Criminologist David Wilson - Y'all's Thoughts?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Did Beattie cover up for a murderer to help his pal Jimmy McInnes?

In Dancing with the Devil: The Bible John Murders, Paul Harrison relates that when he visited Beattie in hospital, Beattie was very ill and had tears in his eyes when he told him that he had really wanted to bring the investigation to a successful conclusion, but he was not allowed to do so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!

I know what you mean Ms D. Some people can read a book then discuss it years later without the need for a re-read. I don’t always make notes but I decided to on this case. All the books that I have are Kindle versions so I made notes whilst re-reading. There are two books that I don’t have. Stoddart’s and the one by Samson and Crow. Neither are on Kindle and both are around £75! So I’m hoping that I’ll be lucky and that they’ll show up in a charity shop one day. I’ve just listened to parts 7, 8 and 9 of the podcast and made notes. I’ll listen to the rest again over the next week or so. What’s needed is a book containing the information gleaned from Audrey Gillian’s investigation with the contributions by McEwan and Hughes. Gillan herself would be a good choice for writing it but I’ve no idea if she has any intention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In Dancing with the Devil: The Bible John Murders, Paul Harrison relates that when he visited Beattie in hospital, Beattie was very ill and had tears in his eyes when he told him that he had really wanted to bring the investigation to a successful conclusion, but he was not allowed to do so.

You’ve just reminded me that I don’t have that book. So that’s three that I don’t have. It’s not on Kindle and the cheapest hard copy is £56! That comment by Harrison is a bit suspect because McEwan and Hughes both visited Beattie in hospital around 6 times and said that at the end of the final visit they asked him if he’d covered up John Irvine McInnes because of his friend and colleague Jimmy McInnes. Beattie said nothing but as they left he was apparently crying.

Harrison needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt of course. You’re probably already aware of this PI.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3vedv/paul-harrison-fraud

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Harrison needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt of course. You’re probably already aware of this PI.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3ve...harrison-fraud

I do not know why you think that.

Had I known about his history, I would not have bought his book, let alone cited him.

My only consolation is that it did not cost me much - off the top of my head, about £5.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do not know why you think that.

Had I known about his history, I would not have bought his book, let alone cited him.

My only consolation is that it did not cost me much - off the top of my head, about £5.

I thought that you might have heard about Harrison after buying the book. You did well to get it for £5 or so.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I know what you mean Ms D. Some people can read a book then discuss it years later without the need for a re-read. I don’t always make notes but I decided to on this case. All the books that I have are Kindle versions so I made notes whilst re-reading. There are two books that I don’t have. Stoddart’s and the one by Samson and Crow. Neither are on Kindle and both are around £75! So I’m hoping that I’ll be lucky and that they’ll show up in a charity shop one day. I’ve just listened to parts 7, 8 and 9 of the podcast and made notes. I’ll listen to the rest again over the next week or so. What’s needed is a book containing the information gleaned from Audrey Gillian’s investigation with the contributions by McEwan and Hughes. Gillan herself would be a good choice for writing it but I’ve no idea if she has any intention.

Here is the Peter Samson and Alan Crow book as listed on Amazon.


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-John-Killer-Alan-Crow/dp/1901603008/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1HLSW9OFUGVOX&keywords=bible+john+ %2B+crow&qid=1702315099&s=books&sprefix=bible+john +%2B+cro%2Cstripbooks%2C193&sr=1-1


Two interesting points: 1. The book only runs to 143 pages. I am instantly suspicious of books relating to any famous and very complex case that only run to less than 150 pages.

2. The book has only garnered two reviews. One review is scathing and only gives it one star. The other review is glowing and gives the book
five stars. The glowing review is from a Mr A Crow!

Just saying!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here is the Peter Samson and Alan Crow book as listed on Amazon.


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-John-Killer-Alan-Crow/dp/1901603008/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1HLSW9OFUGVOX&keywords=bible+john+ %2B+crow&qid=1702315099&s=books&sprefix=bible+john +%2B+cro%2Cstripbooks%2C193&sr=1-1


Two interesting points: 1. The book only runs to 143 pages. I am instantly suspicious of books relating to any famous and very complex case that only run to less than 150 pages.

2. The book has only garnered two reviews. One review is scathing and only gives it one star. The other review is glowing and gives the book
five stars. The glowing review is from a Mr A Crow!

Just saying!

Are you suggesting that A. Crow might be Alan Crow, Barn? A bit cynical

Did he think that no one would notice?

Im with you on suspiciously short books….even for £10! No way am I paying £75. Same kind of price for the Stoddart book too. So that’s three I don’t have (including Harrison) If I see one going cheap then I might splash out. I’ve just started reading Bible John’s Secret Daughter which I’m not holding out much hope for.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A couple of examples from the podcast on the shortcomings of the police investigation.


We know that the first suspects are always going to be family and friends. Helen Puttock’s husband George said that Beattie had come into his flat after his wife’s body had been found and told him to go into the bedroom and strip off. Beattie checked him over then apologised saying that he knew that George hadn’t killed her as soon as he’d seen him but that he’d had to check. However, Audrey Gillan has a cassette tape recording of Beattie speaking to author Charles Stoddart, where Beattie claimed that George had ‘rake’ marks (from nails) on his arms which he’d assumed came from Helen, who he claimed was bad tempered and strong. There’s no mention of how old they were though. The cold case team ask why he was never questioned at the station and why there’s no mention of the police looking any closer at George?

Was he violent? At the time he was on compassionate leave from the army because Helen had told him that the marriage was over but he wanted them to stay together and was given leave to try and save his marriage. Apparently witnesses came forward at the time to say that they had had sex with Helen on more than one occasion but there are no details or anything that backs these claims up.

A man called Ian Davidson told a story of him drinking with George and Helen when George grabbed her. Davidson stepped in and George said that he wasn’t going to hit her but Helen said that it wouldn’t have been the first time.

Then a guy called Sandy Rhodes (unsure about the spelling of the surname) said that while they were in the army he’d reported George for being violent to Helen but nothing came of it. He also talked of drinking with George and Helen at their home when Helen put her arm around him and her hand on his knee and George dragged her into another room where he heard him giving her a beating.

It was also pointed out that the knot around Helen’s neck was a reef knot which wasn’t one usually used by civilians.

The cold case team didn’t think that George was her killer but pointed out that in an investigation of that kind George should have been investigated far more closely and not just with a brief chat in his own flat.

Then we have William MacDonald who was a taxi driver who said that he saw a woman in a black and white ocelot pattern coat (like the one that Helen was wearing) running along South Street at around 1.00am (around 200 yards from where Helen’s body was found. He was never re-interviewed and Beattie, when interviewed for the 1996 investigation, claimed to have no knowledge of MacDonald. Audrey Gillan pointed out that there was no mention of her being distressed and that she hadn’t tried to flag down MacDonald’s taxi. She asks if perhaps she wasn’t in fear of her life…..hinting/suggesting that she might have been fleeing someone that she’d known?

When McEwan and Lindsay (from the 1996 investigation) spoke to Beattie he said about his team: “maybe their hearts wasnae in it because of what she was?”

[caz]

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.

Many thanks for the mention, Herlock, but I have no particular interest in returning to Wallace unless some new evidence emerges to shed more light than we currently have. I admire the efforts to argue for Wallace's innocence, but I always found the arguments themselves wanting, and that's unlikely to change, based on the same body of evidence.

As for David Wilson, I used to think he knew what he was talking about, more because of the authority in his voice than because the evidence was enough on its own. But the more he talked, and the more cases he delved into, which I happened to know something about, the less it seemed that he did know, unless he was cherry picking from the evidence to make his case. Worse was when he teamed up with the actor, Emilia Fox, to reinvestigate old cases, as if this could bring anything but a bit of dramatic licence to the proceedings. Her presence added nothing to his professed search for answers.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Many thanks for the mention, Herlock, but I have no particular interest in returning to Wallace unless some new evidence emerges to shed more light than we currently have. I admire the efforts to argue for Wallace's innocence, but I always found the arguments themselves wanting, and that's unlikely to change, based on the same body of evidence.

Totally agree Caz. Maybe new evidence will emerge. Maybe a diary……

As for David Wilson, I used to think he knew what he was talking about, more because of the authority in his voice than because the evidence was enough on its own. But the more he talked, and the more cases he delved into, which I happened to know something about, the less it seemed that he did know, unless he was cherry picking from the evidence to make his case. Worse was when he teamed up with the actor, Emilia Fox, to reinvestigate old cases, as if this could bring anything but a bit of dramatic licence to the proceedings. Her presence added nothing to his professed search for answers.

Love,

Caz
X

I’ve always thought that Wilson spends a fair bit of time making ‘deductions’ that are nothing more than stating the obvious. I saw that series with Emilia Fox and remember often thinking “well that’s a bit of a leap.”

[cobalt]

''When McEwan and Lindsay (from the 1996 investigation) spoke to Beattie he said about his team: “maybe their hearts wasnae in it because of what she was?''

That doesn't speak much to Beattie's abilities as an inspiring leader. However I think we have to avoid latching on to the fashionable theory that 'toxic masculinity' is at fault for most of the world's ills and claiming this was the reason for the BJ case remaining unsolved. Here is a counter to that way of thinking from 20 years earlier.

In post war Glasgow James Robertson, a married police constable, was in a an illicit relationship with a single mother from the Gorbals area who had two children, one allegedly by him. Whilst supposed to be on beat patrol one night, he picked her up in a stolen car and following an argument ran her over with the car causing her death. Despite the low status of the victim and Robertson being an avowed family man with young children of his own, the law took its course and forensic evidence showed that the woman had been run over a number of times. Like McInnes, Robertson was a member of the Plymouth Brethren and he seemed to think it more important not to shame his family in public so in court he denied any relationship with the victim which was clearly nonsense. That decision eroded his story so much that he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to hang. Despite pleas by his counsel to appeal (Scottish courts were generally reluctant to impose the death penalty) Robertson, perhaps like McInnes in his mother's attic, accepted his fate and stated he was proud that he had not let his family down. I think he was the only serving UK police officer in the 20th century to be hanged.

There was a book about the case by Allan Nicol called 'Liberation' published a few years ago.

[cobalt]

I was wrong regarding James Robertson, the Glasgow serving policeman, not lodging an appeal. He did and it was rejected.

This is a rather good account of the case with some good photographs of Robertson. His two children are not pixellated out as is now the case and if they are still alive, must be older than me. I do not dispute the verdict, nor the judgment of the time, but a terrible sadness hangs over the whole case. Catherine McCluskey, the victim had two young children as well. Sometimes life is just awful.

https://youtu.be/mbCPQ6x9ThY

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sounds like an interesting case Cobalt. I hadn’t heard of it. There’s a photo of Robertson and Catherine McCluskey here.

https://www.policemuseum.org.uk/crime-casebook/interesting-cases/murder-of-catherine-mccluskey-1950/

No mention in the reports online of the Plymouth Brethren that I can see so it must have come out during Allan Nicol’s research for his book. I thought for a minute that the article below was the same guy but it can’t have been because he’d have only been 17 in 1934. Interesting story though.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17754368.family-broken-children-crying-hearts-mammy-pining-powerless-anything/

[cobalt]

Thanks for the link to the Garngad riots of 1934 of which I knew very little. I couldn't get the Glasgow Herald link but found this very informative article here, in which the interaction of police and community is well explored. The 1934 Robertson and the 1950 Robertson were police constables that Glasgow knew well: big men probably from a Highland background who were given some licence in clamping down on street crime in a turbulent city. Apparently the Highland Scots in the 19th century were considered the largest people in the UK which made them ideal for policing and military service. I imagine the MacInnes family would have been from that heritage.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03071022.2019.1545363

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s not exactly Dixon Of Dock Green is it? Tough times.