms Diddles]

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

Thanks NW!

That's a really informative post.

I knew nothing about ID parades, so this is extremely helpful.

[cobalt]

''The fact that he says that preparations were made on Sunday for an ID parade fit in with the officers swooping in on Stonehouse two days after the murder. It also says that someone had supplied information on McInnes (in addition to the Moylan’s card I assume) That they had planned a parade for 11.00 ties in with an early visit by the police. McInnes clearly wasn’t found straight away but they tracked him down and Jeannie failed to pick him out.''

That's a logical way to read what little we know. But it still leaves quite a few unanswered questions.

When Jeannie was shown the McInnes photo years later she must have been told who he was and where he lived: yet she did not recall being taken through to Hamilton to attend what was probably her first ID parade? (I am assuming the ID parade was held in Hamilton police station since the officers had all gone there.)

Why did the investigating officers- aware of Jeannie having taken a fair bit to drink- not ask for a second and third ID opinion from other significant witnesses? Her emotional state can hardly have been helpful either since she must have harboured some sense of guilt over her sister's death.

Did police confirm McInnes' alibi, seize his clothing and obtain a search warrant for his place of residence? We don't even know if he was arrested or was simply helping police with their enquiries.

Why did Joe Beattie have no memory of this eventual day years later when questioned? The McInnes theory was out in the public domain by then so he had no need to protect the family name at that stage.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I’m wondering how close Stoddart was to what actually happened as he was writing close the actual events and spoke to those involved. Barn quoted this:

"These early enquiries produced a suspect immediately: he fitted the description given by Jeannie, he had been at the Barrowland on the Thursday, he was married but was known to frequent the dancing. Someone told the police of his identity and that he was believed to live in Stonehouse.

On the Sunday preparations were made for an identitification parade to be held at 11.00am but wasn't held until 5.00pm: the subject had moved from Stonehouse and the police chased around Lanarkshire all day until he was finally traced at Newarthill near Airdrie. But when he was paraded, Jeannie failed to identify anyone on the parade."

The fact that he says that preparations were made on Sunday for an ID parade fit in with the officers swooping in on Stonehouse two days after the murder. It also says that someone had supplied information on McInnes (in addition to the Moylan’s card I assume) That they had planned a parade for 11.00 ties in with an early visit by the police. McInnes clearly wasn’t found straight away but they tracked him down and Jeannie failed to pick him out.

Possibly Jeannie was right and that they ad the wrong man.

or,

Possibly the evidence was good and he was guilty but Jeannie just got it wrong.

Another question….what was at Newarthill, Airdrie and can McInnes be connected to it?

Hi Herlock,
We know that Stoddart was close enough to Joe Beattie to allow him to take recordings of their conversations on the case, although how many conversations took place, and how many were recorded, we simply do not know.

We know this because Audrey Gillan includes a clip of a recording where Joe Beattie makes inappropriate comments about Helen Puttock, calling her "quite a good looking dish" and saying that she was a "very bad tempered girl." (My emphasis)

Stoddart graduated in law in 1969, at the age of 21, so he was certainly aware of the murders as they happened.
His book on the case was published in 1980, so he certainly approached the case as a youngish man.

With regard to the relevance of Newarthill and Airdrie to the case, my first thought was that perhaps Moylan's had other furniture stores in Lanarkshire.
I couldn't find anything that suggested that Moylan's had stores in those two places.

A tribute to Mickey Moylan published in the Daily Record of 2nd November 2011 makes the comment "He was best-known in Wishaw for running the Bairds furniture store and the Horse and Anchor pub." (My emphasis)

The Daily Record is a popular paper throughout Lanarkshire, and I think that if Moylan's had any connection with Newarthill or Airdrie, it would have been mentioned in the Daily Record article.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,
We know that Stoddart was close enough to Joe Beattie to allow him to take recordings of their conversations on the case, although how many conversations took place, and how many were recorded, we simply do not know.

We know this because Audrey Gillan includes a clip of a recording where Joe Beattie makes inappropriate comments about Helen Puttock, calling her "quite a good looking dish" and saying that she was a "very bad tempered girl." (My emphasis)

Stoddart graduated in law in 1969, at the age of 21, so he was certainly aware of the murders as they happened.
His book on the case was published in 1980, so he certainly approached the case as a youngish man.

With regard to the relevance of Newarthill and Airdrie to the case, my first thought was that perhaps Moylan's had other furniture stores in Lanarkshire.
I couldn't find anything that suggested that Moylan's had stores in those two places.

A tribute to Mickey Moylan published in the Daily Record of 2nd November 2011 makes the comment "He was best-known in Wishaw for running the Bairds furniture store and the Horse and Anchor pub." (My emphasis)

The Daily Record is a popular paper throughout Lanarkshire, and I think that if Moylan's had any connection with Newarthill or Airdrie, it would have been mentioned in the Daily Record article.

Hi Barn,

I recognise Wishaw as being where the snooker player John Higgins is from but that’s hardly helpful.

Do we know which branch McInnes worked at? I’ve never seen it mentioned.

Stoddart is an interesting source because he’s the closest we get to those that we’re investigating the case although we have to be cautious as we don’t know how trustworthy he was.

Is he still alive Barn?

Not if this is him…

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/charles-stoddart

The age ties up…aged 75 in 2023 means born in 1948 which made him 21 in 1969 when he graduated. That background would imply a trustworthy source of information I’d have thought.

[cobalt]

''Former sheriff and director of judicial studies Charles Stoddart passed away yesterday at the age of 75. Born in Dunfermline and educated at Dunfermline High School, Mr Stoddart graduated in law from the University of Edinburgh.''

(HS): ''That background would imply a trustworthy source of information I’d have thought.''

As I shared both of these alma maters I beg to differ! And so would many others I'm sure! Stoddart was a few years older than me so our paths never crossed.

Moylan so far as I can judge managed the Bairds store in Hamilton. Bairds had a number of stores across the west of Scotland and the Hamilton one sold household appliances over three floors. Moylan personally owned a number of bars in the local area and a hotel in Airdrie which I think his family still operate after his death. His father had been a policeman back in Ireland so given this fact, and his commitment to the pub trade, I would imagine he placed some emphasis on good relations with the local constabulary.