Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Criminologist David Wilson - Y'all's Thoughts?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    Just a thought on Helen Puttock. She was described as quite a feisty Glaswegian woman and allegedly told her mother that she could fend off any man trying it on with her long, sharp nails.

    Unfortunately that was not the case, but surely there should have been scrapings taken from under her fingernails? As I posted earlier, there was a report of a man looking dishevelled and with scratches on his face soon after the murder. The whole case seems to stink a bit: where are these scrapings? And what about fibre transfer which was quite well developed at the time? Glaister was doing this forensic comparison back in the late 1940s yet there are so many who want us to believe that until DNA the police could do little.
    I’ve just listened to part 7 of the podcast on McInnes but it continues into part 8 which I hope to listen to again tomorrow. I made notes which I’ll write up for reference.

    Audrey Gillan wonders if the main reason for the exhumation wasn’t actually for DNA? There was a bite mark on Helen Puttock’s wrist and her sister said that BJ had overlapping teeth. Unfortunately they found out that 3 years after the murder McInnes got dentures (although if they got this ‘3 years’ from a dentist why didn’t they find this out before the exhumation?)

    Erika Hegelberg, who did the DNA testing, confirms that the results couldn’t implicate or exonerate McInnes.

    What’s intriguing about the Moylan’s card is that there’s no record of it. A guy called Marcello, who was a fellow journalist working with Audrey Gillan, said that he’d been told by more than one source (including police officers) in 1996 about the card being found at the Puttock crime scene. They found a letter from around ‘96 from Hector McInnes who said that his cousin James, who was a police officer involved in the case, said that it never existed and was false evidence. Information about the card was never made public at the time of the murder or just after though.

    I can’t see this card being an invention though.

    I can’t recall hearing of any finger nail scrapings being taken but that doesn’t mean they weren’t taken of course. It certainly appears that HP put up a fight as it’s believed that she got away from her killer but sadly he caught up with her. I agree that the case ‘stinks a bit.’ Too many unanswered questioned. A cover-up to protect a killer related to an officer on the case? A cover-up to hide police incompetence? We could do with the police files but I’m unsure what the law is on releasing files with regard to time?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



      As you wish.

      If you change your mind, we could always continue the discussion at

      ** The Murder of Julia Wallace **
      I don’t think my brain could cope with revisiting the Wallace Case again PI. As you know, it’s a complex case where every point can be ‘explained’ more than one way. I think it’s unlikely that it will ever be solved though. Was it Wallace alone? Wallace with help? Parry? Parry and Marsden? Marsden? The sneak thief theory? Johnston? Or an unknown? It’s certainly a classic case.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        I don’t think my brain could cope with revisiting the Wallace Case again PI. As you know, it’s a complex case where every point can be ‘explained’ more than one way. I think it’s unlikely that it will ever be solved though. Was it Wallace alone? Wallace with help? Parry? Parry and Marsden? Marsden? The sneak thief theory? Johnston? Or an unknown? It’s certainly a classic case.

        It was Parry and Marsden.

        They were the two young men seen running near Wallace's home.

        Parry admitted disposing of the murder weapon.

        His car was bloodstained.

        Marsden had a client named Qualtrough.

        Parry was a good impersonator and had visited the café at a time when Wallace's chess playing schedule was on display there.

        Parry's alibi contained a piece of 'information' which was used by 'Qualtrough' in the phone call - the giveaway.

        Parry and Marsden were crooks; Wallace was a man of unblemished character.

        Comment


        • #34
          I wonder if the Helen Puttock attack explains why BJ curtailed his activities. I recall police who investigated Angus Sinclair's crimes said that his final adult victim put up quite a fight and thereafter he went for easier targets, principally young teenagers. Perhaps BJ was alarmed by the resistance shown by Helen Puttock and feared losing physical control during any future attacks.

          As regards the business card, I'm not sure that murder was necessarily on BJ's mind when he was at the dance hall, so he could have handed the card out without a second thought. It was most likely the refusal of Helen Puttock to engage in sexual activity that sparked his murderous attack.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



            It seems that Tobin was in police custody at the time of one of the murders and with his wife in Brighton at the time of another of the murders.

            It appears also that he was in Brighton at the time of the third murder.

            His DNA is reported not to have matched the DNA sample recovered from the scene of one of the murders.
            Yes, but apart from that ...
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


              It was Parry and Marsden.

              They were the two young men seen running near Wallace's home.

              Parry admitted disposing of the murder weapon.

              His car was bloodstained.

              Marsden had a client named Qualtrough.

              Parry was a good impersonator and had visited the café at a time when Wallace's chess playing schedule was on display there.

              Parry's alibi contained a piece of 'information' which was used by 'Qualtrough' in the phone call - the giveaway.

              Parry and Marsden were crooks; Wallace was a man of unblemished character.

              The car story by Parkes is possibly the least believable story I’ve ever heard. Parry had no way of knowing when William would have gone to the club as he hadn’t been for weeks and was behind in his games. But, as I said, I’m not too keen on revisiting such a complex case at the moment but if you wanted to restart the Wallace thread I’m sure you’ll get some response. Caz is vey knowledgeable about the case (and favours a guilty Wallace btw). There are others too, like Etenguy. Author Anthony Brown used to post too.

              Comment


              • #37
                Ok, I’ve listened again to parts 7 and 8 of the podcast to refresh my memory and I made notes. To use Cobalt’s word, something certainly ‘stinks.’ I’ve shortened as much as I can but I’ve tried to sum things up for those that haven’t heard the podcast.


                The Forensic Science Lab were looking for cases to re-investigate using DNA technology and when they got a hit on Helen Puttock’s stocking the intention was for the cold case team to look at eliminated suspects and to see if they could get DNA swabs to compare. The cold case team started looking at the original investigation and under Action 14 they found that a team of detectives had gone to interview a suspect at Hamilton police station two days after Helen Puttock’s murder. No other paperwork mentioned this. A few of things stood out. Firstly, why Hamilton? It was miles away…why wasn’t the suspect brought to Glasgow? More importantly, enquiries like this would normally have been done by a Detective Sergeant and a detective Constable (or more than one) This particular enquiry involved CID officers, Detective Superintendent’s Joe Beattie and Tom Valentine and DI’s William Campbell or Tommy Grant. So this was big.

                Beattie retired in 1976 and when McEwan and Hughes (cold case team) went to see him he was in hospital suffering from Crohn’s disease. He recalled the visit to Stonehouse but not the name of the suspect but he said that the suspect was put before Jeannie Langford in an ID parade on the same day and that she said that he wasn’t the man that had been in the Barrowland and the taxi. Beattie said that his name would be in the records.

                When they next saw Beattie he advised them to speak to retired detective Jimmy McInnes. Jimmy said that he didn’t take part in the actual investigation and had only helped out by manning the phones once. They pressed him and he became angry and aggressive but admitted that the man that was interviewed was his cousin…John Irvine McInnes. His name appears nowhere in the 1969 investigation.

                Speaking to other officers from the original investigation they were told that the first place in Stonehouse that was visited was the home of Sandy McInnes (Jimmy’s brother and John’s cousin) Sandy told them that he’d been visited because a Moylan’s card had been found at the scene of Helen Puttock’s murder. There is no record of this card in the archive.

                A strange incident occurred when Jim McEwan travelled from Hamilton to Glasgow by train. He noticed Jimmy McInnes watching him. McInnes followed him and when McEwan confronted him he remained silent. He reported the incident but nothing came of it.

                At the time of the original enquiry a Barrowland regular came forward to say that she knew the name of the man (from the podcast I can’t make out her name - something like Powker or Palker perhaps?) Jimmy McInnes went to interview her but the report is blank. No statement is recorded and in the index an attempt to had been made to erase her name. The numbers of the following statements had also been changed to hide the gap.

                On the Sunday the taxi driver was called o his cab could be dusted for prints. His name was Alexander Hannah. This was done by Jimmy McInnes but no prints were found. A Glasgow taxi with no prints!? While the prints were being looked for McInnes and James Long took Hannah for a ride to recreate his route. This was on Sunday 2nd November at around 2pm. It appears that the Stonehouse visit took place on the morning of the same day. Also at 2pm an ID parade supposedly took place where Jeannie Langford (and others?) didn’t pick McInnes out but at no time was Alexander Hannah used on an ID parade.

                It’s worth pointing out at this point that this was the same Jimmy McInnes who said that he took no part in the enquiry!

                According to the timeline, when this ID parade took place John Irvine McInnes was at Hamilton police station. Jeannie never saw him and so couldn’t have rejected him. There is no record of any ID parades despite officers from the enquiry saying that there was one ‘every other day.’

                McEwan and Hughes spoke to Mickey Moylan, who was McInnes employer at the time of the murders, and he said that a salesman at his Wishaw store, Thomas Murphy, was taken to Partick Marine station for questioning. Another employee, Leonard Smith was put in front of Jeannie and asked to show his teeth (but it wasn’t a proper ID parade) This at least shows that Moylan’s held some significance to the police. Both men had been to a furniture show in Glasgow on October 31st. They then went for a drink in Sloane’s Bar before moving on to the Barrowland. Beattie apparently never mentioned McInnes to either of them or to Moylan.

                Later, Jimmy McInnes (the guy who played no part in the investigation) said that he couldn’t recall much about the enquiry due to the passing of years but he admitted that some of his family members lived in the centre of Glasgow at the time. McEwan and Hughes knew this because it was significant.

                The dishevelled man seen running down the Dumbarton Road got off the bus at Charing Cross at the corner of Argyle Street and Derby Street. Five minutes away at 204 Berkeley Street lived William and Janet McInnes. John Irvine McInnes’s aunt and uncle. He often stayed the night there if he missed the last bus to Lanarkshire. When detectives suggested that they look again around this location Beattie’s said no.

                As an aside, it’s strange that most officers from the original enquiry weren’t aware of the bite mark on Helen Puttock’s wrist. Most hadn’t heard of McInnes either.

                John Irvine McInnes photo was on file at the Criminal Records Office after his fraud conviction so McEwan got a copy and put it with 11 similar photos. In the photo McInnes was older than at the time of the murders. He showed the photos to taxi driver Alexander Hannah. He unhesitatingly picked out McInnes, even pointing out that he looked older in the photo. He said that he was definitely the man in his taxi that night.

                He then took the photos to the Barrowland bouncer who was involved in the cigarette machine incident. He was confident that he’d be able to recognise the man. He unhesitatingly picked out John Irvine McInnes.

                Jeannie didn’t ID him though. She admitted that there were similarities but she didn’t think that it was him.

                McEwan and Hughes visited the Procurator Fiscal who told them that if McInnes was still alive then he’d issue a warrant for him.

                McEwan and Hughes are convinced that the man who was with Helen Puttock at the Barrowland and in the taxi; the man that quoted the Bible, was John Irvine McInnes but they aren’t convinced that he was the killer.

                The evidence that McInnes was the man with Helen Puttock is strong but was he Bible John. My own opinion is that he’s the strongest suspect as yet named. Did Beattie cover up for a murderer to help his pal Jimmy McInnes? Or was McInnes just in the wrong place at the wrong time and they decided to ‘take action’ to keep him out of the investigation? Did they honestly think him innocent but he was actually guilty. I’ll repeat Cobalt’s phrase though. Something stinks.



                Comment


                • #38
                  A very concise summary, HS. It's worse than what I thought!

                  I can't make any sense of this however:

                  ''McEwan and Hughes are convinced that the man who was with Helen Puttock at the Barrowland and in the taxi; the man that quoted the Bible, was John Irvine McInnes but they aren’t convinced that he was the killer.''

                  So they believe that Helen Puttock was attacked less than 100 yards from her home by a serial killer who just happened to be in the area waiting for such an opportunity? And what did McInnes do when all this was going on? We know he didn't remain in the taxi and he could not have escorted her to her front door.

                  I think the police in the Cold Case Review are trying to put a brave face on something very ugly indeed.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                    A very concise summary, HS. It's worse than what I thought!

                    I can't make any sense of this however:

                    ''McEwan and Hughes are convinced that the man who was with Helen Puttock at the Barrowland and in the taxi; the man that quoted the Bible, was John Irvine McInnes but they aren’t convinced that he was the killer.''

                    So they believe that Helen Puttock was attacked less than 100 yards from her home by a serial killer who just happened to be in the area waiting for such an opportunity? And what did McInnes do when all this was going on? We know he didn't remain in the taxi and he could not have escorted her to her front door.

                    I think the police in the Cold Case Review are trying to put a brave face on something very ugly indeed.
                    I’ll listen to the next one or two episodes tonight which should flesh out their reasoning (then I’ll do the same with the first 6 episodes) I can’t recall their reasoning but I agree with you that it sounds strange on the face of it. I do recall them being of the impression that Bible John was an ‘invention’ and that the three women weren’t all killed by the same man (a belief that they aren’t alone in) but it’s not really something that I agree with. Too many similarities for me.

                    The next episode is called Because Of What She Was. Echoes of the Yorkshire Ripper case here in the way that the women were portrayed in the Press. Comments like ‘she enjoyed the company of numerous men’ for example. These kinds of comments stand out today of course but were considered par-for-the-course then. Nate Campbell, in his book, whilst accepting how wrong these kind of comments were, does consider the possibility that the women ‘might’ have been intending to ‘hook up.’ He even suggests that Jemima McDonald might have been ‘on the game,’ citing that she was jobless and unmarried and yet had been out 4 nights consecutively and that the police went to a brothel immediately after her murder. He believes that her family/friends lied about her being at the Barrowland to cover up what she was doing. Campbell thinks that Angus Sinclair killed Docker (he reckons that she might have been ‘seeing him’ as his in-laws lived across the road) and he thinks that McDonald and Puttock were killed by Tobin.

                    The podcasts have given more than the previous books on the case. Samson and Crow’s book mentions the 1996 investigation but I haven’t got that one due to cost but Garcia mentions the investigation in his 2023 book. I’ll have a look through Garcia’s chapter on McInnes this afternoon an post some info for anyone that doesn’t have the book.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      A bit of further information on McInnes taken from the relevant chapter in Garcia’s 2023 book We All Go Into The Dark:


                      Born in 1938 in Stonehouse with a brother and sister. Raised by devout Plymouth Brethren parents. The family owned a drapery shop.

                      Irvine was his mother Elizabeth’s maiden name. The family called him Irvine rather than John.

                      He was called up for National Service at 19 with the Scot’s Guards.

                      After a brief spell working at a Glasgow clothes shop he signed up for 45 Platoon in Pirbright, Surrey. He failed to impress and was described as ‘shy’ ‘sickly’ and ‘awkward.’ After passing out he was demoted to 46 Platoon’s L Company. A Lance Corporal called Gus Macdonald felt that he’d been deeply affected by his father’s death.

                      It was said by some that didn’t drink much and kept himself to himself. He passed out in 1958 and gifted Macdonald a silver cigarette case. Strangely though, William Sloan who slept in the next bed to McInnes recalled him as a a heavy drinker and a ‘sharp operator’ with a devious streak. In Samson and Crow’s book (Hunt For A Killer) Sloan told of how McInnes had once stayed out all night drinking and the rest of the platoon chipped in so that he could avoid a reprimand. McInnes showed no gratitude though and went out the next night too. Sloan though him cold and cunning.

                      He was discharged in 1959 and returned to Glasgow where he got a job at McGregor’s furniture store on Sauchiehall Street. Macdonald bumped into him a year later and said that he seemed a changed man. He was wearing his regimental tie.

                      In 1959 he met Ella Russell from Muirkirk. They were soon engaged. McInnes was 25. He was known for his expensive suits and was an immaculate dresser. By this time he was assistant manager at a different store. They married on March 16th, 1964 at a Brethren ceremony at Muirkirk Parish Church attended by only close family. His in-laws had only met him twice by then. On December 2nd (9months later) they had a daughter called Lorna.

                      McInnes had become a hard drinker and a gambler though. Apparently Samson and Crow’s book contain quite a few ‘lurid’ details. He was a regular at The Old Ship Inn, Stonehouse, near his mother’s house (26 Queen Street) He’d either drink alone or with his brother Hector. A fair bit of betting went on and even dominoes played for low stakes. He was prone to bravado stories about city life and burst of scripture.

                      John and Ella opened a home for the elderly in Ayrshire but it was a disaster and was the source of scandalous gossip. There was talk of McInnes jumping into bed with elderly residents to comfort them. One of Ella’s cousins confirmed this. She thought that nothing dodgy was going on but noticed that some residents would suddenly go quiet.

                      McInnes borrowed £1000 from a young female relative and never payed it back. In 1968 he took a job with a furniture store in Ayr. There was talk that he’d entered a psychiatric hospital possibly to dodge accusations of embezzlement by his new employers.

                      A cousin recalled his strange stare and increased unexplained absences. Ella became pregnant again but the child was stillborn.

                      A local, whose father was a gambling partner of McInnes, recalled that he became a figure of fun. The pub regulars used to wait for him to arrive because they could easily make money from him.

                      By the time of Pat Docker’s murder he was in another new job and around that time, after the birth of a son, Kenneth, he split from his wife. They divorced in 1972. His new job was with a U.S. based stamp trading firm in Glasgow. He was considered odd by his new colleagues and he often quoted the Bible. His attendance at Thursday night sales meetings was irregular and he told them of his regular visits to the Barrowland over-25’s night.

                      After the murder of Helen Puttock (according to Garcia - no source given)McInnes was brought in to the police station four times but he hadn’t been picked out from a line-up, although he hadn’t been eliminated as a suspect. He became increasingly erratic and appeared to revel in his notoriety and locals took to calling him Bible John. One villager, quoted in the Press, said that he’d ran into McInnes after his third visit to the police station and he was told all the details by him.

                      In Bible John: Hunt For A Killer (Samson and Crow) the authors spoke to a Stonehouse resident who’d known McInnes since childhood. He turned up at her door and came inside sometime in December 1969. She was frightened by him. He was distracted and talkative. She’d heard of his connection to the Bible John inquiry from local talk and the newsstands even in a relatively isolated village. She left the house in fear but returned to find McInnes standing frozen on the same spot. He was there for two hours until a neighbour threw him out.

                      Time moved on. McInnes opened a sweet shop in the village with his mother but it only lasted barely a year. There was talk of increased drinking a depression.

                      On April 29th, 1980 McInnes visited The Old Ship Inn where he drank even heavier than usual. He returned to his mothers house; to the attic. His body was found the next morning just after 10.15am. He had slashed his brachial artery. He was 41. His death was registered by his brother Hector in Strathaven. His body was put in the same plot as his father. His mother died in 1987, aged 91, and was also placed in the plot. Villagers spoke of her being a broken woman.

                      In the Daily Record on 29th of January 1969 the headline ran IS THIS BIBLE JOHN’S GRAVE? COPS COULD SOLVE A 27 YEAR OLD MURDER RIDDLE. Two locals were quoted who said that McInnes had grown up in the shadow of a domineering woman and gone from a religious life to one of a ‘drunken and womanising monster.’

                      McInnes name had been made public in Scotland On Sunday by Audrey Gillan.

                      In the next day’s article in the Daily Record the headline was BIZARRE SUICIDE OF BIBLE JOHN: MANIAC KILLED HIMSELF FOR KICKS. Joe Beattie said “No one ever really thought there was one man who killed three times. The cases were never really linked.”

                      Dr. Prem Misra, a psychiatrist at Parkhead Hospital suggested that the method of McInnes’s suicide pointed to him being a psychopath. And that it might have given him pleasure to bleed to death.

                      The police tracked his former wife Helen down in Saudi Arabia. The his daughter in New Zealand and his son in Berkshire. Neither children knew their father well. One of his old employers said that he wasn’t surprised at the news about McInnes.

                      Pat Docker’s husband George thought that she’d been killed by Peter Sutcliffe.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I have no idea who Garcia is, but if what he says is accurate it all points in one direction.

                        I know the phrase 'parish pump' gossip is not complimentary but it seems a number of people close to McInnes had misgivings about his character.

                        To return to topic, it appears to me that Garcia has unearthed material that David Wilson was probably unaware of, or discounted since it did not suit his media agenda.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Fransisco Garcia wrote We All Go Into The Dark: The Hunt For Bible John. It came out earlier this year.

                          Another bit of shoddy research from Wilson was on the subject of the exhumation. He says:

                          “Soon it transpired that Jeannie had got it right: there was no DNA match and nor did McInnes’s teeth match the bite mark that had been left on Helen’s body.”

                          He makes this sound as if DNA eliminated McInnes which isn’t true. Also they couldn’t check McInnes teeth because he had false teeth and the top set weren’t in the coffin.

                          Elsewhere he says:

                          “In the Bible John case, semen stains found on Helen Puttock’s stocking were used to generate a DNA profile of her killer in the mid-1990s. This, in turn, ruled out John McInnes as a suspect when his body was exhumed in 1996. But Joe Jackson contends that this whole exercise was futile anyway, because of the improper way the samples were stored at the time of the investigation and in the years that followed.”

                          He then goes on to say:

                          “If what Jackson says is correct, and there is every reason to think that it is, a potentially crucial piece of evidence that could have been used to identify Bible John gradually became worthless over the years. It will probably now never generate a DNA profile that will allow any individual, including Peter Tobin, to be linked conclusively with Helen’s murder.”

                          So if he accepts what Jackson said, why did he still use the DNA evidence to dismiss exonerate McInnes? He’s contradicting himself when he bemoans the compromising of the evidence only in terms of it being useless in any attempt to ID Tobin.

                          Ive never been particularly impressed with Wilson.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            so two witnesses ided mcInnis and his work card was found at one tje crime scenes? hes probably your man.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              'I've never been particularly impressed with Wilson.'

                              Nor me. I knew a boy from school who spoke in the same superior manner. We attended the same state primary, secondary and eventually same university and he went on to become a highly successful Scottish lawyer. I didn't take to him any more I guess than him to me, but he did fight for unpopular causes and was loathed by police in Scotland because he could defend the accused well in court. What he could do was present a persuasive argument, something we all assume can do ourselves but is actually very difficult unless we have done an apprenticeship in the courts of law.

                              For me David Wilson can present a case, but in a court of law his arguments could collapse fairly quickly. And remember this self-styled profiler is not experienced in the art of cross examination. He's a podcast man and that is his limit. It makes him a living.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                A bit of further information on McInnes taken from the relevant chapter in Garcia’s 2023 book We All Go Into The Dark:


                                Born in 1938 in Stonehouse with a brother and sister. Raised by devout Plymouth Brethren parents. The family owned a drapery shop.

                                Irvine was his mother Elizabeth’s maiden name. The family called him Irvine rather than John.

                                He was called up for National Service at 19 with the Scot’s Guards.

                                After a brief spell working at a Glasgow clothes shop he signed up for 45 Platoon in Pirbright, Surrey. He failed to impress and was described as ‘shy’ ‘sickly’ and ‘awkward.’ After passing out he was demoted to 46 Platoon’s L Company. A Lance Corporal called Gus Macdonald felt that he’d been deeply affected by his father’s death.

                                It was said by some that didn’t drink much and kept himself to himself. He passed out in 1958 and gifted Macdonald a silver cigarette case. Strangely though, William Sloan who slept in the next bed to McInnes recalled him as a a heavy drinker and a ‘sharp operator’ with a devious streak. In Samson and Crow’s book (Hunt For A Killer) Sloan told of how McInnes had once stayed out all night drinking and the rest of the platoon chipped in so that he could avoid a reprimand. McInnes showed no gratitude though and went out the next night too. Sloan though him cold and cunning.

                                He was discharged in 1959 and returned to Glasgow where he got a job at McGregor’s furniture store on Sauchiehall Street. Macdonald bumped into him a year later and said that he seemed a changed man. He was wearing his regimental tie.

                                In 1959 he met Ella Russell from Muirkirk. They were soon engaged. McInnes was 25. He was known for his expensive suits and was an immaculate dresser. By this time he was assistant manager at a different store. They married on March 16th, 1964 at a Brethren ceremony at Muirkirk Parish Church attended by only close family. His in-laws had only met him twice by then. On December 2nd (9months later) they had a daughter called Lorna.

                                McInnes had become a hard drinker and a gambler though. Apparently Samson and Crow’s book contain quite a few ‘lurid’ details. He was a regular at The Old Ship Inn, Stonehouse, near his mother’s house (26 Queen Street) He’d either drink alone or with his brother Hector. A fair bit of betting went on and even dominoes played for low stakes. He was prone to bravado stories about city life and burst of scripture.

                                John and Ella opened a home for the elderly in Ayrshire but it was a disaster and was the source of scandalous gossip. There was talk of McInnes jumping into bed with elderly residents to comfort them. One of Ella’s cousins confirmed this. She thought that nothing dodgy was going on but noticed that some residents would suddenly go quiet.

                                McInnes borrowed £1000 from a young female relative and never payed it back. In 1968 he took a job with a furniture store in Ayr. There was talk that he’d entered a psychiatric hospital possibly to dodge accusations of embezzlement by his new employers.

                                A cousin recalled his strange stare and increased unexplained absences. Ella became pregnant again but the child was stillborn.

                                A local, whose father was a gambling partner of McInnes, recalled that he became a figure of fun. The pub regulars used to wait for him to arrive because they could easily make money from him.

                                By the time of Pat Docker’s murder he was in another new job and around that time, after the birth of a son, Kenneth, he split from his wife. They divorced in 1972. His new job was with a U.S. based stamp trading firm in Glasgow. He was considered odd by his new colleagues and he often quoted the Bible. His attendance at Thursday night sales meetings was irregular and he told them of his regular visits to the Barrowland over-25’s night.

                                After the murder of Helen Puttock (according to Garcia - no source given)McInnes was brought in to the police station four times but he hadn’t been picked out from a line-up, although he hadn’t been eliminated as a suspect. He became increasingly erratic and appeared to revel in his notoriety and locals took to calling him Bible John. One villager, quoted in the Press, said that he’d ran into McInnes after his third visit to the police station and he was told all the details by him.

                                In Bible John: Hunt For A Killer (Samson and Crow) the authors spoke to a Stonehouse resident who’d known McInnes since childhood. He turned up at her door and came inside sometime in December 1969. She was frightened by him. He was distracted and talkative. She’d heard of his connection to the Bible John inquiry from local talk and the newsstands even in a relatively isolated village. She left the house in fear but returned to find McInnes standing frozen on the same spot. He was there for two hours until a neighbour threw him out.

                                Time moved on. McInnes opened a sweet shop in the village with his mother but it only lasted barely a year. There was talk of increased drinking a depression.

                                On April 29th, 1980 McInnes visited The Old Ship Inn where he drank even heavier than usual. He returned to his mothers house; to the attic. His body was found the next morning just after 10.15am. He had slashed his brachial artery. He was 41. His death was registered by his brother Hector in Strathaven. His body was put in the same plot as his father. His mother died in 1987, aged 91, and was also placed in the plot. Villagers spoke of her being a broken woman.

                                In the Daily Record on 29th of January 1969 the headline ran IS THIS BIBLE JOHN’S GRAVE? COPS COULD SOLVE A 27 YEAR OLD MURDER RIDDLE. Two locals were quoted who said that McInnes had grown up in the shadow of a domineering woman and gone from a religious life to one of a ‘drunken and womanising monster.’

                                McInnes name had been made public in Scotland On Sunday by Audrey Gillan.

                                In the next day’s article in the Daily Record the headline was BIZARRE SUICIDE OF BIBLE JOHN: MANIAC KILLED HIMSELF FOR KICKS. Joe Beattie said “No one ever really thought there was one man who killed three times. The cases were never really linked.”

                                Dr. Prem Misra, a psychiatrist at Parkhead Hospital suggested that the method of McInnes’s suicide pointed to him being a psychopath. And that it might have given him pleasure to bleed to death.

                                The police tracked his former wife Helen down in Saudi Arabia. The his daughter in New Zealand and his son in Berkshire. Neither children knew their father well. One of his old employers said that he wasn’t surprised at the news about McInnes.

                                Pat Docker’s husband George thought that she’d been killed by Peter Sutcliffe.
                                Thanks for the refresher, Herlock!

                                I read this book less than a year ago, but realised that I have zero recollection of any of the above info.

                                My memory is clearly shot!

                                Bloody perimenopause!

                                Think I need to re-read and have another go at the podcasts too.

                                I listened to the first couple of episodes (but again have next to no recollection of their contents)!

                                I'd take notes, but I'll likely just forget where I put them!




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X