Bible John (General Discussion)

[Darryl Kenyon]

If, [and it seems highly likely ] a Moylan's card was found near Helen and Joe Beattie finds out that a man named John works at Moylan's who may have been spotted at Barrowland's by two of his work colleagues [ What is the timeline of when the two staff from Moylan's were interviewed ? ]. Then [ speculation here ], I think it would be enough of a tangible lead to send Beattie and co over to Stonehouse. I do feel that McInnes was given an alibi, an alibi which was believed, possibly because they were related to James McInnes and vouched for. That alibi by the nineties and the reinvestigation was possibly doubted, [ Maybe John McInnes wife said something ]. I know I have mentioned this before but I can't help but feel this is a good option for why McInnes was suspected, dropped then suspected again.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

Thanks Herlock for looking at this. I suppose my main thrust with my comments is that although Jean says she didn't have a handbag that night I am sure she mentions (in the podcast) that whilst in the toilet Helen may have changed herself due to her period. My suggestion is that Jean may have been mistaken about a handbag because Jean would have to take a spare sanitary towel or two with her and it seems unlikely to me that she would carry those in her coat pocket. Also it is suggested that she carried her hair brush in her coat pocket as well. They checked their coats in at the club. How would she get her hairbrush and sanitary towel if she needed them during the night. My suggestion is perhaps on that night she did have a handbag. I dont know what this means but I am putting it out there.

Going off at a tangent again. I have become intrigued by the photograph of Helen. The one we always see. She appears to be wearing the black dress and outfirt that she wore on the evening she was murdered. Do we all think that?

Jean says that Hellen bought the dress from C and A that same day. My question is why the photograph? normally I would suggest somebody would take a photo of you in your new going out gear when its a special occasion. Who took this photograph? Where was it taken?

Another remarkable coincidence that if this is the outfit she wore that night and only purchased that same day that we have a photograph. Of course this may not be the outfit or its a made up photo or an earlier photo. If it is what she was wearing and the dress does look like the one described then very odd yet again

NW

Hi NW
Could Helen have not asked her sister to put the items in her handbag for her ? Especially if Helen's handbag had gone missing a few days earlier . She could then have asked Jean to borrow her handbag while she went to the toilet, not wanting to pull a sanitary towel out in the middle of a club.

Just a thought Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

If, [and it seems highly likely ] a Moylan's card was found near Helen and Joe Beattie finds out that a man named John works at Moylan's who may have been spotted at Barrowland's by two of his work colleagues [ What is the timeline of when the two staff from Moylan's were interviewed ? ]. Then [ speculation here ], I think it would be enough of a tangible lead to send Beattie and co over to Stonehouse. I do feel that McInnes was given an alibi, an alibi which was believed, possibly because they were related to James McInnes and vouched for. That alibi by the nineties and the reinvestigation was possibly doubted, [ Maybe John McInnes wife said something ]. I know I have mentioned this before but I can't help but feel this is a good option for why McInnes was suspected, dropped then suspected again.

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

We don’t have any idea of exactly when the two men were interviewed but I think that we should be cautious about calling them his colleagues. Thomas Murphy was a salesman at the Wishaw store and the other man, Leonard Smith, was just described as an employee of Moylan’s. Both men were at the furniture show but in the absence of further information they might have worked at different branches. Or, they could have both worked at the same branch but McInnes worked at another one?

I think that your point about the possibility of an alibi is a plausible one. The family might have felt that McInnes was innocent and unlucky to be put in the frame and so they might have ‘circled the wagons’ and come up with an alibi (or two) The only problem with this is that we never find out about it. The detectives reinvestigating the case never mention anything about why McInnes was exonerated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Where did this notion that Helen’s purse should have contained 10 shillings come from? I’ve had a quick look but it’s difficult, if not impossible, to find the origin. Bevin-Mizzi states it in her recent book as does Audrey Gillan in the podcast:

Her purse, which should have contained around 10 shillings was missing.


I’ve also found in The Face of Bible John by Steve MacGregor, talking about George Puttock:

He finally agreed and gave her ten shillings in order to take a taxi back home afterwards.


It would be interesting to know where this came from and if there was any truth in it because it doesn’t fit in with what we have been told. How much money did Helen have that night? On the podcast we have Jeannie herself telling us:

“I went for Helen that Thursday night and George called me into the kitchenette and gave me the taxi fare.”

And…

“We only had money for two whiskeys, the ticket in and the taxi fare home.”


Although Crow and Sansom record them as having 3 whiskeys each it seems likelier that Jeannie was correct. Nothing could be gained by her from ‘deducting’ one whiskey.

So how much would Helen have had to have left the flat with for there to have been 10s in her purse at the time of her murder?


Bus fair to the Barrowland - not a clue, let’s say a shilling.

Two whiskeys - a pint in 1969 was 2s 9d so I’ll allow 6 shillings for 2 whiskeys.

Admission to Barrowlands 4 shillings


As Jeannie was holding the taxi fair from George that comes to 11 shillings. If there ‘should’ have been 10 shillings in her purse then she’d have had to have left the flat with 21 shillings. Yet Jeannie said that they only had enough for two whiskeys. I don’t read anything into this except as an example of how we have to be cautious in this case not to assume that things are true and how difficult it is (often impossible) to verify sources.

[cobalt]

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.

Helen Puttock's handbag remains a puzzle wrapped inside an enigma. Back in the 1960s women would sometimes take their handbag on to the dance floor and dance round it rather than run the risk of some nee'er-do-well rifling through it on the seats. For a woman that was no more of an encumbrance than for a man to stuff his jacket pockets with a wallet, packet of fags, a lighter, comb, handkerchief and loose change. It would be highly unusual for a woman not take a handbag with her on a night out.

I had considered Helen sharing a handbag with Jeannie myself but still think that that would make little sense, unless Helen did not have a handbag inside her house. Yet most women have half a dozen of them at minimum! It could be Helen did not have a handbag she considered matched her new outfit. That new outfit was probably special enough an occasion to pose for the photograph we all recognise.

But if she did not have a matching handbag could she not have purchased one that afternoon when she was out buying the dress? Maybe she looked but saw nothing suitable. Whatever, it all points to Helen having lost her 'favourite' handbag quite recently and not being able to replace it. So, picking up on points made by NW, could the handbag found on Saltcoats beach a few days after Helen's murder be the one she recently lost? What is it doing on a beach around 30 miles from her street in Scotstoun, Glasgow?

How could the police be so confident it was unrelated to the murder? How could they confirm that Helen had ever lost a handbag? How could they be certain, despite Jeannie's recollection, that Helen was not carrying a handbag the night she was attacked?

* Hamilton police station was where Peter Manuel, Scotland's most infamous serial killer, was put on an ID parade in 1958 on suspicion of murdering a Newcastle taxi driver. Both witnesses picked him out but the supporting evidence was not strong enough to include that particular killing on his indictment.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.)

[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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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?

[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]

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.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Oops!

Disregard!